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. In the Instant Application, the term being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are “display control device” in Claims 1, 2, and “operation device” in Claims 1, 3, 4.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. If the Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them from 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them from 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, 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
These claims disclose “an autonomous driving mode without a steering operation or an accelerator operation.” The Examiner could not ascertain whether this limitation refers to an autonomous driving mode that lacks steering and acceleration control features, or a mode in which autonomous steering and acceleration control have not been deactivated and manually assumed by the driver. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation via the latter interpretation.
These claims should be amended to resolve these antecedent basis issues, consistent with the Specification.
Double Patenting Rejections
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected as being unpatentable over Takabatake (U.S. Patent 12,246,811 B2).
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the Instant Application states: a vehicle that travels in an autonomous driving mode without a steering operation or an accelerator operation,
Wherein, when a driving operation intervention by a vehicle occupant is detected during travel in the autonomous driving mode, a driving assistance function associated with an operation device at which the operation is detected is stopped, and other driving assistance functions are continuously operated,
The vehicle comprising: a display control device that displays vicinity information of the vehicle and a planned travel route at a display unit provided in a vehicle cabin,
Wherein the display control device, in a case in which a steering operation is detected during traveling in the autonomous driving mode, hides display of the planned travel route while maintaining support for accelerator operation.
Claim 1 of the reference teaches a vehicle display control device comprising a processor configured to:
In a case in which the acquired driving mode is the autonomous driving mode, detect a driving operation intervention by the vehicle occupant;
In a case in which the driving operation intervention is detected, stop a driving assistance function related to an operating device by which the driving operation intervention was detected; and
In the case in which the driving operation intervention is detected, display a warning image related to the operating device on a display provided inside a vehicle cabin of the vehicle.
Claim 3 of the reference teaches wherein the processor is configured to display a planned running route of the vehicle at the display and, in a case in which the steering operation is detected, hide display of the planned running route.
Claim 8 teaches wherein the processor is configured to display vicinity information of the vehicle on the display.
Claim 1 of the Instant Application and Claims 1, 3, 8 of the reference are directed to an autonomous vehicle system that contains a display in the vehicle cabin that depicts the vehicle’s vicinity information as well as the vehicle’s route, and includes autonomous functions such as a steering function, wherein when a driving intervention by a vehicle occupant is detected, the autonomous function corresponding to that intervention is stopped, and wherein the vehicle’s route on the display is hidden when the occupant intervention is a steering intervention.
The only limitation in Claim 1 of the Instant Application that isn’t taught by the reference’s claims is that when one autonomous function is stopped via an intervention by an occupant, other autonomous functions continue to operate as normal, such as an autonomous accelerator function after a steering intervention. However, the Examiner believes this limitation is not sufficient to render Claim 1 of the Instant Application as patentably distinct from Claims 1, 3, 8 of the reference.
Claim 2 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 2 of the Instant Application states: wherein the display control device, in a case in which the steering operation is detected during travel in the autonomous driving mode, displays information indicating that a driving operation intervention is being performed at the display unit.
Claim 3 of the reference teaches wherein the processor is configured to display a planned running route of the vehicle at the display and, in a case in which the steering operation is detected, hide display of the planned running route.
Claim 2 of the Instant Application and Claim 3 of the reference are directed to an autonomous vehicle system that indicates to a vehicle occupant, via a display, that a steering intervention is being performed. The Examiner is interpreting hiding a display of the planned running route in a case in which a steering operation is detected as substantially similar to displaying information indicating that a driving operation intervention is being performed.
Claim 3 of the Instant Application is substantially similar to Claim 1 of the Instant Application. The only difference is that Claim 3 discloses “a vehicle control method executed by a computer.” Claim 9 of the reference teaches “a vehicle display control method comprising a processor.” Claim 10 of the reference teaches “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to execute processing.”
Claim 4 of the Instant Application is substantially similar to Claim 1 of the Instant Application. The only difference is that Claim 4 discloses “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to execute processing.” Claim 10 of the reference teaches “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to execute processing.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are rejected under a double patenting rationale, but would be allowable if those rejections were overcome.
Reed (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0069967 A1) teaches a vehicle auto-guidance system, wherein automatic steering is disabled in response to a manual steering input (see Paragraph 9).
Sun (U.S. Patent 9,308,914 B1) teaches an advanced vehicle driver assistance system wherein acceleration, braking, and steering controls can be independently activated and deactivated via manual driver inputs (see Column 3 lines 28-33, Column 4 lines 4-7, Column 5 lines 51-57).
However, these references, and all other references included in the rejections above fail to teach the limitations of Claims 1, 3, 4, wherein in a case in which a steering operation is detected during traveling in the autonomous driving mode, the display control device hides the display of the planned travel route while maintaining support for accelerator operation.
As a result of the features recited in Claims 1, 3, 4, the invention produces the advantageous effects of forcing a driver’s attention away from a display and back to the real environment in front of the vehicle when transitioning from an autonomous steering mode to a manual steering mode. This could increase safety for the vehicle and its passengers, as well as other vehicles and/or passengers in the vehicle’s vicinity.
Claim 2 is a dependent claim of Claim 1, and would be allowable by extension if Claim 1 were to be put in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
