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 .
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:
“a shift switching device configured to switch a shift position according to forward traveling…”
“a faulty operation determination unit configured to determine whether the shift position is different from a shift position…”
in claim 1-5.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure for the above limitation described in the specification: (see at least Applicant Specification, para. [0030]: Such a shift switching device 2 is a shift-by-wire (SBW) that performs electrical shift switching control on a transmission device 30 when the driver 200 performs a shift switching operation via an operation unit such as a shift switch (or a shift lever). & para. [0038]: Specifically, the faulty operation determination unit 3 includes a control unit 3a and a communication unit 3b. The control unit 3a includes a CPU and a storage unit including memories such as an ROM and an RAM.).
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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0111551A1 (“Suzuki”), in view of JP 2019027553A (“Masaaki”).
As per claim 1 Suzuki discloses
A faulty start suppression system comprising (see at least Suzuki, para. [0087]: First, a drive assisting apparatus 10B according to a second embodiment will be outlined. The drive assisting apparatus 10B is provided with a drive assist function for preventing an erroneous start of a vehicle utilizing information indicating a direction of the line of sight of the driver.):
a shift switching device configured to switch a shift position according to forward traveling, backward traveling, or stop of a vehicle (see at least Suzuki, para. [0089]: On the other hand, it is possible to determine a direction (forward or backward) in which the vehicle is going to start actually on the basis of a state of the transmission installed in the vehicle or a manipulation state of the shift lever which commands a shift position.); and
a faulty operation determination unit configured to determine whether the shift position is different from a shift position intended by a driver who drives the vehicle that is estimated based on a behavior of the driver (see at least Suzuki, para. [0094-0095]: Information 42a indicating a current shift state of an automatic transmission of the vehicle and information 42b indicating a current steering angle of a steering mechanism of the vehicle are input to the start direction judging unit 42 from a vehicular sensor or an electronic control unit. The start direction judging unit 42 judges a current start direction of the vehicle on the basis of the received pieces of information (each of which corresponds to a manipulation of the driver), and outputs a signal 42c indicating it…The erroneous start judging unit 43 automatically judges whether the vehicle is making an erroneous start on the basis of the signal 41c which is output from the start judging unit 41 and indicates a start state, the signal 42c which is output from the start direction judging unit 42 and indicates a start direction, and a signal 46a which is output from the driver intension inferring unit 46 and indicates a start direction intended by the driver.), wherein
the shift switching device is configured to brake when the faulty operation determination unit determines that the shift position is different from the shift position intended by the driver.
However Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
the shift switching device is configured to switch the shift position of the shift switching device to parking when the faulty operation determination unit determines that the shift position is different from the shift position intended by the driver.
Masaaki teaches
the shift switching device is configured to switch the shift position of the shift switching device to parking when the faulty operation determination unit determines that the shift position is different from the shift position intended by the driver (see at least Masaaki, para. [0034-0038]: In S102, the target range determining unit 55 determines whether the driver request shift range is the D range or the R range…When it is determined that the driver request shift range is the D range or the R range (S102: YES), the process proceeds to S103… When it is determined that the sudden start intention is detected (S103: YES), the process proceeds to S106. When it is determined that the sudden start intention has not been detected (S103: NO), the process proceeds to S104…… In S104, the target range determination unit 55 determines whether a sudden start operation has been detected…When it is determined that a sudden start operation has been detected (S104: YES), the process proceeds to S105…In S105, the target range determination unit 55 performs a forced P range process in which the target shift range is the P range. When the target shift range is set to the P range in the forced P range processing, the motor 10 is driven and the actual range is switched to the P range, whereby the axle is locked by the parking lock mechanism 30. In addition, the range indicator lamp indicates that the actual range is the P range.. In the present embodiment, even if the driver does not intend to make a sudden departure and, for example, the accelerator pedal 79 is suddenly started due to a mistake in stepping on the accelerator pedal 79 and the brake pedal, for example, in the shift- By forcibly switching to the P range, the axle is locked by the parking lock mechanism 30. Thus, it is possible to prevent a sudden start of the vehicle, and it is possible to prevent occurrence of an accident caused by a sudden start of the vehicle without having an accident determination function or the like.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of the shift switching device is configured to switch the shift position of the shift switching device to parking when the faulty operation determination unit determines that the shift position is different from the shift position intended by the driver of Masaaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a shift-by-wire control apparatus capable of preventing a sudden start due to an erroneous operation (see at least Masaaki, para. [0004]).
As per claim 2 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
wherein the shift switching device is configured to switch the shift position of the shift switching device to parking when the shift position is different from the shift position intended by the driver and a brake is not operated by the driver.
Masaaki teaches
wherein the shift switching device is configured to switch the shift position of the shift switching device to parking when the shift position is different from the shift position intended by the driver and a brake is not operated by the driver (see at least Masaaki, para. [0034-0038]: When it is determined that a sudden start operation has been detected (S104: YES), the process proceeds to S105…In S105, the target range determination unit 55 performs a forced P range process in which the target shift range is the P range. When the target shift range is set to the P range in the forced P range processing, the motor 10 is driven and the actual range is switched to the P range, whereby the axle is locked by the parking lock mechanism 30. In addition, the range indicator lamp indicates that the actual range is the P range.. In the present embodiment, even if the driver does not intend to make a sudden departure and, for example, the accelerator pedal 79 is suddenly started due to a mistake in stepping on the accelerator pedal 79 and the brake pedal, for example, in the shift- By forcibly switching to the P range, the axle is locked by the parking lock mechanism 30. Thus, it is possible to prevent a sudden start of the vehicle, and it is possible to prevent occurrence of an accident caused by a sudden start of the vehicle without having an accident determination function or the like.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of wherein the shift switching device is configured to switch the shift position of the shift switching device to parking when the shift position is different from the shift position intended by the driver and a brake is not operated by the driver of Masaaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a shift-by-wire control apparatus capable of preventing a sudden start due to an erroneous operation (see at least Masaaki, para. [0004]).
As per claim 3 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
wherein the shift switching device is configured to switch the shift position of the shift switching device to parking based on acquisition of a shift switching signal from the faulty operation determination unit that is based on the shift position being different from the shift position intended by the driver and the brake being not operated by the driver.
Masaaki teaches
wherein the shift switching device is configured to switch the shift position of the shift switching device to parking based on acquisition of a shift switching signal from the faulty operation determination unit that is based on the shift position being different from the shift position intended by the driver and the brake being not operated by the driver (see at least Masaaki, para. [0034-0038]: In S102, the target range determining unit 55 determines whether the driver request shift range is the D range or the R range…When it is determined that the driver request shift range is the D range or the R range (S102: YES), the process proceeds to S103… When it is determined that the sudden start intention is detected (S103: YES), the process proceeds to S106. When it is determined that the sudden start intention has not been detected (S103: NO), the process proceeds to S104…… In S104, the target range determination unit 55 determines whether a sudden start operation has been detected…When it is determined that a sudden start operation has been detected (S104: YES), the process proceeds to S105…In S105, the target range determination unit 55 performs a forced P range process in which the target shift range is the P range. When the target shift range is set to the P range in the forced P range processing, the motor 10 is driven and the actual range is switched to the P range, whereby the axle is locked by the parking lock mechanism 30. In addition, the range indicator lamp indicates that the actual range is the P range…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of wherein the shift switching device is configured to switch the shift position of the shift switching device to parking based on acquisition of a shift switching signal from the faulty operation determination unit that is based on the shift position being different from the shift position intended by the driver and the brake being not operated by the driver of Masaaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a shift-by-wire control apparatus capable of preventing a sudden start due to an erroneous operation (see at least Masaaki, para. [0004]).
As per claim 4 Suzuki discloses
wherein the faulty operation determination unit is configured to notify that the shift position is different from the shift position intended by the driver when the shift position is different from the shift position intended by the driver (see at least Suzuki, para. [0100]: The warning output control unit 47 outputs a prescribed warning in response to the signal 43a indicating a warning instruction that is output from the erroneous start judging unit 43. More specifically, the warning output control unit 47 outputs a warning sound or announces a simulated voice message such as "The vehicle is in danger of an erroneous start.").
As per claim 5 Suzuki discloses
wherein the faulty operation determination unit is configured to estimate a shift position intended by the driver based on a behavior of the driver in the vehicle that is based on an image captured by an in-vehicle camera configured to capture an image of the driver in the vehicle (see at least Suzuki, para. [0096]: The driver state monitoring unit 44 receives a video signal that is output from the driver camera 51, and monitors the state of the driver on the basis of the received video signal. The driver camera 51 is a device for shooting the face of the driver who is sitting in the driver seat of the vehicle. Thus, the driver camera 51 is installed on, for example, a portion, in front of the driver seat, of the dashboard in such a manner that its shooting direction is directed to the face of the driver. The driver state monitoring unit 44 detects a direction of the line of sight, a blink, etc. of the driver on the basis of video containing the face of the driver and other things, and outputs a signal 44a indicating a line-of-sight direction.).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of Masaaki, in view of US 2009/0273687A1 (“Tsukizawa”).
As per claim 6 Suzuki discloses
wherein the behavior of the driver includes an eye line position (see at least Suzuki, para. [0130]: Step S14: The action judging unit 66 monitors face direction information that is output from the image processing unit 65 until a left turn of the self-vehicle is started actually, and judges whether the driver has done safety confirmation for a left-turn dead angle region (i.e., a neighborhood on the front-left of (and below) the vehicle body). For example, if the face direction is inclined by about 90° (i.e., the driver is looking leftward), the action judging unit 66 judges that the driver is checking an obstacle or the like located on the left of the vehicle and the process is finished. If the face direction is inclined by less than 90°, the action judging unit 66 judges that the safety confirmation for the dead angle region is insufficient and the process moves to step S15. & para. [0154]: that the pattern storage unit (behavior database 61) is stored with, as the driver line-of-sight direction patterns, data indicating line-of-sight direction variation patterns corresponding to a rightward running direction change and a leftward running direction change, respectively.).
However Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
an eye line angle of the driver.
Tsukizawa teaches
wherein the behavior of the driver includes an eye line position and an eye line angle of the driver (see at least Tsukizawa, para. [0215]: Mirror position database 609 stores beforehand information relating to the positions of mirrors whereby a driver checks the situation outside a vehicle, such as a door mirror and rear-view mirror, (hereinafter referred to simply as "mirrors"), and the reflecting range (range of coverage) of each mirror as seen from the driver's position. External sensor section 610 detects the presence and position of a pedestrian or the like within a predetermined range outside the vehicle, and outputs a detection result. Warning determination section 608 has as input an external sensor section 610 detection result, driver's head direction information and eye direction information output from direction detection section 102, and an attention state determination result output from attention state determination section 105. Then warning determination section 608 determines whether or not the driver is paying attention to a mirror to which attention should be paid based on input information and information stored in mirror position database 609, and in the event of determining that the driver is not paying attention, directs warning section 611 to warn the driver. para. [0221]: If attention state determination section 105 makes an "attention" or "glance" determination, warning determination section 608 calculates the driver's line of sight direction from head direction information and eye direction information obtained from direction detection section 102. Specifically, for example, warning determination section 608 assumes that the body position and direction are fixed, adds together the head displacement angle relative to the front and the eyeball displacement angle relative to the front of the face, and finds the line of sight direction from the addition result and the driver's seat position.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of wherein the behavior of the driver includes an eye line position and an eye line angle of the driver of Tsukizawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for making possible more stable attention level determination than in the case of a method that uses only a single body region (see at least Tsukizawa, para. [0013]).
As per claim 7 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
wherein a target of the eye line position and the eye line angle of the driver is a rearview mirror.
Tsukizawa teaches
wherein a target of the eye line position and the eye line angle of the driver is a rearview mirror (see at least Tsukizawa, para. [0215]: Mirror position database 609 stores beforehand information relating to the positions of mirrors whereby a driver checks the situation outside a vehicle, such as a door mirror and rear-view mirror, (hereinafter referred to simply as "mirrors"), and the reflecting range (range of coverage) of each mirror as seen from the driver's position. External sensor section 610 detects the presence and position of a pedestrian or the like within a predetermined range outside the vehicle, and outputs a detection result. Warning determination section 608 has as input an external sensor section 610 detection result, driver's head direction information and eye direction information output from direction detection section 102, and an attention state determination result output from attention state determination section 105. Then warning determination section 608 determines whether or not the driver is paying attention to a mirror to which attention should be paid based on input information and information stored in mirror position database 609, and in the event of determining that the driver is not paying attention, directs warning section 611 to warn the driver. para. [0221]: If attention state determination section 105 makes an "attention" or "glance" determination, warning determination section 608 calculates the driver's line of sight direction from head direction information and eye direction information obtained from direction detection section 102. Specifically, for example, warning determination section 608 assumes that the body position and direction are fixed, adds together the head displacement angle relative to the front and the eyeball displacement angle relative to the front of the face, and finds the line of sight direction from the addition result and the driver's seat position.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of wherein a target of the eye line position and the eye line angle of the driver is a rearview mirror of Tsukizawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for making possible more stable attention level determination than in the case of a method that uses only a single body region (see at least Tsukizawa, para. [0013]).
As per claim 8 Suzuki discloses
wherein a target of the eye line position is a front direction (see at least Suzuki, para. [0121]: The camera 64 is a device for shooting the face of the driver who is sitting in the driver seat of the vehicle. Thus, the camera 64 is installed on, for example, a portion, in front of the driver seat, of the dashboard in such a manner that its shooting direction is directed to the face of the driver. The image processing unit 65 detects a direction of the face of the driver by analyzing an output of the camera 64, that is, video containing the face of the driver and other things, and calculates a direction of the face of the driver. A direction of the line of sight of the driver may be detected instead of a direction of the face.).
However Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
eye line angle of the driver is a front direction.
Tsukizawa teaches
wherein a target of the eye line position and the eye line angle of the driver is a front direction (see at least Tsukizawa, para. [0215]: Mirror position database 609 stores beforehand information relating to the positions of mirrors whereby a driver checks the situation outside a vehicle, such as a door mirror and rear-view mirror, (hereinafter referred to simply as "mirrors"), and the reflecting range (range of coverage) of each mirror as seen from the driver's position. External sensor section 610 detects the presence and position of a pedestrian or the like within a predetermined range outside the vehicle, and outputs a detection result. Warning determination section 608 has as input an external sensor section 610 detection result, driver's head direction information and eye direction information output from direction detection section 102, and an attention state determination result output from attention state determination section 105. Then warning determination section 608 determines whether or not the driver is paying attention to a mirror to which attention should be paid based on input information and information stored in mirror position database 609, and in the event of determining that the driver is not paying attention, directs warning section 611 to warn the driver. para. [0221]: If attention state determination section 105 makes an "attention" or "glance" determination, warning determination section 608 calculates the driver's line of sight direction from head direction information and eye direction information obtained from direction detection section 102. Specifically, for example, warning determination section 608 assumes that the body position and direction are fixed, adds together the head displacement angle relative to the front and the eyeball displacement angle relative to the front of the face, and finds the line of sight direction from the addition result and the driver's seat position.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of wherein a target of the eye line position and the eye line angle of the driver is a front direction of Tsukizawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for making possible more stable attention level determination than in the case of a method that uses only a single body region (see at least Tsukizawa, para. [0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
