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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-154410, filed on 09/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 and 12/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 06/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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:
Claim 1:
a candidate area determination unit that determines,
an action plan determination unit that determines,
a trajectory generation unit that generates,
an action plan update unit that can update, and
a travel control unit that controls.
Claim 4:
the candidate area determination unit determines, and
the action plan update unit determines.
Claim 5:
a behavior estimation unit that estimates, and
the action plan update unit determines.
Claim 6:
a candidate area determination unit that determines,
an action plan determination unit that sets,
a travel trajectory generation unit that generates,
an action plan update unit that updates, and
a travel control unit that performs.
Claim 7:
a vehicle control apparatus that sets.
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. See Figure 1 – depicts a candidate area determination unit, an action plan determination unit, a trajectory generation unit, an action plan update unit, and a travel control unit on a processor 10 of the vehicle control apparatus 3 which is a control unit (ECU) (see Paragraph 0018). Therefore, the units are processor functions. A behavior estimation unit is also a part of the vehicle control apparatus (ECU) (see Paragraph 0115).
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 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 and 4-5 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “an action plan update unit that can update”. It is unclear whether the update plan is updated or not according to the term “can”. Examiner suggests removing the word “can”.
Claims 4-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuchiya et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0270447 A1) hereinafter Tsuchiya.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuchiya discloses a vehicle control apparatus, comprising:
a candidate area determination unit that determines a passable area, which is an area where a host vehicle and a moving object around the host vehicle can pass each other, on a road where there is an area where the host vehicle and the moving object cannot pass each other [see Paragraph 0065 - discusses determining that the vehicle cannot pass the other vehicle based on a width of an area of a road, see Paragraph 0066 - discusses determining that the vehicle can pass in an area GC when there is another vehicle];
an action plan determination unit that determines an action plan indicating a sequence of action steps of the host vehicle [see Paragraph 0050 - discusses that an action plan generation unit sets automated driving events, see Figure 4 below - depicts the vehicle steering toward the passable area (GCL), and then straightens the steering when the vehicle is over the passable area (automated driving events)];
PNG
media_image1.png
570
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Tsuchiya
a trajectory generation unit that generates a travel trajectory of the host vehicle in the passable area [see Paragraph 0049 - discusses that the action plan generation unit generates a trajectory for the vehicle];
an action plan update unit that can update the action plan based on a position of the moving object within the passable area and a travel trajectory of the host vehicle generated by the trajectory generation unit [see Paragraph 0065-0066 - discusses determining a trajectory (K2) for the vehicle, and updating the trajectory (K3) based on the position of the other vehicle in the road (see Paragraph 0077 - discusses that the vehicle is moving/oncoming), and see Figure 4 below - depicts changing the trajectory from K2 to K3 and that the oncoming vehicle is located in the passable area, the vehicles automated driving events are changed from driving straight to steering toward the passable area and then straightening the steering when the vehicle is over the passable area]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
570
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Tsuchiya
a travel control unit that controls travel of the host vehicle according to the action plan [see Paragraph 0044 - discusses an automated driving control device];
wherein the action plan update unit updates the action plan using a travel trajectory when the moving object is present within the passable area [see Paragraph 0065-0066 - discusses determining a trajectory (K2) for the vehicle, and updating the trajectory (K3) based on the position of the other vehicle in the road (see Paragraph 0077 - discusses that the vehicle is moving/oncoming), and see Figure 4 below - depicts changing the trajectory from K2 to K3 and that the oncoming vehicle is located in the passable area] and the host vehicle is capable of generating the travel trajectory for exiting the passable area [see Paragraphs 0065-0066 and 0077 - discusses that the vehicle continues driving on the road after the host vehicle passes, the trajectory for returning to the road is generated by the driving control unit], so that an action step of the host vehicle traveling along a travel trajectory generated by the trajectory generation unit and exiting the passable area is set as an action step to be executed next to an action step currently being executed [see Paragraph 0065-0066 - discusses that the trajectory K3 is generated for entering the passable area, and see Paragraph 0077- discusses after the oncoming vehicle passes, the trajectory for returning to the road is generated (exiting passable area)].
PNG
media_image1.png
570
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Tsuchiya
Claims 6-7 are analogous to claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuchiya.
Regarding claim 4, Tsuchiya discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Tsuchiya further discloses wherein when the candidate area determination unit determines a plurality of passable areas [see Paragraph 0085 - discusses determining a passable area of area where the vehicle passes over the GCL or passes over the opposite lane (see Figure 4 below)], the action plan update unit determines whether to update the action plan by using a passable area among the plurality of passable areas through which the host vehicle and the moving object pass each other [see Paragraph 0085 - discusses determining whether to update the target trajectory (S130) based on the passable area (S126), the action plan is updated based on the generated target trajectory].
PNG
media_image1.png
570
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Tsuchiya
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Komuro (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0385020 A1) hereinafter Komuro.
Regarding claim 5, Tsuchiya discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Tsuchiya fails to disclose wherein a behavior estimation unit that estimates a behavior of at least one of the moving object and a surrounding object of the host vehicle is further provided, and the action plan update unit determines whether to update the action plan depending on an estimation result of the behavior estimation unit.
Komuro discloses wherein a behavior estimation unit that estimates a behavior of at least one of the moving object and a surrounding object of the host vehicle is further provided [see Paragraph 0075 - discusses a second trajectory generator that generates a traveling trajectory of the oncoming vehicle], and the action plan update unit determines whether to update the action plan depending on an estimation result of the behavior estimation unit [see Paragraph 0076 - discusses determining whether the first trajectory of the vehicle interferes with the second trajectory when there is an obstacle on the road, and see Paragraph 0077 - discusses determining whether the vehicle is caused to travel or stop based on the determination result of interference].
Komuro suggests preventing the vehicle from coming in contact with the oncoming vehicle [see Paragraph 0076]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicle control apparatus as taught by Tsuchiya to estimate a behavior of at least one of the moving object and a surrounding object of the host vehicle and determine whether to update the action plan depending on an estimation result of the behavior estimation unit as taught by Komuro in order to prevent the vehicle from coming in contact with the oncoming vehicle [see Komuro, see Paragraph 0076].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights