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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/22/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 9/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. The previous rejections under 35 USC 112 for antecedent basis (claims 1-3) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, in regards to the interpretation of claims under 35 USC 112(f), the structures are known hardware structures to persons of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A web search of the term “data decoder” provides a list of software tools. The remaining elements interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) do not have Mirriam-Webster dictionary definitions that provide meaningful structure to the terms. The Examiner points out that the term “remote driving ECU” is a known term of art. The claims merely state that the data decoder performs the act of decoding and that the network delay predictor performs the act of calculating, etc. None of these action verbs are sufficient to provide structure to the action. Applicant argues that “the identified claim limitations, considered in the context of the claims and the Specification, recite sufficiently definite structure”. The Examiner points out that interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) does require context of the claims and specification. However, the determination to apply interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) falls on the claims having sufficient structure.
Applicant argues that “requires the network delay predictor that calculates the network delay time to be a component of the recited remote driving server device” and that “Altman places the cited Communications Properties Estimator 141 in the vehicle, rather than in the remote server”. The Examiner points out that claim 1 does not require the driving server device to be remotely placed from the vehicle and is in fact silent on the placement of the device being in either the vehicle or a remote server. Thus, Altman continues to teach the limitations of the claim, as written.
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:
Claim 1: data decoder, network delay predictor
Claim 2: transmission unit
Claim 3: delay time calculation unit, delay information transmission unit
Claim 4: control information reception unit
Claim 5: operating state determination unit
The aforementioned limitations do not have sufficient structural description. For purposes of examination these elements will be interpreted as being hardware/processors or software implemented on processors.
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 § 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 1-6 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 limitations: data decoder, network delay predictor, transmission unit, delay time calculation unit, delay information transmission unit, control information reception unit, operating state determination unit are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function(s). In particular the specification states these elements perform actions (as claimed) but provide no structure.
As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art the limitations can be performed upon either a separate processor/CPU or by software (instructions/programming block) on a processor. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function(s).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function(s). The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20210116907A1 (“Altman”).
Claim 1:
A remote driving server device for controlling a vehicle capable of remote driving, comprising: a data decoder configured to decode remote environment data received from a remote driving target vehicle device; a network delay predictor configured to calculate a network delay time for a network path between the remote driving target vehicle device and the remote driving server device and to transmit information on the network delay time to the remote driving target vehicle device; and a remote driving driver's seat configured to generate a remote driving control instruction for the vehicle.. (Altman at least the abstract, [0037], [0035], FIG. 1, FIG. 3)
Claim 2:
a remote driving ECU configured to receive a remote driving instruction from the remote driving driver's seat and to generate remote driving control information based on the remote driving instruction; and a transmission unit configured to transmit the remote driving control information to the remote driving target vehicle device. (Altman at least [0111])
Claim 3:
wherein the network delay predictor comprises: a delay time calculation unit configured to receive a probe packet for network status analysis from the remote driving target vehicle device and to calculate a delay time for the network path between the remote driving server device and the vehicle; and a delay information transmission unit configured to generate network delay information based on the calculated delay time and to transmit the network delay information to the vehicle. (Altman at least [0035-0036])
Claim 4:
the network delay predictor further comprises: a control information reception unit configured to receive control information for remote driving; and a storage configured to store the calculated delay time and the control information. (Altman at least FIG. 1, [0036], [0010], [0127], [0189], [0190])
Claim 5:
an operating state determination unit configured to determine an operating state of the vehicle depending on information on the vehicle, wherein the operating state determination unit is configured to set any one of a remote driving OFF state and a remote driving ON state. (Altman at least [0016], FIG. 1)
Claim 6:
based on the operating state determination unit setting the operating state of the vehicle to the remote driving ON state, the operating state of the vehicle is additionally set to any one of: a monitoring state in which monitoring information on surroundings of the vehicle is collected without involvement in driving of the vehicle; an assisted driving state in which driving assistance information for the vehicle is provided based on the monitoring information; and a remote driving state in which a remote driver in a remote driving control center in which the remote driving server device is provided provides a driving control signal to the vehicle. (Altman at least [0016], FIG. 1, FIG. 3, [0120-0124], [0020], [0059])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
