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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: operation device in claims 1 and 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 ([0023] “steering wheel, an operation mechanism related to a driving operation such as an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a turn signal lever, and a push-button switch, and an input device such as a keyboard, a touch panel, or a switch. The operation device 20 may form a part of at least one of a human machine interface (HMI) and an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI).”).
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200398866A1 (“Hara”).
As per claims 1 and 11, Hara teaches the limitations of the method and device:
A vehicle control method executed by a vehicle control device mounted on a vehicle including an operation device that receives an operation of an occupant, a sensor device that acquires a situation outside, a display device that is visually recognizable by the occupant, and a movement control device that controls at least acceleration and deceleration and steering (Hara at least the abstract, [0037], [0045]), the vehicle control method comprising:
causing the vehicle to perform autonomous travel by controlling at least the acceleration and deceleration and the steering based on the situation outside acquired by the sensor device; decelerating the vehicle at a predetermined deceleration and stopping the vehicle, deactivating the autonomous travel, and displaying on the display device that the autonomous travel has been interrupted, when determining that the situation outside acquired by the sensor device satisfies a first condition during the autonomous travel; and displaying on the display device that the autonomous travel will be resumed when Hara at least FIG. 1, FIG. 4, FIGs 8A-8C, [0078], [0081]).
Hara does not explicitly disclose: displaying on the display device that the autonomous travel will be resumed when a brake operation is released after the brake operation when determining that the situation outside acquired by the sensor device satisfies a second condition after deactivating the autonomous travel. However Hara does have an embodiment that allows for automatic travel to be resumed after the driver releases the brake (Hara [0081]) and another embodiment where text boxes pop up and prompt the user on a cancellation selection screen (Hara FIG. 7-8) while the vehicle waits for a prescribed operation (Hara FIG. 4, ST17). One of the possible prescribed operations is the release of the brake (Hara [0081]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cancelation selection screen and brake release prescribed operation taught by Hara to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of the Hara reference to provide the driver with additional controls that don’t require hands to leave the steering wheel for safety.
As per claims 2 and 12, Hara teaches the invention as described above. Hara additionally teaches:
wherein the first condition is that an obstacle has been detected in a traveling direction of the vehicle, and the second condition is that the obstacle detected in the traveling direction of the vehicle has been no longer detected. (Hara at least FIGs. 8A-8C)
As per claims 3 and 13, Hara teaches the invention as described above. Hara additionally teaches:
wherein the obstacle is a person. (Hara at least [0076])
As per claims 4 and 14, Hara teaches the invention as described above. Hara additionally teaches:
wherein in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle a first distance away in the traveling direction of the vehicle during the autonomous travel, the vehicle is decelerated at a first deceleration and stopped, the autonomous travel is deactivated, and it is displayed on the display device that the autonomous travel has been interrupted, and in a case where the sensor device no longer detects the obstacle after deactivating the autonomous travel, it is displayed on the display device that the autonomous travel will be resumed when the brake operation is released after the brake operation, and the autonomous travel is resumed in a case where the operation device receives the first operation. (Hara at least FIG. 4 ST15-ST16, [0081])
As per claims 5 and 15, Hara teaches the invention as described above. Hara additionally teaches:
wherein the vehicle is decelerated at a second deceleration greater than the first deceleration and stopped in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle a second distance away in the traveling direction of the vehicle during the autonomous travel, the second distance being shorter than the first distance. (Hara at least FIG. 5, [0005])
As per claims 6 and 16, Hara teaches the invention as described above. Hara additionally teaches:
wherein in a case where it is determined that the situation outside acquired by the sensor device satisfies the second condition after deactivating the autonomous travel, it is displayed on the display device that the autonomous travel is available, it is displayed on the display device that the autonomous travel will be resumed when the brake operation is released after the brake operation, and the autonomous travel is resumed in a case where the operation device receives the first operation. (Hara at least FIGs. 8A-8C, FIG. 7)
As per claims 7 and 17, Hara teaches the invention as described above. Hara additionally teaches:
wherein in a case where it is determined that the situation outside acquired by the sensor device satisfies the first condition during the autonomous travel, it is displayed on the display device that at least one of deceleration and stop is possible by the brake operation, the autonomous travel is deactivated in a case where the operation device receives a second operation that is the brake operation, and it is displayed on the display device that the autonomous travel has been interrupted, and in a case where it is determined that the vehicle stops by the second operation and the situation outside acquired by the sensor device satisfies the second condition after the autonomous travel is deactivated, it is displayed on the display device that the autonomous travel will be resumed when the brake operation is released, and the autonomous travel is resumed in a case where the operation device receives a third operation of releasing the brake operation. (Hara at least FIGs. 8A-8C, FIG. 7)
As per claims 8 and 18, Hara teaches the invention as described above. Hara additionally teaches:
wherein the sensor device includes at least one of a camera, a sonar, a radar, and a LiDAR. (Hara at least [0037])
As per claims 9 and 19, Hara teaches the invention as described above. Hara additionally teaches:
wherein the autonomous travel is traveling along a parking path from a predetermined position to a target parking position. (Hara at least the abstract, FIG. 5)
As per claims 10 and 20, Hara teaches the invention as described above. Hara additionally teaches:
wherein the parking path is a path recorded in advance from the predetermined position to the target parking position. (Hara at least [0074], FIG. 5) *Examiner’s note: the preset path is a “backing in” or “reversed” parking maneuver where the vehicle reverses into a parking spot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following art teach aspects of the invention: US20160016560A1 (“Parker”), US20240217509A1 (“Zhao”), US20220379878A1 (“Ishinoda”), US20200130698A1 (“Miyahara”), US20160272244A1 (“Imai”).
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
Prosecution Insights