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
1. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-4, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
2. The application is filed on 12/04/2024 but claims the benefit of foreign application number JP 2023-211164 filed on 12/14/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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 of this title, 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TSUJI(US 20200307639 A1) (hereinafter TSUJI) in view of OKUHARA (US 20220234606 A1) (hereinafter OKUHARA).
Regarding claim 1, TSUJIdiscloses a vehicle control apparatus (Fig. 1, vehicle control system (1) configured for autonomous driving, and having a control unit (15)) 0), configured to execute an automatic driving control for driving a vehicle to a target space (para 06, control unit is configured to execute a stop process by which the vehicle is parked, para 45, control unit 15 is configured to execute autonomous driving control) based on an instruction transmitted by a remote operation apparatus that a user outside the vehicle operates (para 30, recognition device 6 is a device that detects objects located outside of the vehicle, para 35, control unit 15 can communicate with a portable terminal carried by a person such as a pedestrian present outside the vehicle),
wherein, the vehicle control apparatus is configured to: stop the vehicle and make the remote operation apparatus perform a first notification, when a predetermined stop condition is satisfied while the automatic driving control is being executed (Fig. 2, flowchart of a stop process, para 06, vehicle control system (1, 101, 201, 301, 401) configured for autonomous driving, condition acquiring unit (61) configured to acquire a surrounding condition of the vehicle, execute a stop process by which vehicle is parked and generate first notification when a person is present within predetermined range, para 20, autonomous driving that issues notification when vehicle has come to a stop, para 55, stop event in which the vehicle is brought to a stop when a certain condition is met (i.e., predetermined stop condition is satisfied), (i.e., first notification)); and
make the remote operation apparatus perform a second notification, when the user does not approach the vehicle after the first notification (para 76, unit 42 operates the external notification device 14 to notify the people outside of the vehicle, para 06, second notification volume when a person is not present within the predetermined range (ST14) (i.e., user does not approach the vehicle), para 103, person is not present within the predetermined range from the vehicle, the notification of the horn 14c is set to the second notification volume (ST14) (i.e., user does not approach the vehicle), para 14, 90, vehicle control system 1 described in the following with reference to FIG. 4, ST12, ST13 and ST14, )).
Even though TSUJIdiscloses apparatus perform first notification and second notification TSUJIspecifically fail to disclose second notification that is different from the first notification for remote operation apparatus.
In analogous art, OKUHARA discloses second notification in a manner that is different from the first notification for remote operation apparatus (Fig. 1, warning device 13, controller 4, external device 1, para 63, output a first notification command when autonomous emergency mode; and output a second notification command for controlling the notification unit different from the first notification command, para 15, vehicle control controller 4 causes driving assist control to an autonomous steering mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of system that communicates with a vehicle and performs a notification indicating a state of the vehicle disclosed by TSUJIto use vehicle control device to perform autonomous emergency driving control in which a vehicle travels along a target travel path as taught by OKUHARA to include driving assist control to outputs the first notification command for controlling the notification unit when the avoidance operation mode is the autonomous, and outputs second notification command for controlling the notification unit different from the first notification command [OKUHARA, paragraph 45].
Regarding claim 2, TSUJIfails to discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle control apparatus is configured to make the remote operation apparatus perform the second notification in a manner that attracts an attention of the user more strongly than the first notification.
OKUHARA discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle control apparatus is configured to make the remote operation apparatus perform the second notification in a manner that attracts an attention of the user more strongly than the first notification (notification in two steps, in which the second step is a stronger notification (is more easily noticed by driver) [044], and second notification command is a command for controlling the notification unit in order to give a visual notification or an aural notification to the driver [061] and output a second notification command for controlling notification unit different from first notification command [063]).
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TSUJI(US 20200307639 A1) (hereinafter TSUJI) in view of OKUHARA (US 20220234606 A1) (hereinafter OKUHARA) and further in view of ITO (US 20220315059 A1) (hereinafter ITO).
Regarding claim 3, TSUJIdiscloses apparatus perform first notification and second notification [Abstract, [06]].
TSUJIand OKUHARA fails to discloses vehicle control apparatus is configured to make the remote operation apparatus perform a third notification in a manner that is different from the first notification and the second notification, with priority over the second notification, when an object that is approaching the vehicle is present after the first notification.
In analogous art, ITO discloses vehicle control apparatus is configured to make the remote operation apparatus perform a third notification in a manner that is different from the first notification and the second notification, with priority over the second notification, when an object that is approaching the vehicle is present after the first notification ([0145, notification provided by third notifier 22 which is different from first notifier 1, and para [0153], different priorities according to status of the vehicle, and third notifier 22 provide notification according to the priority status and to provide notification which has a high priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of system that communicates with a vehicle and performs a notification indicating a state of the vehicle disclosed by TSUJIand OKUHARA to use notifier that provides a notification of the status of the function and to provides a predetermined notification when the abnormality in the notification of the status of the function is detected as taught by ITO to provide the notification of the abnormality in the function used for automatic travelling, which has a high priority and notify vehicles that an abnormality in the function used for automatic travelling of the vehicle has occurred [ITO, paragraph 154].
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including ALL of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mirza Alam whose telephone number is (469) 295-9286. The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-6:00PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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 automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIRZA F ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688