DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2023-217970 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024, 05/29/2025, and 04/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the update instruction unit configured to transmit…” should be “the update instruction unit is configured to transmit…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 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:
In claim 1, the “acquisition unit” in the limitation “an acquisition unit configured to acquire an update information” invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the information to be acquired.
In claim 1, the “storage unit” in the limitation “a storage unit configured to store an unmanned driving information” invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the information to be stored.
In claim 1, the “update unit” in the limitation “an update unit configured to update the unmanned driving information” invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the information to be updated.
In claim 9, the “update instruction unit” in the limitation “the update instruction unit configured to transmit an update information to the moving object according to the process information” invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the updated information to be transmitted.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification to these claim limitations:
“[0013]… the memory 112 corresponds to a “storage unit” according to the present disclosure.”
“[0017]… The server device 200 is configured as a computer that includes a processor 201, a memory 202, an input/output interface 203, and an internal bus 204…[0018] The processor 201 functions as a position information acquisition unit 211, a remote control unit 212, a process information acquisition unit 213, and an update instruction unit 214 by executing a computer program PG2 stored in advance in the memory 202.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified system Claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 9 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A system comprising:
a moving object that is able to be moved by unmanned driving, and includes a storage unit configured to store an unmanned driving information used for the unmanned driving; and
a server device having an acquisition unit and an update instruction unit, wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire a process information related to a process from manufacturing to sales of the moving object, wherein the update instruction unit configured to transmit an update information to the moving object according to the process information, the update information is an information for updating the unmanned driving information stored in the storage unit.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could mentally acquire the point in the manufacturing process a vehicle was in and then determine how the vehicle should maneuver next. Transmitting the update information to the storage unit would not be significantly different from telling a driver of the vehicle what they should do next, they may or may not utilize that command just because they received it.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of a storage unit, a server, an acquisition unit, and an update information unit. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “the update instruction unit [is] configured to transmit an update information to the moving object according to the process information”, is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1 and 10 cite the same limitations as that in claim 9, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-8 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
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 1-2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch (US 2017/0320529 A1), hereinafter Nordbruch, in view of Watkins et al. (US 2020/0156722 A1), hereinafter Watkins.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 10, Nordbruch discloses a system comprising: a moving object that is able to be moved by unmanned driving, and includes a storage unit configured to store an unmanned driving information used for the unmanned driving; (see at least [0029] “the vehicle-internal vehicle data are stored in the vehicle itself, in a vehicle-internal memory”)
and a server device having an acquisition unit and an update instruction unit, (see at least [0031] “the server, for example, includes a processor which is designed to evaluate the vehicle-internal vehicle data.” [0039] “it is provided that the vehicle receives data which are relevant for the autonomous driving operation and based on which the vehicle drives autonomously within the manufacturing system.”)
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire a process information related to a process from manufacturing to sales of the moving object, (see at least [0031] “the server, for example, includes a processor which is designed to evaluate the vehicle-internal vehicle data.” Note: It is understood that the internal vehicle data would have to be acquired by the server for it to evaluate it.)
wherein the update instruction unit configured to transmit an update information to the moving object according to the process information, (see at least [0041] “The data which are relevant for the autonomous driving operation are preferably received by the vehicle or sent to the vehicle, e.g., with the aid of the manufacturing system”)
the update information is an information for updating the unmanned driving information stored in the storage unit. (see at least [0030] “the stored vehicle-internal vehicle data are read out from the vehicle-internal memory during and/or after the driving operation.” [0042] “control instruction(s) for remotely controlled driving is/are received by the vehicle, the vehicle driving correspondingly remotely controlled in response to the remote-control instruction(s) (also referred to as control instruction(s)).”)
Nordbruch discloses a server remotely controlling a vehicle through a manufacturing process, but does not explicitly disclose the consideration of all manufacturing processes to sales.
However, Watkins teaches information related to a process from manufacturing to sales of the moving object (see at least [0067] “the vehicle advances along an assembly line, or to locations between coming off the assembly line and arriving at a customer or sales location.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manufacturing vehicle control of Nordbruch to include the control of the vehicle to sales as disclosed in Watkins, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure complete control of the vehicle from assembly to testing to external sales facility in autonomous mode, see Watkins [0064].
With respect to claim 2, Nordbruch discloses the unmanned driving information includes a restriction information for restricting an operation of the moving object, and the update unit updates the restriction information. (see at least [0042] “It is only specified to the vehicle where and how it has to drive, i.e., at what velocity, for example. In particular, there is no need for the vehicle to have a digital map of the manufacturing system”)
With respect to claim 8, Nordbruch discloses a server remotely controlling a vehicle through a manufacturing process, but does not disclose control changing after the manufacturing and assembly has ended.
However, Watkins teaches in a process after the moving object is shipped from a factory that manufactures the moving object, (see at least [0051] “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a vehicle control system 100 for use during vehicle manufacturing.”)
the update unit updates the restriction information so that the restriction of the operation of the moving object is lifted or the restriction of the operation of the moving object is relaxed compared to a process before the shipping. (see at least [0057] “Generally, control system 100 will be an external control module that can be removed once the vehicle is fully or partially assembled.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manufacturing vehicle control of Nordbruch to include the control of the vehicle to sales as disclosed in Watkins, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure complete control of the vehicle from assembly to testing to external sales facility in autonomous mode, see Watkins [0064].
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch in view of Watkins as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 2022/0390937 A1), hereinafter Watanabe.
With respect to claim 3, Nordbruch discloses a server remotely controlling a vehicle through a manufacturing process, but does not explicitly disclose and upper limit value of the moving object.
However, Watanabe teaches the unmanned driving information includes an upper limit value of a speed of the moving object as the restriction information, and the update unit updates the upper limit value of the speed of the moving object. (see at least [0076] “Typically, in the upper speed limit setting processing, the meander prevention unit 214 limits the upper speed limit Vmax from the first upper speed limit Vmax1 to the second upper speed limit Vmax2(<Vmax1) when the meandering state is detected.”)
As both are in the field of remotely controlling a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manufacturing vehicle control of Nordbruch to include the control of the vehicle speed to include a maximum limit as disclosed in Watanabe, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide restrictions on the control to suppress deviations in the control that would interfere with the vehicle safety, see Watanabe [0095].
With respect to claim 4, Nordbruch discloses a server remotely controlling a vehicle through a manufacturing process, but does not explicitly disclose modifying speed based on the presence of a pedestrian.
However, Watkins teaches the update unit lowers the upper limit value of the speed of the moving object in a process where a person exists around the moving object compared to a process where a person does not exist around the moving object. (see at least [0067] “In step 704 the vehicle receives a signal from a sensor, such as radar sensor 104, visual management guide sensor 106, secondary pedestrian safety scanner 108… In response to the signal or signals, vehicle controller 110, or other controller configured to adjust the speed of the vehicle, will slow or stop the vehicle to avoid the object”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manufacturing vehicle control of Nordbruch to include the control of the vehicle to sales as disclosed in Watkins, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure pedestrian safety that would be common in the assembly and sales processes, see Watkins [0067].
With respect to claim 5, Nordbruch discloses a server remotely controlling a vehicle through a manufacturing process, but does not explicitly disclose and upper limit value of the moving object.
However, Watanabe teaches wherein the unmanned driving information includes an upper limit value of a turning angle of the moving object as the restriction information, and the update unit updates the upper limit value of the turning angle of the moving object. (see at least [0080] “the meander prevention unit 214 sets the limit steering angle θlim of the vehicle 20 to be smaller than before the meandering state is detected.”)
As both are in the field of remotely controlling a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manufacturing vehicle control of Nordbruch to include the control of the vehicle speed to include a maximum limit as disclosed in Watanabe, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide restrictions on the control to suppress deviations in the control that would interfere with the vehicle safety, see Watanabe [0095].
With respect to claim 6, Nordbruch discloses a server remotely controlling a vehicle through a manufacturing process, but does not explicitly disclose an upper limit value of the moving object.
However, Watanabe teaches the update unit lowers the upper limit value of the turning angle of the moving object in a process where the moving object frequently performs driving forward compared to a process where the moving object performs the driving forward less. (see at least [0080] “when the meandering state is detected, the meander prevention unit 214 limits the limit steering angle θlim from the first limit steering angle θlim1 to the second limit steering angle θlim2 (<θlim1). The second limit steering angle θlim2 here can use a preset value as the limit steering angle θlim capable of suppressing the meander traveling of the vehicle 20.” Note: It is understood that if the vehicle is meandering, it is not driving straight in alignment with the control commands.)
As both are in the field of remotely controlling a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manufacturing vehicle control of Nordbruch to include the control of the vehicle speed to include a maximum limit as disclosed in Watanabe, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide restrictions on the control to suppress deviations in the control that would interfere with the vehicle safety, see Watanabe [0095].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch in view of Watkins as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lubischer et al. (US 2016/0375926 A1), hereinafter Lubischer.
With respect to claim 7, Nordbruch discloses a server remotely controlling a vehicle through a manufacturing process, but does not explicitly disclose and upper limit value of the moving object.
However, Lubischer teaches the moving object is a vehicle that includes a steer-by-wire type steering device including a steering wheel and wheels, (see at least [0020] “a steer by wire system that electrically couples the steering wheel 30 to the steering shaft 44 connected to the steering gear 32.”)
the unmanned driving information includes information related to restriction of an operation of the steering wheel as the restriction information, (see at least [0039] “commands and signals may result in the steering wheel 30 being operatively coupled or operatively decoupled from the steering shaft 44 connected to the steering gear 32”)
and in a process where a person gets on the moving object during the unmanned driving, the update unit updates the restriction information so that a direction of the steering wheel is not changed even when a direction of the wheel is changed. (see at least [0045] “Should the steering wheel 30 be virtually or literally uncoupled from at least one of the steering gear 32 and a steering shaft 44 or the steering shaft 44 be uncoupled from the steering gear 32, the method continues to block 210. At block 210, the rotation of the steering wheel 30 stops… At block 212, the method permits a non-steering use of the steering wheel 30, in response to the steering wheel 30 being in a non-rotatable condition.” Note: The steering is uncoupled due to the vehicle driving autonomously while there is a person onboard.)
As both are in the field of remotely controlling a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manufacturing vehicle control of Nordbruch to include the control of the vehicle steering wheel as disclosed in Lubischer, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the opportunity for the occupant to work on non-driving tasks without impacting the autonomous driving, see Lubischer [0046-0047].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaphengst et al. (US 2023/0145508 A1) discloses a partially assembled vehicle that autonomously completes its own assembly.
Wells et al. (US 2020/0140028 A1) discloses an autonomous vehicle guidance system enables a partially assembled battery-electric vehicle to be guided through an assembly process with the temporary addition of a sensor skid.
Narasimhan et al. (US 2022/0289277 A1) discloses steer-by-wire systems and methods of operating thereof in vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights