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 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 1-20 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.
The terms “general and intelligent” in claims 1, 14, and 20 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “general and intelligent” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to claims 3 and 16, the applicant claims “wherein the driving control instruction is implemented by a number of toggles, a number of presses, a curve of a slide, a length of a slide, or an angle of rotation”. It is not clear to the examiner what these limitations are referring to. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “wherein the driving control instruction is implemented by a number of toggles, a number of presses, a curve of a slide, a length of a slide, or an angle of rotation of the operating member”.
Claims 2-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 14, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) detecting an action of an operating member, generating an driving control instruction, and controlling a driving object to execute or exit a target driving mode according to the driving control instruction.
The limitations of detecting an action of an operating member, generating an driving control instruction, and controlling a driving object to execute or exit a target driving mode according to the driving control instruction, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (claims 14-20). That is other than reciting a controller, a memory and a processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “controller, memory and processor” language, detecting, generating, and controlling in the context of the claim encompasses the user mentally observing a state, decide what action to take and manually setting a mode. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite “a controller, a memory and a processor”. Said elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a controller, a memory and a processor” to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 discloses an additional element describing the operating member, however, the operating member is recited as an object being acted upon and not part of the detection process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 4-13 and 17-19 recite additional steps that fall under the mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-11, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng CN 115123109 A (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Zheng).
In re claims 1, 14, 19, and 20 Zheng discloses a vehicle control method and a vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
detecting an action of an operating member; in response to the action of the operating member, generating a driving control instruction; and controlling a driving object to execute or exit a target driving mode according to the driving control instruction, wherein the target driving mode comprises a general driving mode and an intelligent driving mode (lines 42-46 “Receive the first mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the regular driving mode to the intelligent driving mode” and lines 162-167 “Receive the first mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the conventional driving mode to the intelligent driving mode”)
In re claims 2 and 15, Zheng teaches the following:
wherein the action of the operating member comprises at least one of toggling, pressing, sliding, or rotating the operating member (line 166 “switch button”, and lines 169-171 “the preset switch button 12 is mainly used to control one-key switching between the normal driving mode and the intelligent driving mode, that is, in the normal driving mode When the preset switch button 12 is triggered (for example, triggered by pressing, touching, sliding, scrolling, etc.)”)
In re claims 3 and 16, Zheng teaches the following:
wherein the driving control instruction is implemented by a number of toggles, a number of presses, a curve of a slide, a length of a slide, or an angle of rotation (line 166 “switch button”)
In re claims 4 and 17, Zheng teaches the following:
wherein the driving control instruction comprises at least one of an entry instruction, a mode switching instruction, or an exit instruction (lines 162-167 “Receive the first mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the conventional driving mode to the intelligent driving mode”)
In re claim 7, Zheng teaches the following:
in response to that the driving control instruction is an entry instruction to enter the target driving mode, controlling the driving object to activate the target driving mode (lines 162-163 “control the vehicle to switch from the conventional driving mode to the intelligent driving mode,”);
in response to that the driving control instruction is a mode switching instruction to switch to the target driving mode, controlling the driving object to exit the intelligent driving mode before controlling the driving object to activate the target driving mode (lines 202-204 “Receive the second mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the intelligent driving mode to the normal driving mode”);
and in response to that the driving control instruction is an exit instruction to exit the target driving mode, controlling the driving object to exit the target driving mode (lines 202-204 “Receive the second mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the intelligent driving mode to the normal driving mode”)
In re claim 10, Zheng teaches the following:
switching an indication mode based on an indication mode corresponding to the driving control instruction or an indication mode corresponding to an indicator light at the target driving mode, and different indication modes indicate different pieces of driving information (Fig.4 and lines 137-142)
In re claim 11, Zheng teaches the following:
wherein the indication mode comprise at least one of a color, an identification, a flashing frequency, a brightness, or a progress bar (Fig.4 and lines 137-142)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maronde WO 2017/102226 A1 discloses an operating device for specifying, by the driver, the degree of assistance for the driver provided by vehicle driver assistance.
US 2020/0023830 A1 discloses a driving system is operatable at least in a first automated driving mode with automated longitudinal and/or lateral control, and in a different second automated driving mode with automated longitudinal and/or lateral control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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 M 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights