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.
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: “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit” used throughout claims 1-7.
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.
The specification fails to clearly describe the corresponding structure of these limitations. See corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b), below.
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 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 and 8-12 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. Claims 1-13 recite the limitations “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit,” which have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above. However, since the specification fails to clearly describe the corresponding structures of these limitations as required under the statute, Applicant has failed to demonstrate full possession of the metes and bounds of the invention as claimed.
In addition, the claims recite the limitation “vehicle integral thermal management system.” However, the specification fails to describe the corresponding structure of this limitation, or how the thermal management is performed. As such, Applicant has failed to demonstrate full possession of this limitation in the claims.
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 and 8-12 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.
Claim limitations “hardware control means,” “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In addition:
At claim 2, lines 3-4, the claim recites “analysis unit 110 configured to receive, from a previously connected big data server….” It is unclear how the analysis unit can receive data from the data server if the data server was only previously connected, but is no longer connected.
The term “big data server” in claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “big” is not defined by the claims, 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.
Claims 2 and 3 recite “a DB server.” The abbreviation “DB” has not been clearly defined in the claims. The limitation should more properly read “a database server.”
Claims 3, 5, 8, and 10 each recite “each predetermined cycle.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear what Applicant is referring to.
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 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s) control units configured to “create a target setting value…,” “create a target control value…,” and “determine whether the target control value… is included in a safety control range….” These judicial exceptions constitute abstract ideas that are not integrated into a practical application because the “inputted environmental condition information” and “output control variable” are insignificant pre-solution activity and post solution activity, respectively. Note further that the uncertainty regarding the limitation “vehicle integrated management system” fails to clearly integrate the claim into a particular practical application (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b), above). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it fails to recite anything further than the judicial exception, insignificant pre-solution activity, and insignificant post solution activity. The fact that these activities are performed by control units does not render the claims statutory (See MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Claims 2-6 are simply directed to further abstract calculations, and are thus non-statutory for the same reasons.
Applicant first argues that claim 1 as amended meets Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test. However, this is unclear. Since the metes and bounds of all of the limitations “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit” are indefinite as already discussed, it is unclear whether all of these “units” are simply computer software. As simply a system comprised of multiple “units” of software, the claim does not meet the requirement of being a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Applicant also argues that claim 1 meets Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test. However, this is also unclear. Since the metes and bounds of all of the limitations “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit” are indefinite as already discussed, it is unclear whether all of these “units” are simply computer software. As simply a system comprised of multiple “units” of software. As such, these are all simply directed to abstract calculations which satisfies Step 2A. Further, since the results of the abstract calculations are not practically applied, the claim fails to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception, and thus fail to meet the requirements of Step 2B. As such the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 recites a method comprising “creating… a target setting value…,” “creating’… a target control value…,” and “determining… whether the target control value… is included in a safety control range….” These judicial exceptions constitute abstract ideas that are not integrated into a practical application because the receiving step and output value setting step are insignificant pre-solution activity and post solution activity, respectively. Note further that the uncertainty regarding the limitation “vehicle integrated management system” fails to clearly integrate the claim into a particular practical application (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b), above). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it fails to recite anything further than the judicial exception, insignificant pre-solution activity, and insignificant post solution activity. The fact that these activities are performed by control units does not render the claims statutory (See MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Claims 9-12 are simply directed to further abstract calculations, and are thus non-statutory for the same reasons.
Independent claim 8 is thus also non-statutory for similar reasons in that it fails to meet Steps 2A and 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Reference numerals have been properly placed within parentheses. The Objections are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “hardware control means” has been removed from the claims. Accordingly, any related claim interpretation is withdrawn.
Applicant has failed to acknowledge or address the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit.” Such interpretation is maintained.
Written Description Rejection
Applicant argues that “vehicle integrated management system” meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However this limitation was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and thus Applicant’s arguments are considered moot. The limitation was rather rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), which is discussed below.
Applicant has failed to address the written description rejections pertaining to the limitations “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit.” As set forth in the rejection, since these are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), a clear description of the corresponding structure of these limitations is required. These rejections have been maintained.
Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner accepts Applicant’s arguments regarding “vehicle thermal management system.” Those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has failed to acknowledge or address the rejections related to “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit.” As set forth in the rejection, since these are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), a clear description of the metes and bounds of the corresponding structure of these limitations is required. These rejections have been maintained.
Applicant has also failed to acknowledge or address the rejections related to “previously connected,” “big data server,” “a DB server,” or “each predetermined cycle.” Accordingly, these rejections are maintained.
Patent Eligible Subject Matter Rejection
As fully discussed above, Applicant first argues that claim 1 meets Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test. However, this is unclear. Since the metes and bounds of all of the limitations “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit” are indefinite as already discussed, it is unclear whether all of these “units” are simply computer software. As simply a system comprised of multiple “units” of software, the claim does not meet the requirement of being a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Applicant also argues that claim 1 meets Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test. However, this is also unclear. Since the metes and bounds of all of the limitations “target value setting unit,” “control value computation unit,” “control value output unit,” “analysis unit,” “target value derivation unit,” “AI control unit,” “existing control unit,” “learning processing unit,” “determination unit,” and “control output unit” are indefinite as already discussed, it is unclear whether all of these “units” are simply computer software. As simply a system comprised of multiple “units” of software. As such, these are all simply directed to abstract calculations which satisfies Step 2A. Further, since the results of the abstract calculations are not practically applied, the claim fails to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception, and thus fail to meet the requirements of Step 2B. As such the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 8 recites a corresponding method claim, and is also non-statutory for similar reasons in that it fails to meet Steps 2A and 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test.
Obviousness Rejection
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 8 overcome the previously applied rejections based on Rajaie et al. in view of Goldman-Shenhar et al.
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 MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763