CTNF 19/138,103 CTNF 84059 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 6/12/25, wherein: Claims 1-14 are currently pending. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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 notification unit” (in claim 10); “a communication unit” (in claim 11). 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 § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-6, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by SUZUKI ET AL (JP 2019-119232) from Applicant’s IDS filed on 6/12/25 . Herein after SUZUKI . As for claim 1 , SUZUKI discloses a control device for a moving object, the control device comprising: a movement controller configured to execute movement control of the moving object {see at least figure 1, car controller 70, par. 0010}; and a notification controller configured to provide a first notification from the moving object and a second notification from the moving object in a manner different from the first notification {see at least figure 1, item 10, pars. 0014-0015, 0018-0019, 0052-0053}, wherein the notification controller provides the first notification when an instruction for the movement control is received {see at least figures 4C, 6A, pars.0052}, and the notification controller provides the second notification after providing the first notification, and then executes the movement control {see at least pars. 0053, 0056, 0067}. As for claim 2 , SUZUKI discloses wherein the notification controller provides the first notification in a case where the movement control based on the instruction becomes executable, and provides the second notification at least either at a start of the movement control or during the execution of the movement control {see at least par. 0067}. As for claim 3 , SUZUKI discloses wherein the case where the movement control based on the instruction becomes executable is a case where a user who provides the instruction is determined and the moving object is started {see at least par. 0048}. As for claim 4 , SUZUKI discloses wherein the second notification has a notification intensity higher than that of the first notification {see at least pars. 0047-0048}. As for claim 5 , SUZUKI discloses wherein the first notification is a notification implemented by turning on a first lighting device of the moving object, and the second notification is a notification implemented by turning on the first lighting device and a second lighting device of the moving object different from the first lighting device {see at least pars. 0047-0048, 0052, 0056, 0065}. As for claim 6 , SUZUKI discloses wherein the first notification is a notification implemented by turning on a lighting device of the moving object, and the second notification is a notification implemented by turning on the lighting device and a different type of method from turning on the lighting device {see at least pars. 0047-0048, 0052, 0056, 0065}. As for claim 11 , SUZUKI discloses communication unit configured to communicate with an information terminal portable by a user of the moving object, wherein the notification controller provides the first notification when an instruction for the movement control is received through communication with the information terminal, and provides the second notification after providing the first notification, and then performs the movement control {see at least figure 1, items 5, 21 and pars. 0010-012, 0014, 0047-0048, 0052-0053}. As for claim 12 , SUZUKI discloses wherein the notification controller provides the first notification when driver determination for the movement control is made, and provides the second notification when a movement direction for the movement control is determined, and then performs the movement control {see at least pars. 0016, 0019, 0027}. As for claims 13-14 , the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejected above. They are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above . 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7-10 are 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. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kanada et al (US 2024/0116495): A parking assistance system includes a remote control device that transmits a signal for remotely controlling the own vehicle from outside the vehicle in response to an operation by the user, a surrounding sensor that acquires surrounding information that is information about a target object. Nojiri et al (US 2024/0042927): By a vehicle notification control device or a vehicle notification control method, an automated driving-related state is identified, and a vehicle exterior display is controlled. The vehicle exterior display performs, by display, vehicle exterior notification that is notification of information related to the automated driving toward an outside of a vehicle. Fujii et al (US 2021/0078484): A vehicle illumination system provided in a vehicle capable of traveling around a corner by inclining a vehicle body toward a turning direction includes: a headlamp mounted on a front portion of the vehicle. Lavoie et al (US 2019/0308615): Method and apparatus are disclosed for vehicle remote park-assist communication counters. An example vehicle includes an autonomy unit for remote parking, a communication module, and a controller. Okubo (US 2024/0198896): An automotive lighting fixtures that can create the desired illumination pattern of light distribution while suppressing enlargement is provided. Banerjee et al (US 12,240,482): providing, by the vehicle, a first visual alert including light output of a first color to notify an operator of the moving object that an occupant of the vehicle is attempting to open the first door of the vehicle; providing, by the vehicle, a second visual alert external to the vehicle, the second visual alert including light output of a second color different from the first color (claim 1) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET. 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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/138,103 Page 2 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/138,103 Page 3 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/138,103 Page 4 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/138,103 Page 5 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/138,103 Page 6 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/138,103 Page 7 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/138,103 Page 8 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/138,103 Page 9 Art Unit: 3656
Prosecution Insights