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 6/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 13-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have overcome the previous §112(b), 101 and 102 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
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, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180364700A1 (“Liu”) in view of US20200117188A1 (“Yun”).
As per claims 1 and 13, 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; 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. (Liu at least the abstract, [0028], [0066-0067], [0027], [0006])
Liu does not teach, which Yun teaches:
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; and control the autonomous driving of the vehicle based on the first state and the second state. (Yun at least the abstract, FIG. 5, FIG. 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu with the aforementioned limitations taught by Yun with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to provide a vehicle capable of safely controlling autonomous driving without driver intervention (Yun [0010]).
As per claims 2 and 14, Liu additionally teaches:
wherein 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 [0026])
As per claims 4 and 16, Liu 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. (Liu at least [0006], FIG. 8)
As per claims 5 and 17, Liu additionally teaches:
wherein a potential to collide with the peripheral vehicle or the peripheral person is determined as the second state of the vehicle. (Liu at least [0121])
Claim(s) 3, 6, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Yun in view of US20200168094A1 (“Shimodaira”).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Liu in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Liu does not disclose:
the second state is determined based on an analysis rule different from the autonomous driving rule.
Shimodaira teaches the aforementioned limitation (Shimodaira at least the abstract, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu with the aforementioned limitations taught by Shimodaira with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to avoid obstacles and congestion (Shimodaira [0025]). The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 3.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Liu in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Liu does not disclose:
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 used in a case where the state of the peripheral vehicle or the state of the peripheral person is determined as the second state.
Shimodaira teaches the aforementioned limitation (Shimodaira at least the abstract, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu with the aforementioned limitations taught by Shimodaira with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights