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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 6/10/2025.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (a DE application with JP priority date back to 6/17/2024).
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Applicant filed an IDS on 6/10/2025; this submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim interpretations
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.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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.
7. 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...”, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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: “...circuitry configured to :.” (see pending claim 1, lines 1-2).
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.
11. 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.
12. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
13. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al US Pub. 20240140455A1 – hereafter Suzuki’455) in view of Ueno (US 2026/0125083 A1).
A. Per claim 1: Suzuki’455 teaches a control device for a vehicle, comprising a processing circuitry to:
- receive a motion request from a driver-assistance system wherein the vehicle includes the driver-assistance system (e.g., using Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, see Suzuki’455 claim 3)
- select a received motion request as an arbitration signal/result (e.g., arbitration unit 5 can distribute a control amount of the vehicle included in the request information selected through arbitration, see Suzuki’455 para [0155]-[0156])
- output, based on the arbitration result, an instruction signal that is used to control an
actuator of the vehicle (e.g., “The powertrain controller 10 acquires information relating to operation states of the actuators 13a, 13b based on signals output from the actuators 13a, 13b or measurement values of sensors” and see Suzuki’455 para [0031]-[0032]); and
- vary the command/instruction signal over a predetermined period of time (e.g., adjust steering/changing speeds or modifying an output, see Suzuki’455 para [0051], [0160]) when the instruction signal switches as the motion request switches (see Suzuki’455 para [0127] and [0156]).
Since Suzuki’455 suggests similar operating functions as applicant’s claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Suzuki’455 to improve communications between components within an operating vehicle for more effective outcomes.
B. Per independent claims 5-6: These claims are implemented from steps (in limitations of independent claim 1), with similar limitations in the bodies of claim 1 together with generic features of a nonvolatile computer-readable storage medium, and a method to performing claim 1; therefore, similar rationales, and references are applied for obvious rejections.
C. Per dependent claim 2: The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Suzuki’455 also suggests a processing circuitry to:
acquire a change rate of the motion command/request (see Suzuki’455 para [0075]); and
vary the instruction signal by varying the motion request based on the change rate when the motion request is switched (e.g., “The requested yaw rate is a change rate of a yaw angle needed to achieve the lateral movement of the vehicle calculated by the application.” see Suzuki’455 para [0075]).
D. Per dependent claim 3: The references and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Suzuki’455 also suggests a processing circuitry of a control device for the vehicle wherein the motion request is an acceleration of the vehicle (see Suzuki’455 para [0034], claim 16), and
the instruction signal includes an instruction value of at least one of a driving force of the vehicle and a braking force of the vehicle (see Suzuki’455 para [0034]).
E. Per dependent claim 4. The reference and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Suzuki’455 also suggests a control device for the vehicle, wherein the motion request is a target curvature in a target path of the vehicle (see Suzuki’455 para [0126], [0129]), and the instruction signal includes an instruction value for a steering angle of the vehicle (see Suzuki’455 para [0024]).
Conclusion
14. Pending claims 1-6 are rejected.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights