DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to U.S. application 18/977,536. All claims are pending.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
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: “driving unit” in claim 13.
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. As discussed in the 112 rejections below, it is unclear how the “driving unit” should be interpreted according to the specification.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 cites the limitation a driving unit configured to provide power to a user equipment (UE). However, in paragraph 171 of the specification, the driving unit is described as providing power to the mobile unit, where the mobile unit moves the mobile device, and the mobile device is a vehicle. Therefore, it is unclear if the driving unit is powering user equipment such as an input device for the user or if the driving unit is powering the vehicle itself such as a vehicle engine. And further, in either case, the structure of the driving unit itself is unclear. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the driving unit is powering user equipment such as an input device. Claims 14-15 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 13.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 cite the limitation of controlling, by the ADS, an emergency situation related to the emergency information. The scope of these claims is unclear because it is unclear what the ADS is controlling with regard to the emergency situation. Is the ADS contacting emergency personnel? Is the ADS controlling the vehicle to perform a maneuver in response to the emergency? Examiner recommends providing more detail on what actions the ADS will perform to control the emergency situation to clarify the scope of the limitation. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1, 7, and 13.
Claims 4 and 10 further cite the limitation of controlling the emergency situation with the user equipment and when this is the case, not transmitting the emergency information. The scope of these claims is unclear because it is unclear what the user equipment is controlling with regard to the emergency situation. Is the user using the UE as a remote control of the vehicle? Is the user responding to an alert regarding the emergency information? Further it is unclear what would be used to determine that the user equipment has controlled the emergency situation without information regarding the emergency transmitting between the ADS and the UE.
Claim 13 further cites the limitation a driving unit configured to provide power to a user equipment (UE). The scope of this driving unit is unclear. Is the driving unit powering user equipment such as an input device for the user or is the driving unit powering the vehicle itself such as a vehicle engine? For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the driving unit is powering user equipment such as an input device. Claims 14-15 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma (US 20220388505, IDS).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood according to the 112 rejection, Sharma teaches an emergency situation control method for transmitting and receiving information between an automated driving system (ADS) and a user equipment (UE) (Figs. 1 and 9B), the method comprising:
periodically or aperiodically receiving status information from the UE by the ADS, the status information including information indicating that the UE has received emergency information ([0240] discusses transmission of an awareness message (VAM) to vulnerable road user devices (UE) by vehicle stations (ADS) where once a repetition of the VAM is received by the sender, the surrounding vehicle stations stop or cancel their transmissions where this reception of the repetition is interpreted as status information);
identifying, by the ADS, an emergency situation based on the status information ([0084]-[0086] discuss identifying an emergency situation based on a predicted trajectory breaking common sense safety rules);
determining, by the ADS, whether or not to transmit the emergency information to the UE ([0240] discusses transmission of an awareness message (VAM) to vulnerable road user devices (UE) by vehicle stations (ADS) where once a repetition of the VAM is received by the sender, the surrounding vehicle stations stop or cancel their transmissions); and
controlling, by the ADS, an emergency situation related to the emergency information ([0085] discusses controlling an action of the vehicle based on the critical trajectory).
Regarding claim 2, Sharma teaches wherein, in response to the UE receiving the emergency information from at least one of a network or an infrastructure, the aperiodically received status information is received from the UE, wherein the periodically received status information is received based on a specific periodicity, and wherein the specific periodicity is set by the UE or is set based on a transmission periodicity of a message related to a control layer between the UE and the ADS ([0247]-[0248] discuss basing the period of VAM repetitions based on the power information (sleep/awake) of the VRU’s device where the initial VAM is interpreted as aperiodically received status information and the repetition is interpreted as periodically received status information for a specific periodicity).
Regarding claim 3, Sharma teaches wherein a network or an infrastructure generates the emergency information about the emergency situation, and wherein the UE receives the emergency information from at least one of the network or the infrastructure ([0173] discuss the different examples of infrastructure that are capable of generating the safety messages and sending them to the VRU’s devices).
Regarding claim 5, Sharma teaches wherein, in response to the UE receiving the emergency information from at least one of a network or an infrastructure and there is no response from the UE that has received the emergency information, the method further comprising: identifying the emergency situation by the ADS; and transmitting the emergency information about the emergency situation to the UE by the ADS ([0239] discusses the vehicle station identifying and transmitting the safety message to the VRU’s device with [0240] discussing transmission of an awareness message (VAM) to vulnerable road user devices (UE) by vehicle stations (ADS) until the VAM is received by the user).
Regarding claim 6, Sharma teaches identifying the emergency situation by the ADS; and transmitting the emergency information about the emergency situation to the UE by the ADS, wherein the identifying of the emergency situation and the transmitting of the emergency information are performed separately from an operation of at least one of a network or an infrastructure ([0239] discusses the vehicle station identifying and transmitting the safety message to the VRU’s device therefore separate from operation of a network or infrastructure).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood according to the 112 rejection, Sharma teaches an automated driving system (ADS) for transmitting and receiving information to and from a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 22), the system comprising:
a memory; a transceiver; and a processor ([0349] and Fig. 22) configured to:
periodically or aperiodically receive status information from the UE by the ADS, the status information including information indicating that the UE has received emergency information ([0240] discusses transmission of an awareness message (VAM) to vulnerable road user devices (UE) by vehicle stations (ADS) where once a repetition of the VAM is received by the sender, the surrounding vehicle stations stop or cancel their transmissions where this reception of the repetition is interpreted as status information);
identify an emergency situation based on the status information ([0084]-[0086] discuss identifying an emergency situation based on a predicted trajectory breaking common sense safety rules);
determine whether or not to transmit the emergency information to the UE ([0240] discusses transmission of an awareness message (VAM) to vulnerable road user devices (UE) by vehicle stations (ADS) where once a repetition of the VAM is received by the sender, the surrounding vehicle stations stop or cancel their transmissions); and
control an emergency situation related to the emergency information ([0085] discusses controlling an action of the vehicle based on the critical trajectory).
Regarding claim 8, Sharma teaches wherein in response to the UE receiving the emergency information from at least one of a network or an infrastructure, the aperiodically received status information is received from the UE, wherein the periodically received status information is received based on a specific periodicity, and wherein the specific periodicity is set by the UE or is set based on a transmission periodicity of a message related to a control layer between the UE and the ADS ([0247]-[0248] discuss basing the period of VAM repetitions based on the power information (sleep/awake) of the VRU’s device where the initial VAM is interpreted as aperiodically received status information and the repetition is interpreted as periodically received status information for a specific periodicity).
Regarding claim 9, Sharma teaches wherein a network or an infrastructure generates the emergency information about the emergency situation, and wherein the UE receives the emergency information from at least one of the network or the infrastructure ([0173] discuss the different examples of infrastructure that are capable of generating the safety messages and sending them to the VRU’s devices).
Regarding claim 11, Sharma teaches wherein, in response to the UE receiving the emergency information from at least one of a network or an infrastructure and there is no response from the UE that has received the emergency information, the processor is further configured to: identify the emergency situation; and transmit the emergency information about the emergency situation to the UE ([0239] discusses the vehicle station identifying and transmitting the safety message to the VRU’s device with [0240] discussing transmission of an awareness message (VAM) to vulnerable road user devices (UE) by vehicle stations (ADS) until the VAM is received by the user).
Regarding claim 12, Sharma teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: identify the emergency situation; and transmit the emergency information about the emergency situation to the UE, and wherein identification of the emergency situation and transmission of the emergency information are performed separately from an operation of at least one of a network or an infrastructure ([0239] discusses the vehicle station identifying and transmitting the safety message to the VRU’s device therefore separate from operation of a network or infrastructure).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood according to the 112 rejection, Sharma teaches a vehicle for performing an emergency situation control method (Fig. 22), the vehicle comprising:
a driving unit configured to provide power to a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 23); and
an ADS to receive status information from the UE (Fig. 22), wherein the ADS is configured to:
periodically or aperiodically receive status information from the UE, the status information including information indicating that the UE has received emergency information ([0240] discusses transmission of an awareness message (VAM) to vulnerable road user devices (UE) by vehicle stations (ADS) where once a repetition of the VAM is received by the sender, the surrounding vehicle stations stop or cancel their transmissions where this reception of the repetition is interpreted as status information);
identify an emergency situation based on the status information ([0084]-[0086] discuss identifying an emergency situation based on a predicted trajectory breaking common sense safety rules);
determine whether or not to transmit the emergency information to the UE ([0240] discusses transmission of an awareness message (VAM) to vulnerable road user devices (UE) by vehicle stations (ADS) where once a repetition of the VAM is received by the sender, the surrounding vehicle stations stop or cancel their transmissions); and
control an emergency situation related to the emergency information ([0085] discusses controlling an action of the vehicle based on the critical trajectory).
Regarding claim 14, Sharma teaches wherein the ADS comprises a processor configured to: recognize that a response to the emergency situation is required by the driver. and transmit the emergency information to the UE until the driver responds.
Regarding claim 15, Sharma teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: recognize that the driver has not responded to the emergency information sent to the UE; and transmit the emergency information to the UE periodically or aperiodically ([0239] discusses the vehicle station identifying and transmitting the safety message to the VRU’s device with [0240] discussing transmission of an awareness message (VAM) to vulnerable road user devices (UE) by vehicle stations (ADS) until the VAM is received by the user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Hooshmand (US 20250256757).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood according to the 112 rejection, Sharma teaches transmitting emergency information between devices but does not explicitly teach wherein the controlling of the emergency situation includes controlling the emergency situation based on a response of the UE that has received the emergency information from at least one of a network or an infrastructure, and wherein the determining of whether to transmit the emergency information to the UE includes determining not to transmit the emergency information based on the emergency situation being controlled based on the response of the UE.
Hooshmand teaches wherein the controlling of the emergency situation includes controlling the emergency situation based on a response of the UE that has received the emergency information from at least one of a network or an infrastructure, and wherein the determining of whether to transmit the emergency information to the UE includes determining not to transmit the emergency information based on the emergency situation being controlled based on the response of the UE ([0075] discusses determining whether the user has acknowledged an in-vehicle alert based on a received signal from the user where if the user has acknowledged the alert that it is determined not to transmit to the emergency response system).
Sharma teaches transmitting emergency information between devices. Hooshmand teaches transmitting emergency information based on user responses. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sharma with the user input of Hooshmand as this allows the user to control an emergency situation while still providing safe alternatives for autonomous takeover if the user is incapacitated making the system more reliable and improving the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood according to the 112 rejection, Sharma teaches transmitting emergency information between devices but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: control the emergency situation based on a response of the UE that has received the emergency information from at least one of a network or an infrastructure; and determine not to transmit the emergency information based on the emergency situation being controlled based on the response of the UE.
Hooshmand teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: control the emergency situation based on a response of the UE that has received the emergency information from at least one of a network or an infrastructure; and determine not to transmit the emergency information based on the emergency situation being controlled based on the response of the UE ([0075] discusses determining whether the user has acknowledged an in-vehicle alert based on a received signal from the user where if the user has acknowledged the alert that it is determined not to transmit to the emergency response system).
Sharma teaches transmitting emergency information between devices. Hooshmand teaches transmitting emergency information based on user responses. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sharma with the user input of Hooshmand as this allows the user to control an emergency situation while still providing safe alternatives for autonomous takeover if the user is incapacitated making the system more reliable and improving the user’s experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wilkes (US 20110077028) teaches a mobile device in communication with the safety analytics computer system; Velusamy (US 20160042644) teaches determining road conditions based on data provided from multiple road users and providing an alert; and Yoon (US 11124181) teaches warning a remote control device of a user of an impending collision.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303)297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657