Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 11/13/2024 (claimed foreign priority date 11/22/2023):
Claims 1-5 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
1.1 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step,” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first and second recognizers;” “notifier;” “control processing unit;” “communicator;” “operation member;” “circuitry” in claims 1-5.
Per fig. 1, Para [0023, 0036-0039, 0042-0043, 0052, 0070, 0073-0074, 0082-0083, 0090, 0168] of the specification, at least as published, the claimed/specified “first and second recognizers;” “notifier;” “control processing unit;” “communicator;” “operation member;” “circuitry” appear to be structure elements/components of a bigger structure(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
1.2 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “determiner;” “first and second processors,” in claims 1-2 and 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1.1. Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1.1.1 Claim limitations “determiner;” “first and second processors,” in claims 1-2 and 4 have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear, in accordance with how it is specified in the specification and presented in the drawings, whether the claimed/specified “determiner;” “first and second processors” are structures, hardware, firmware, or software, because these limitations/features are presented, in fig. 1, and specified, in Para [0083, 0087] of the specification, at least as published, as being internally included in the control processing unit 14, and may include (Emphasis added) a processor including hardware, which the Examiner finds that it is well known in the art that a well-known in the art control processing unit may include structure element/components as well as hardware, firmware, or software, configured to, or capable to perform functionalities, such as well-known in the art “executing recovery assistance control;” “determining vehicle condition, e.g., stuck state.” The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the claimed/specified “determiner;” “first and second processors” are not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration.
Hence, the Examiner will interpret that the “control processing unit 14” executes and performs the claimed/specified functionalities of the claimed/specified “determiner;” “first and second processors,” in claims 1-2 and 4.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
1.1.2 Claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation/feature “executing second recovery assistance control that outputs, to the notifier, first recovery operation instruction information based on which the vehicle is to recover from the stuck state,” which is unclear to understand HOW, OR BY WHAT, OR BY WHOM the claimed/specified vehicle is to recover from the stuck state based on the first recovery operation instruction information output to the notifier, EITHER by operator/user performing the recovery operation, e.g., manually, or with operator/user input/involvement, in accordance with the recovery operation instruction, OR by the vehicle itself, e.g., automatically, performing the recovery operation in accordance with the recovery operation instruction; OR by both operator/user and vehicle itself performing the recovery operation in accordance with the recovery operation instruction, OR WHAT, OR HOW, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, particularly Para [0124, 0160], at least as published, it will be interpreted that the claimed/specified vehicle is to recover from the stuck state based on the first recovery operation instruction information output to the notifier, by operator/user performing the recovery operation, e.g., manually, or with operator/user input/involvement, in accordance with the recovery operation instruction.
1.1.2 Claims 2-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POMISH (US20210055728).
As per claim 1, POMISH discloses through the invention (see entire document) a traveling assistance apparatus for a vehicle (fig. 1-6, Para [0043-0044, 0048, 0056, 0061] – teaching vehicle automated crawl control system), the traveling assistance apparatus comprising:
a first recognizer configured to acquire surrounding environment information on the vehicle (fig. 1-5, Para [0042, 0056, 0062, 0064] – teaching sensors 52, 152, 228 that detect not only vehicle conditions but also detect external, environmental conditions);
a second recognizer configured to acquire vehicle condition information on the vehicle (fig. 1-5, Para [0004, 0009, 0013, 0058] – teaching extraction mode circuit 210 that receives sensor data from a vehicle sensor indicating a condition of the vehicle, whether the vehicle is in a stuck condition and the crawl mode should be activated);
a notifier configured to notify a driver who drives the vehicle of predetermined information (fig. 1-5, Para [0065-0066] – teaching solution that include driver instructions that can be communicated to the driver such as, for example, via the head unit in audible or visual form); and
a control processing unit configured to perform traveling control for the vehicle (fig. 1-6, Para [0036, 0039-0041, 0043-0044, 0048-0051, 0056, 0058, 0061] – teaching vehicle automated crawl control system; electronic control unit 50; crawl mode system 200 that includes an extraction mode circuit 210 that receives information from various vehicle sensors to determine whether the vehicle is in a stuck condition and the crawl mode should be activated),wherein
the control processing unit is configured to determine whether the vehicle is in a stuck state, based on the vehicle condition information, and make an evaluation of a stuck level when the vehicle is determined to be in the stuck state (fig. 2, 4-5, Para [0044, 0047, 0063-0064] – teaching using location data, weather data, other environment data, and other data to classify the manner in which the vehicle is stuck; various different combinations of input data evaluated over a number of different experiences to train a model that can be used to detect stuck conditions; operation 334 wherein analysis circuit 422 extraction mode circuit (e.g., extraction mode circuit 210) evaluates the received data and vehicle parameters to determine whether the vehicle is in a stuck condition),
the control processing unit is configured to execute first recovery assistance control that automatically assists the vehicle in recovering from the stuck state (fig. 2, 4-5, Para [0044, 0048] – teaching automated vehicle crawl control; full autonomous control of the vehicle given over to the crawl control system to allow the system to operate the vehicle to free the vehicle), and
the control processing is unit configured to execute second recovery assistance control that outputs, to the notifier, first recovery operation instruction information based on which the vehicle is to recover from the stuck state (fig. 1-5, Para [0028, 0058, 0065-0066] – teaching solution that include driver instructions that can be communicated to the driver), wherein
the control processing unit is configured to execute any one of the first recovery assistance control with the first processor or the second recovery assistance control with the second processor, depending on the stuck level (fig. 5, Para [0008-0010, 0016, 0028, 0066-0068] – teaching automated system control 432 that can be blended with driver control 444 in a blend circuit 446 of a blending system 440 to control the vehicle; blend controller 448 used to control the extent to which automated control (by a system control 432) is blended with manual driver control 444 to control the vehicle ).
POMISH does not explicitly discloses through the invention, or is missing vehicle stuck state, stuck level.
However, it was known in the art at the time of Applicant's filing that for a stuck vehicle, vehicle stuck state, vehicle stuck level, was a common thing to describe/evaluate/characterize/define/classify, etc., vehicle condition under which the vehicle is stuck, e.g., vehicle stuck condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify POMISH teaching such that it comprises a vehicle stuck state, stuck level. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and would not change the operation of POMISH. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to determine from the sensor data a particular type of condition in which the vehicle is stuck; obtaining the solution for freeing the vehicle from the stuck condition that may include selecting from among a plurality of solutions a tailored solution corresponding to the particular type of condition in which the vehicle is stuck (see entire POMISH document, particularly Para [0005]).
Claim 5 has/recites limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in claim 1. Therefore, Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POMISH (US20210055728), similarly to the Claim 1 rejection in the instant office action above.
As per claim 2, POMISH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) when the stuck state continues even after execution of any one of the first recovery assistance control with the control processing unit or the second recovery assistance control with the control processing unit, the control processing unit configured to execute third recovery assistance control that outputs, to the notifier, second recovery operation instruction information different from the first recovery operation instruction information (fig. 3, Para [0049, 0065, 0068] – teaching crawl mode system that communicates with external data sources 182 and a cloud server or other remote server 184; vehicle that has access to a number of extraction solutions stored locally on the vehicle or stored remotely such as on a cloud server; different solutions tailored to correspond to different stuck conditions; analysis circuit 422 implemented on board the vehicle (e.g., extraction mode circuit 210), via a cloud server or other remote server, or utilizing edge computing across a number of vehicles or other computing resources).
As per claim 4, POMISH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) an operation member configured to cancel a start of the execution of the first recovery assistance control with the control processing unit, wherein the control processing unit is configured to execute the second recovery assistance control, regardless of a result of the evaluation of the stuck level (fig. 3, Para [0050] – teaching extraction mode circuit 210 that includes a switch or other user interface function to allow a vehicle operator to manually enable or disable the vehicle extraction mode).
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POMISH further in view of Shah (US10553119).
As per claim 3, POMISH does not explicitly discloses through the invention, or is missing a communicator configured to establish interactive communication between the vehicle and an external system, wherein,
the control processing unit is configured to, when the stuck state continues even after execution of the third recovery assistance control with the second controller,
send a rescue assistance request to the external system through the interactive communication between the vehicle and the external system established by the communicator, and
transmit the surrounding environment information and the vehicle condition information to the external system.
However, Shah discloses these limitations/features through the invention, particularly in fig. 1-3, c12, l14-49; c18, l10-38 – teaching roadside assistance system 200 that sends a request for roadside assistance; the request sent upon input from a user or the request sent automatically, e.g., by the vehicle interface engine; the request that includes information about difficulty of towing the vehicle (e.g., whether the vehicle is stuck in a ditch); the request for “roadside rescue.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of POMISH by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Shah, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to send a request for roadside assistance; to process a roadside assistance request and determine a roadside assistance service provider to send to a user/for a user that requested roadside assistance (see entire Shah document, particularly abstract, c1 l56 through c2, l2).
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Iwata (US5732380) – (see entire Iwata document, particularly abstract – teaching an accurate traction control by closing a second throttle valve provided in series to an accelerator-operated ordinary throttle valve, with a simplified actuator, a control system for reducing a vehicle driving torque that employs one or more sensors for sensing a second vehicle operating parameter representing a road surface friction coefficient or a driver's command for acceleration, in addition to sensors for sensing a first vehicle operating parameter representing a drive wheel slip; when the road surface friction coefficient is high or when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal hard, the control system that restrains the closing operation of the second throttle valve in accordance with the second parameter even though the closure of the second throttle valve is requested by the first parameter).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662