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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 27 February 2025. Claims 1-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign 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. JP2024-050839, filed on 27 March 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 02/27/2025 and 12/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS’s were considered.
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:
“external environment recognition unit” in claims 1, 12 and 13,
The structure of the external environment recognition unit is not disclosed in the specification.
“storage unit” in claims 1, 12 and 13,
The structure of the storage unit is not disclosed in the specification.
“movement control unit” in claims 1-10 and 12-13,
The structure of the movement control unit is not disclosed in the specification.
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
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 1-13 are 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.
Claims 1, 12 and 13 recite “an external environment recognition unit configured to …”. The “external environment recognition unit” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the external environment recognition unit to perform the recited function. The specification lacks detailed description of the external environment recognition unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the external environment recognition unit is, what the advantages of using an external environment recognition unit are and how the recited function is performed by the external environment recognition unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of an external environment recognition unit.
Claims 1, 12 and 13 recite “a storage unit configured to …”. The “storage unit” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the storage unit to perform the recited function. The specification lacks detailed description of the storage unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the storage unit is, what the advantages of using a storage unit are and how the recited function is performed by the storage unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a storage unit.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 recite “a movement control unit configured to …”. The “movement control unit” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the movement control unit to perform the recited function. The specification lacks detailed description of the movement control unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the movement control unit is, what the advantages of using a movement control unit are and how the recited function is performed by the movement control unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a movement control unit.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 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.
Claims 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “external environment recognition unit” in claims 1, 12 and 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “external environment recognition unit” is recited in the claim to perform specific functions. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “storage unit” in claims 1, 12 and 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “storage unit” is recited in the claim to perform specific functions. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “movement control unit” in claims 1-10, 12 and 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “movement control unit” is recited in the claim to perform specific functions. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a control device (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A control device for a moving object, the control device comprising:
an external environment recognition unit configured to acquire external environment recognition data of the moving object;
a storage unit configured to store route information related to a movement route when the moving object moves from an entry start position to a stop position; and
a movement control unit configured to perform movement control for moving the moving object to an exit position based on the external environment recognition data and the route information, wherein
the route information includes route data indicating the movement route, stop position data indicating the stop position, and peripheral environment data indicating a feature of a peripheral environment of the movement route and the stop position based on the external environment recognition data,
when stop of the moving object at a first stop position identical to the stop position indicated by the stop position data is detected, the movement control unit performs first generation of an exit route from the first stop position to the exit position based on the route data and the stop position data, and
when stop of the moving object at a second stop position different from the stop position indicated by the stop position data is detected, the movement control unit performs second generation of an exit route from the second stop position to the exit position based on the route data and the peripheral environment data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “…performs first generation of an exit route...”, “…performs second generation of an exit route…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A control device for a moving object, the control device comprising:
an external environment recognition unit configured to acquire external environment recognition data of the moving object;
a storage unit configured to store route information related to a movement route when the moving object moves from an entry start position to a stop position; and
a movement control unit configured to perform movement control for moving the moving object to an exit position based on the external environment recognition data and the route information, wherein
the route information includes route data indicating the movement route, stop position data indicating the stop position, and peripheral environment data indicating a feature of a peripheral environment of the movement route and the stop position based on the external environment recognition data,
when stop of the moving object at a first stop position identical to the stop position indicated by the stop position data is detected, the movement control unit performs first generation of an exit route from the first stop position to the exit position based on the route data and the stop position data, and
when stop of the moving object at a second stop position different from the stop position indicated by the stop position data is detected, the movement control unit performs second generation of an exit route from the second stop position to the exit position based on the route data and the peripheral environment data.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an external environment recognition unit configured to acquire external environment recognition data…”, “a storage unit configured to store route information…” and “a movement control unit configured to perform movement control…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the …acquire… step from sensors and/or from external sources is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the performing steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The …store…step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely adding a generic computer element which do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The “a movement control unit configured to perform movement control…” step merely states a generic result or intended use of the movement control unit and does not recite any particular control techniques or action. The limitations describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “an external environment recognition unit configured to acquire external environment recognition data…”, “a storage unit configured to store route information…” and “a movement control unit configured to perform movement control… the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “an external environment recognition unit configured to acquire external environment recognition data…”, “a storage unit configured to store route information…” and “a movement control unit configured to perform movement control…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors/external sources are all conventional sensors/external sources, and the specification does not provide any indication of what the different “…unit” is. The additional limitation of “a storage unit configured to store…” is merely applying a generic computer component to store information which is a conventional activity. The additional limitation of “a movement control unit configured to perform movement control…” merely recites a generic control unit configured to perform generic function of controlling. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 12.
Claim 12, a process claim (a control method), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 an apparatus claim (a control device). Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 13.
Claim 13, an apparatus claim (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 an apparatus claim (a control device). Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), 112(b) as set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of Silas et al. US2021/0192952 (A1) teaches techniques for defining and delivering parking area information to a vehicle. The parking area information can be sent by a parking assistant device associated with a parking area and in response to receiving one or more messages from a vehicle system of the vehicle. Messages from the vehicle system indicate a location of the vehicle and are used by the parking assistant device to track a movement of the vehicle. The parking area information is sent in one or more responses messages from the parking assistant device and can include a rule for determining whether the vehicle is permitted to park in an unoccupied parking zone within the parking area or indicate a result of applying the rule.
In regard to independent claims 1, 12 and 13, Silas taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a movement control unit configured to perform movement control for moving the moving object to an exit position based on the external environment recognition data and the route information, wherein the route information includes route data indicating the movement route, stop position data indicating the stop position, and peripheral environment data indicating a feature of a peripheral environment of the movement route and the stop position based on the external environment recognition data, when stop of the moving object at a first stop position identical to the stop position indicated by the stop position data is detected, the movement control unit performs first generation of an exit route from the first stop position to the exit position based on the route data and the stop position data, and when stop of the moving object at a second stop position different from the stop position indicated by the stop position data is detected, the movement control unit performs second generation of an exit route from the second stop position to the exit position based on the route data and the peripheral environment data.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights