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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 10/2/2026, after the close of prosecution, has been entered. The concurrent arguments have been considered and are persuasive. The previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn. The Examiner reopens prosecution with a new grounds of rejection in view of US20200250987A1 (“Zhou”).
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:
Claims 1 and 13: “analyzer” (program stored on ROM executed by CPU)
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 13, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200250987A1 (“Zhou”) in view of US20180364700A1 (“Liu”, previously cited).
As per claims 1 and 13, Zhou teaches:
analyze, based on the information detected at the first time, a first state of the vehicle by an analyzer relating to the autonomous driving of the vehicle; transmit the information detected at the first time and the first state of the vehicle to a control apparatus located outside of the vehicle via a network; receive, via the network, a second state of the vehicle determined by the control apparatus located outside of the vehicle, the second state being determined based on the information detected at the first time; (Zhou at least [0004]: “dynamically calculate, based on the real-time position relationship between the vehicle and the neighboring vehicle and the motion status information”, abstract: “generating, by a control center, a first lane-borrowing driving policy of the vehicle based on a lane-borrowing requirement, a moving trend of the vehicle, and a preset traffic rule, where the lane-borrowing requirement includes a lane-borrowing driving reason, and the first lane-borrowing driving policy includes an instruction for controlling lane-borrowing driving of the vehicle, and sending, by the control center, the first lane-borrowing driving policy to the vehicle”, [0009]: “control center may perform lane-borrowing driving scheduling on related traffic participants including the vehicle performing lane-borrowing driving in order to ensure that the related traffic participants can avoid a collision.”)
Zhou additionally teaches sending routing signals to the vehicle based on second information. (Zhou at least [0009])
Zhou additionally teaches: the second state is determined based on an analysis rule different from the autonomous driving rule. (Zhou at least the abstract: “borrowing driving policy of the vehicle based on a lane-borrowing requirement, a moving trend of the vehicle, and a preset traffic rule, where the lane-borrowing requirement includes a lane-borrowing driving reason”, [0030]: “the first lane-borrowing driving policy includes at least one of first indication information used to indicate that the vehicle can perform lane-borrowing driving, a driving sequence and speed of the vehicle during lane-borrowing driving, and lane information, the driving information includes at least one of a status, position information, a current speed, and a driving intention of the traffic participant, and the transceiver unit is further configured to send the driving information to the control center.”, [0008]: “where the lane-borrowing driving reason included in the lane-borrowing requirement indicates that a vehicle density on a lane of any direction is greater than the preset threshold, the case may be applied to a lane-borrowing driving scenario on a tidal lane, and an oncoming lane is borrowed to improve driving efficiency when a plurality of vehicles drive slowly on one side of a road”)
Zhou does not disclose, which Liu teaches:
A vehicle including an autonomous driving function comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: control an autonomous driving of the vehicle based on information about the vehicle detected at a first time; (Liu at least the abstract, [0028], [0066-0067])
and control the autonomous driving of the vehicle based on the first state and the second state. (Liu as above) *Examiner’s note: here Liu teaches an autonomous vehicle capable of control under it’s own state determinations (first state) and under teleoperation/remote control (second state combined with the second state determination of the control center of Zhou)
the analyzer analyzes the first state by an autonomous driving rule relating to the autonomous driving of the vehicle, the autonomous driving rule being generated by learning the information. (Liu at least [0014]: “an intervention comprising overwriting a travel preference or a travel rule”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhou with the aforementioned limitations taught by Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to enable intervention operations of an autonomous vehicle (Liu abstract).
As per claims 4 and 16, Zhou in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Zhou additionally teaches:
the information detected by the vehicle is about an area in front of the vehicle, and a state of a peripheral vehicle or a state of a peripheral person in the area including a road is determined as the second state of the vehicle. (Zhou at least [0022]: “status information of the traffic participant includes at least one of movement information of a pedestrian in the preset area”, [0074-0075])
As per claims 5 and 17, Zhou in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Zhou additionally teaches:
a potential to collide with the peripheral vehicle or the peripheral person is determined as the second state of the vehicle. (Zhou at least [0022], [0074-0075])
As per claims 6 and 18, Zhou in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Zhou additionally teaches:
where the state of the peripheral vehicle or the state of the peripheral person is determined as the second state. (Zhou at least [0098]: “The moving trend may be understood as a moving track, and the control center determines, based on the moving trend, whether a vehicle that performs lane-borrowing driving in the driving area may collide with the traffic participant in the preset area during lane-borrowing driving.”)
Zhou does not disclose, which Liu teaches:
the analyzer analyzes the state of the peripheral vehicle or the state of the peripheral person as the first state by an autonomous driving rule relating to the autonomous driving of the vehicle, the autonomous driving rule being different from an analysis rule. (Liu at least [0066]) *Examiner’s note: here Liu describes avoiding collisions with pedestrians, which is generally linked to more emergency braking control events, while Zhou describes detecting pedestrians or other lane users far ahead in the traffic pattern and can change lane usage based on such information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhou with the aforementioned limitations taught by Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to enable intervention operations of an autonomous vehicle (Liu abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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 at (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.
/O.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
