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 .
Examiner’s Note
The claim amendments filed 4/2/2025 are being examined as the most recent revision of the claim set. Applicant resubmitted the original claim set on 2/2/2026 which examiner understands was submitted for record keeping purposes and is not being examined as the most recent revision.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 lines 2-4 read "the control instruction value is communicated…, the disabling of the driving control is communicated…" which appears to be a conjunction error and should read "the control instruction value is communicated…, and the disabling of the driving control is communicated…" to improve clarity. 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.
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:
In claim(s) 1 and 14, the “communication terminal” in the limitation “a communication terminal having a communication function” invokes 112(f) as “terminal” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables a communication function.
In claim(s) 1 and 14, the “transmission unit” in the limitation “a transmission unit configured to transmit” invokes 112(f) as “unit” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables a transmission function.
In claim(s) 1 and 14, the “disabling request unit” in the limitation “a disable request unit configured to request the ECU to perform the irreversible disabling” invokes 112(f) as “unit” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables a disabling function.
In claim(s) 8, the “power feeding apparatus” in the limitation “the vehicle has been fed with predetermined electric power by a power feeding apparatus” invokes 112(f) as “apparatus” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables a power feeding function.
In claim(s) 9, the “image pick-up apparatus” in the limitation “motions of an operator captured by the image pick-up apparatus” invokes 112(f) as “apparatus” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables a motion capture function.
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.
Regarding the communication terminal, a review of the specification (¶ 0041) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"The communication terminal 102 is a terminal having a communication function to communicate with apparatuses outside the vehicle. The communication terminal 102 is a wireless communication terminal mounted on the vehicle 101, such as a dongle. The dongle is collected by an operator before shipment after the remote or automatic control is disabled. Further, the communication terminal may be a data communication module (DCM)." (Emphasis added.)
Regarding the transmission unit and disable request unit, a review of the specification (¶ 0039) and drawings (Figure 1) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the vehicle control system 100 includes a vehicle 101, a communication terminal 102, an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) 103, a transmission unit 104, and a disable request unit 105. "
PNG
media_image1.png
397
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The transmission unit and disable request unit are drawn as computers as shown in the drawing above.
Regarding the power feeding apparatus and image pick-up apparatus, a review of the specification shows no corresponding structure (see 112(b) rejection below). For the purpose of examination, the power feeding apparatus will be understood as charging equipment (i.e. an EVSE) for an electric vehicle, and an image pick-up apparatus will be understood as an image sensor.
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 3, 5, and 8-9 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the diagnostic communication" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the communication apparatus" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner presumes, with evidence from at least ¶ 0014 of the specification, that this is a translation error and is meant to read “the communication terminal”. For the purpose of examination, the communication apparatus will thus be interpreted as having antecedent basis to the communication terminal.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, claim limitations “power feeding apparatus” and “image pick-up apparatus” 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 for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear the metes and bounds of each apparatus including their comprising components. 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.
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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki US 20220219709 A1 (hereinafter Tamaki) in view of Yuji et al. JP 2021062790 A (hereinafter Yuji; a translated copy has been provided by the applicant which examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 14,
Tamaki teaches
A vehicle control system for executing driving control and then irreversible disabling of the driving control, the vehicle control system comprising:
a vehicle (Figure 1 vehicle 200) equipped with a communication terminal having a communication function (¶ 0027 discloses an input/output unit on a vehicle communicates with a server);
an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) mounted on the vehicle (Figure 2 vehicle ECU 16) configured to execute the driving control of the vehicle using communication via the communication terminal (Figure 6 shows the vehicle acting on control commands from a control server; ¶ 0027 discloses the input/output unit receives commands from the server);
a transmission unit comprising a computer (Figure 1 control server 10) configured to transmit, to the ECU (¶ 0027 discloses control signals generated by a computing unit in response to received input signals are transmitted to the ECU), a control instruction value used for executing the driving control of the vehicle (Figure 6 shows the vehicle receiving and acting on control commands from a control server) via the communication terminal (¶ 0027 discloses the input/output unit receives signals from the server which are used for outputting control signals to the ECU; see communication flow shown in Figure 2) from outside the vehicle (Figure 1 shows the control server is external to the vehicle); and
a disable request unit comprising a computer (Figure 1 control server 10) configured to request the ECU to perform the irreversible disabling of the driving control of the vehicle (Figure 6 step 48 details that the key used to perform the remote control is erased by the server; ¶ 0053 further details that the key on the vehicle is erased by the computing unit when a notification of shipping is received; ¶ 0027 discloses the computing unit and ECU may be the same device) via the communication terminal (¶ 0027 discloses the input/output unit receives signals; see communication flow shown in Figure 2) from outside the vehicle (¶ 0053 discloses the notification is received from outside the vehicle; Figure 1 shows communication from an external control server 10 to vehicle 200).
Tamaki does not teach that
the communication terminal comprises a dongle or data communication module.
Yuji teaches that
the communication terminal comprises a data communication module (¶ 0005 discloses a DCM used for communicating between a vehicle and an external computer).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Tamaki to incorporate the teachings of Yuji. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the DCM of Yuji for the input/output unit of Tamaki. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of allowing communication to and from an external computer renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Tamaki reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tamaki does not explicitly teach that
the control instruction value is communicated using Controller Area Network (CAN) communication, and
the disabling of the driving control is communicated using diagnostic communication.
Yuji further teaches that
the control instruction value is communicated using Controller Area Network (CAN) communication (¶ 0062 discloses that self-propelling instructions communicated from DCM to ECU can be communicated using CAN).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Tamaki to incorporate the further teachings of Yuji. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the CAN communication of Yuji for the generic communication of Tamaki. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of allowing communication between an input/output device and as ECU renders the claim obvious.
While Yuji does not explicitly teach
the disabling of the driving control is communicated using diagnostic communication,
Yuji does explicitly teach
communication using diagnostic communication (¶ 0017 discloses that control instruction communicated from DCM to ECU can be done using diagnostic communication).
While Yuji does not explicitly teach using diagnostic communication for disabling of the control, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize the mundanity of merely replacing one form of communication for another and switching between the two forms of communication based on the situation. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the diagnostic communication of Yuji for the generic communication of Tamaki when the notification that results in deletion of the key on the vehicle of Tamaki is to be transmitted between the DCM and ECU. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of allowing communication between an input/output device and as ECU renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Tamaki reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tamaki further teaches that
the driving control is executed during inspection at a vehicle factory (¶ 0054 discloses that control occurs in a factor including during inspection) and the disable is executed before shipment (¶ 0053 discloses key is removed from storage before shipping).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Tamaki reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tamaki does not teach that
the communication terminal* is a dongle or a data communication module.
*“apparatus” has been replaced with “terminal” to correct for the 112(b) error detailed above
Yuji teaches that
the communication terminal is a data communication module (¶ 0005 discloses a DCM used for communicating between a vehicle and an external computer).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Tamaki to incorporate the teachings of Yuji. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the DCM of Yuji for the input/output unit of Tamaki. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of allowing communication to and from an external computer renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Tamaki reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tamaki does not teach that
the communication terminal is collected by an operator after the driving control is disabled.
Yuji further teaches that
the communication terminal is collected by an operator after the driving control is disabled (¶ 0026 discloses that the DCM — referred to as “wireless terminal” in the quoted section — is removed after the vehicle is no longer in the self-propelled area, i.e. driving control is no longer utilized).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Tamaki to incorporate the teachings of Yuji such that following the vehicle special control being disabled by deletion of keys as taught by Tamaki, the DCM used to allow external communication can be removed from the vehicle as taught by Yuji. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve security by removing external communication equipment and save on manufacturing costs by allowing reuse of the DCM on another vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Tamaki reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tamaki further teaches that
the disabling of the driving control is executed by:
burning a circuit onto the ECU;
deleting an application for performing the communication function stored in the ECU; or
re-writing a software for performing the communication function stored in the ECU (¶ 0053 discloses that a key for performing the special control is discarded from storage; examiner understands this as equivalent to rewriting a small part of software as the key required for the software to communicate is erased).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Tamaki reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tamaki further teaches that
disabling of the driving control is executed in any one of the following cases where:
it is detected that the vehicle has arrived at a predetermined position (¶ 0049 discloses special control ends when vehicle departs from a factory site);
an operator has performed a specific operation;
it is confirmed with reference to production control information that there is no need to perform driving control (¶ 0053 discloses the key on the vehicle is discarded when the special mode is no longer required such as when a shipping notification is received);
a disable instruction has been received;
the vehicle has been fed with predetermined electric power by a power feeding apparatus; or
vehicle wrapping has been furnished.
Regarding claim 12,
Examiner understands that claim 12 is a mere combination of the control limitations of claim 1 and the limitations of claim 4; therefore, the same grounds of rejection applied.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Tamaki reference teaches all of claim 12 as detailed above.
Tamaki further teaches
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) mounted on a vehicle to execute the method according to claim 12 (¶ 0075-0076 discloses the method is performed by executing a code stored on a non-transitory memory).
Claim(s) 3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki as modified by Yuji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US 20210300429 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Tamaki reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tamaki does not teach that
after the disabling of the driving control is executed, the disable is confirmed.
Kim teaches that
after the disabling of the driving control is executed, the disable is confirmed (Abstract discloses flashing a light when autonomous control reactivation is disabled; see also Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Tamaki to incorporate the teachings of Kim such that when the MAC key for performing remote control is deleted such that remote autonomous control cannot be performed according to Tamaki, a visual indication of the disabling of the control can be performed according to Kim. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user awareness of the disabled state and improve user confidence that the disabling has occurred.
Tamaki does not teach that
the disable is confirmed using the diagnostic communication.
Yuji teaches
using diagnostic communication (¶ 0017 discloses that control instruction communicated from DCM to ECU can be done using diagnostic communication).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Tamaki to incorporate the teachings of Yuji such that powering the light in response to disabling autonomous driving as taught by Kim can be done using a diagnostic communication as taught by Yuji to communicate the light control command. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the diagnostic communication for performing commands of Yuji for the generic and non-explicit communication for performing commands of Tamaki and Kim. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of communicating control commands renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the modified Tamaki reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Tamaki further teaches that
the irreversible disabling of the driving control of the vehicle is executed (Figure 6 step 48 details that the key used to perform the remote control is erased by the server; ¶ 0053 further details that the key on the vehicle is erased by the computing unit when a notification of shipping is received; ¶ 0027 discloses the computing unit and ECU may be the same device).
Tamaki does not teach that
then the vehicle performs a prescribed operation,
wherein the prescribed operation is any one of the following:
turning on a flashing light;
honking a horn;
operating windshield wipers;
moving wheels to the left and right; or
making a display on a monitor installed outside the vehicle.
Kim teaches that
then the vehicle performs a prescribed operation (Abstract discloses flashing a light when autonomous control reactivation is disabled),
wherein the prescribed operation is any one of the following:
turning on a flashing light (Abstract; see also Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Tamaki to incorporate the teachings of Kim such that when the MAC key for performing remote control is deleted such that remote autonomous control cannot be performed according to Tamaki, a visual indication of the disabling of the control can be performed according to Kim. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user awareness of the disabled state and improve user confidence that the disabling has occurred.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection detailed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches that
the driving control is executed based on information acquired from an image pick-up apparatus installed in a vehicle factory, and
based on information on motions of an operator captured by the image pick-up apparatus, disabling of the driving control is executed.
This appears to be a novel and non-obvious aspect of the invention in light of the prior art of record.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12535828 B2 (hereinafter Ikeda). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite nearly identical structures and method steps without a significant difference between claims as shown in the side-by-side claim language comparison shown below.
Application 19/117,787
US Patent US 12535828 B2 (Ikeda)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A vehicle control system for executing driving control and then irreversible disabling of the driving control, the vehicle control system comprising:
A system comprising: a first computer including a first storage unit storing a first program and a first processor; and a second computer including a second storage unit storing a second program and a second processor, wherein the first processor executes the first program stored in the first storage unit to:
a vehicle equipped with a communication terminal having a communication function;
...the moving object including a communication unit... the communication unit having a communication function...
an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) mounted on the vehicle configured to execute the driving control of the vehicle using communication via the communication terminal;
... the moving object including... a driving control unit… the driving control unit executing driving control of the moving object...
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the ECU, a control instruction value used for executing the driving control of the vehicle via the communication terminal from outside the vehicle; and
...cause a moving object to move by remote control, the moving object being able to move by the remote control in a manufacturing process in a factory that manufactures the moving object…
a disable request unit configured to request the ECU to perform the irreversible disabling of the driving control of the vehicle via the communication terminal from outside the vehicle.
...and determine which one of irreversible disabling processing for irreversibly disabling the remote control and reversible disabling processing for reversibly disabling the remote control to execute using shipping destination information related to the remote control at a shipping destination to which the moving object after manufacturing is shipped, the second processor executes the second program stored in the second storage unit to selectively execute one of: (i) the irreversible disabling processing and (ii) the reversible disabling processing.
Claim 8
Claim 2
The vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein disabling of the driving control is executed in any one of the following cases where:it is detected that the vehicle has arrived at a predetermined position;
an operator has performed a specific operation;it is confirmed with reference to production control information that there is no need to perform driving control;
a disable instruction has been received;
...the disabling instruction unit... instructs the disabling execution unit to execute the irreversible disabling processing in a case where the shipping destination information indicates that the remote control is unable to be executed at the shipping destination.
the vehicle has been fed with predetermined electric power by a power feeding apparatus;
or vehicle wrapping has been furnished.
Claim 14
Claim 8
An information processing apparatus comprising:
A server comprising:
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to an ECU, a control instruction value used for executing driving control of a vehicle via a communication terminal from outside the vehicle;
a first storage unit storing a first program; and a first processor, wherein the first processor executes the first program stored in the first storage unit to: cause a moving object to move by remote control, the moving object being able to move by the remote control in a manufacturing process in a factory that manufactures the moving object, the moving object including a communication unit,
and a disable request unit configured to request the ECU to perform irreversible disabling of the driving control of the vehicle via the communication terminal from outside the vehicle.
a second storage unit storing a second program, and a second processor, the second processor executing the second program stored in the second storage unit to execute driving control of the moving object and to selectively execute one of: (i) irreversible disabling processing and (ii) reversible disabling processing, the irreversible disabling processing being for irreversibly disabling the remote control, the reversible disabling processing being for reversibly disabling the remote control, the communication unit having a communication function; and a disabling instruction unit that determines which one of the irreversible disabling processing and the reversible disabling processing to execute using shipping destination information related to the remote control at a shipping destination to which the moving object after manufacturing is shipped.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/606,115 (hereinafter Yasuyama). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite nearly identical structures and method steps without a significant difference between claims as shown in the side-by-side claim language comparison shown below.
Application 19/117,787
US Patent Application 18/606,115 (Yasuyama)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A vehicle control system for executing driving control and then irreversible disabling of the driving control, the vehicle control system comprising:
A system comprising:
a vehicle equipped with a communication terminal having a communication function;
...the moving object including a communication unit... the communication unit having a communication function...
an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) mounted on the vehicle configured to execute the driving control of the vehicle using communication via the communication terminal;
...the moving object including... a driving control unit… the driving control unit executing driving control of the moving object...
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the ECU, a control instruction value used for executing the driving control of the vehicle via the communication terminal from outside the vehicle; and
...a remote control unit that causes a moving object to move by remote control, the moving object being able to move by the remote control in a manufacturing process in a factory that manufactures the moving object, and in a conveyance process outside the factory, the conveyance process shipping the moving object after manufacturing from the factory and conveying the moving object to a destination...
a disable request unit configured to request the ECU to perform the irreversible disabling of the driving control of the vehicle via the communication terminal from outside the vehicle.
...a disabling execution unit that executes disabling processing for disabling the remote control; and a disabling instruction unit determining whether or not to execute the disabling processing using transit point information related to the remote control at least one transit point at which the moving object transits in the conveyance process, the disabling instruction unit instructing the disabling execution unit to execute the disabling processing when determining to execute the disabling processing.
Claim 8
Claim 1
The vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein disabling of the driving control is executed in any one of the following cases where:it is detected that the vehicle has arrived at a predetermined position;
an operator has performed a specific operation;it is confirmed with reference to production control information that there is no need to perform driving control;
a disable instruction has been received;
...the disabling instruction unit instructing the disabling execution unit to execute the disabling processing when determining to execute the disabling processing.
the vehicle has been fed with predetermined electric power by a power feeding apparatus;
or vehicle wrapping has been furnished.
Claim 14
Claim 15
An information processing apparatus comprising:
A server comprising:
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to an ECU, a control instruction value used for executing driving control of a vehicle via a communication terminal from outside the vehicle;
a remote control unit that causes a moving object to move by remote control, the moving object being able to move by the remote control in a manufacturing process in a factory that manufactures the moving object, and in a conveyance process outside the factory, the conveyance process shipping the moving object after manufacturing from the factory and conveying the moving object to a destination, the moving object including a communication unit, a driving control unit, and a disabling execution unit, the communication unit having a communication function, the driving control unit executing driving control of the moving object, the disabling execution unit executing disabling processing for disabling the remote control;
and a disable request unit configured to request the ECU to perform irreversible disabling of the driving control of the vehicle via the communication terminal from outside the vehicle.
and a disabling instruction unit determining whether or not to execute the disabling processing using transit point information related to the remote control at least one transit point at which the moving object transits in the conveyance process, the disabling instruction unit instructing the disabling execution unit to execute the disabling processing when determining to execute the disabling processing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12535828 B2 (Ikeda) in view of Tamaki (US 20220219709 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite nearly identical method steps as shown in the side-by-side claim language comparison shown below.
Application 19/117,787
US Patent US 12535828 B2 (Ikeda)
Claim 12
Claim 1
A method of manufacturing a vehicle comprising:
executing driving control of the vehicle by a request via a communication terminal from outside the vehicle during inspection at a vehicle factory; and
...cause a moving object to move by remote control, the moving object being able to move by the remote control in a manufacturing process in a factory that manufactures the moving object…
executing irreversible disabling of the driving control of the vehicle by a request via the communication terminal from outside the vehicle before shipment.
...and determine which one of irreversible disabling processing for irreversibly disabling the remote control and reversible disabling processing for reversibly disabling the remote control to execute using shipping destination information related to the remote control at a shipping destination to which the moving object after manufacturing is shipped, the second processor executes the second program stored in the second storage unit to selectively execute one of: (i) the irreversible disabling processing and (ii) the reversible disabling processing.
Ikeda does not teach that the driving control is executed during inspection at a vehicle factory. Tamaki teaches this limitation in at least ¶ 0054. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ikeda to incorporate the teachings of Tamaki such that the method of Ikeda can be performed during vehicle inspection as taught by Tamaki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure vehicle functions properly before disabling the remote control command and improve efficiency of the inspection process by allowing remote control to be accessible until shipping.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 18/606,115 (Yasuyama) in view of Tamaki (US 20220219709 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite nearly identical method steps as shown in the side-by-side claim language comparison shown below.
Application 19/117,787
US Patent Application 18/606,115 (Yasuyama)
Claim 12
Claim 1
A method of manufacturing a vehicle comprising:
executing driving control of the vehicle by a request via a communication terminal from outside the vehicle during inspection at a vehicle factory; and
...a remote control unit that causes a moving object to move by remote control, the moving object being able to move by the remote control in a manufacturing process in a factory that manufactures the moving object, and in a conveyance process outside the factory, the conveyance process shipping the moving object after manufacturing from the factory and conveying the moving object to a destination,...
executing irreversible disabling of the driving control of the vehicle by a request via the communication terminal from outside the vehicle before shipment.
...a disabling execution unit that executes disabling processing for disabling the remote control; and a disabling instruction unit determining whether or not to execute the disabling processing using transit point information related to the remote control at least one transit point at which the moving object transits in the conveyance process, the disabling instruction unit instructing the disabling execution unit to execute the disabling processing when determining to execute the disabling processing.
Yasuyama does not teach that the driving control is executed during inspection at a vehicle factory. Tamaki teaches this limitation in at least ¶ 0054. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Yasuyama to incorporate the teachings of Tamaki such that the method of Yasuyama can be performed during vehicle inspection as taught by Tamaki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that the vehicle functions properly before disabling the remote control command and improve efficiency of the inspection process by allowing remote control to be accessible until shipping.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected on the ground of (provisional) nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12535828 B2 (Ikeda) or, alternatively, over claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 18/606,115 (Yasuyama) in view of Yuji.
Ikeda and Yasuyama individually teach all of claim 1 as detailed above. Ikeda and Yasuyama do not teach the limitations of claims 2 and 5-6. The same grounds of rejections including motivations detailed in the 103 rejection above can be utilized to combine Yuji with Ikeda or Yasuyama. For conciseness of record, these rejections are not repeated.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of (provisional) nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12535828 B2 (Ikeda) or, alternatively, over claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 18/606,115 (Yasuyama) in view of Yuji and Kim.
Ikeda and Yasuyama individually teach all of claim 1 as detailed above. Ikeda and Yasuyama do not teach the limitations of claim 3. The same grounds of rejections including motivations detailed in the 103 rejection above can be utilized to combine Yuji and Kim with Ikeda or Yasuyama. For conciseness of record, these rejections are not repeated.
Claims 4, 7-8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of (provisional) nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12535828 B2 (Ikeda) or, alternatively, over claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 18/606,115 (Yasuyama) in view of Tamaki.
Ikeda and Yasuyama individually, or in combination with Tamaki, teach all of claims 1 and 12 as detailed above. Ikeda and Yasuyama do not teach the limitations of claims 2, 4-8, or 15. The same grounds of rejections detailed in the 103 rejection above can be utilized to combine Tamaki with Ikeda or Yasuyama. For conciseness of record, these rejections are not repeated. Motivations for combination with the limitations of each claim are detailed below.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ikeda or Yasuyama to incorporate the teachings of Tamaki such that the method of Ikeda or Yasuyama can be performed during vehicle inspection as taught by Tamaki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that the vehicle functions properly before disabling the remote control command and improve efficiency of the inspection process by allowing remote control to be accessible until shipping.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ikeda or Yasuyama to incorporate the teachings of Tamaki such that the disabling of the control of Ikeda or Yasuyama can be caused by deleting a special control key from storage as taught by Tamaki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently disable the control of Ikeda or Yasuyama without causing damage to the vehicle’s hardware that would require additional inspection.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ikeda or Yasuyama to incorporate the teachings of Tamaki such that the disabling of control of Ikeda or Yasuyama can be performed when a vehicle has arrived at a predetermined position or the driving control has been confirmed to no longer be needed as taught by Tamaki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve manufacturing efficiency by allowing remote control to occur until it is no longer necessary.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Ikeda or Yasuyama to incorporate the further teachings of Tamaki such that the methods of Ikeda or Yasuyama can be performed using a program stored on a computer readable medium as taught by Tamaki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve repeatability of the method of Ikeda or Yasuyama.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected on the ground of (provisional) nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12535828 B2 (Ikeda) or, alternatively, over claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 18/606,115 (Yasuyama) in view of Kim (US 20210300429 A1).
Ikeda and Yasuyama individually teach all of claim 1 as detailed above. Kim teaches the following.
Application 19/117,787
Kim et al. US 20210300429 A1
Claim 10
Claim 1
The vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the irreversible disabling of the driving control of the vehicle is executed and then the vehicle performs a prescribed operation.
...start a minimum risk maneuver when the controlauthority is not transferred to the user, andtransmit a signal for disabling reactivation of theautonomous driving control... automatically flash an emergency light when the minimum risk maneuver is started...
Claim 11
Claim 1
The vehicle control system according to claim 10, wherein the prescribed operation is any one of the following:
turning on a flashing light;
...automatically flash an emergency light when the minimum risk maneuver is started...
honking a horn;
operating windshield wipers;
moving wheels to the left and right;
or making a display on a monitor installed outside the vehicle.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Yasuyama or Ikeda to incorporate the teachings of Kim such that when disabling occurs as taught by Yasuyama and Ikeda, a visual indication of the disabling of the control can be performed according to Kim. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user awareness of the disabled state and improve user confidence that the disabling has occurred.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alden et al. US 20060191730 A1 discloses disengaging cruise control and activating flashers.
Drori US 6028505 A discloses audio and visual indicators for state changes of a vehicle and an example state change of deleting remote control codes.
Yutaka et al. JP 4600795 B2 discloses uploading a diagnostic program to a vehicle which notifies an operator to perform traveling instructions wherein the program is deleted upon successful diagnosis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
