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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment of 01/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 15-16, 18-20, 22-28, and 33-34 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-14, 17, 21, and 29-32 are canceled.
Unmarked Amendments
The Examiner notes the change in dependency of claim 22 from claim 21 to claim 15 is unmarked in the amended claims and the claim status label incorrectly marks the claim as previously presented. The Examiner requests Applicant to kindly review the amendments filed 01/12/2026 for other possibly unmarked amendments to the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“a selection unit” in claim 15. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “select at least one engine operating data set from the engine operating data sets stored in the memory unit” and “decide that the control variables are set on the basis of measured variables according to the control scheme stored in the engine control unit” without reciting the structure of the selection unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a generation unit” in claim 15. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “generate at least one meta engine operating data set from the engine operating data sets stored in the memory unit” without reciting the structure of the generation unit capable of performing the recited function.
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. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
A subroutine of control unit 1 (implied, one of ordinary skill would recognize from the disclosure as a whole the selection unit to be a subroutine of the control unit)
A subroutine of control unit 1 (implied, one of ordinary skill would recognize from the disclosure as a whole the selection unit to be a subroutine of the control unit)
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-16, 18-19, 23, and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASHIMOTO (US 11,255,290) in view of WEISBROD (US 6,189,523).
Regarding claim 15, HASHIMOTO discloses an engine control unit (e.g., 10-1, Fig. 2) for an internal combustion engine (18) of a fleet vehicle in a vehicle fleet with at least two fleet vehicles (10-1 to 10-N, Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 32-35), the engine control unit comprising:
- a control unit (36), which is configured to set control variables on the basis of measured variables (implied, i.a. col. 4 line 66 - col. 5 line 3, S304 Fig. 7) according to a control scheme stored in the engine control unit (col. 5 lines 33-35);
and
- a data interface unit (30, Fig. 2), which is configured to transmit respective engine operating data sets to or from another engine control unit of a respective internal combustion engine of at least one other fleet vehicle (col. 5 lines 20-32; col. 7 line 57 - col. 8 line 1);
wherein the control unit is configured to set the control variables taking into consideration at least one engine operating data set of the other engine control unit(s) received via the data interface unit (col. 8 lines 24-28);
wherein the engine operating data sets respectively comprise at least one control scheme comprising a multi-dimensional operating parameter map (i.a. col. 5 lines 33-41), and
wherein the control unit is configured to control the internal combustion engine using the set control variables (i.a. col. 4 line 66 - col. 5 line 3, S304 Fig. 7).
HASHIMOTO further discloses a fleet server comprising:
- a memory unit (120) which is configured for storing different, transmitted engine operating data sets of one or more engine control units (implied, i.a. col. 6 lines 32-34, col. 7 lines 52 - col. 8 line 1), wherein the stored engine operating data sets each comprise at least one environmental parameter (implied, i.a. col. 5 lines 44-46 and 50-58, col. 7 lines 52-54, Fig. 4) and other engine operating data (e.g., an engine rpm and/or a fuel injection amount, col. 5 lines 36-41),
- a selection unit (S204), which is configured to select at least one engine operating data set from the engine operating data sets stored in the memory unit, on the basis of which the control unit sets the control variables (col. 7 line 52 - col. 8 line 1), and
- a generation unit (function of col. 7 lines 40-42) configured as part of the selection unit (implied/inherent), and which is configured to generate at least one meta engine operating data set (124, Figs. 3-4, col. 6 lines 39-42) from the engine operating data sets stored in the memory unit (Fig. 4, col. 6 lines 39-42), wherein the engine operating data sets underlying a respective meta engine operating data set each comprise at least one environmental parameter (temperature, pressure, information, Fig. 4).
HASHIMOTO discloses the memory unit and selection unit as part of the fleet server rather than part of the engine control unit as claimed.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of HASHIMOTO such that the memory unit and selection unit are part of the engine control unit rather than the fleet server to reduce the computational load and/or storage requirement of the fleet server. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in the memory and selection units being part of the engine control unit rather than the fleet server in the practice of Applicant’s invention (n.b. the memory unit and selection unit may be part of either the engine control unit or the fleet server, 0018 lines 6-10).
HASHIMOTO is silent regarding the resolution of the meta engine operating data set.
WEISBROD teaches the resolution of engine operating data sets (i.e., map 40) may be selected in accordance with the required performance (col. 11 lines 1-4), i.e., the resolution of control maps is a result effective variable.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a resolution for the meta engine operating data set of HASHIMOTO in accordance with the required performance as taught by WEISBROD to achieve a desired performance, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the resolution of control maps and performance is predictable. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the engine operating data sets differing from one another by less than a predetermined limit value.
HASHIMOTO as modified renders obvious the limitation “the values of which each differ from one another by less than a predetermined limit value.”
Regarding claim 16, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 15.
HASHIMOTO further discloses the engine operating data sets respectively comprise: at least one measured variable comprising an engine rpm and/or a fuel injection amount (col. 5 lines 36-41).
Regarding claim 18, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 15.
HASHIMOTO further discloses the selection unit is configured to compare the at least one environmental parameter of the stored engine operating data sets with an environmental parameter correspondingly detected by the engine control unit (implied, col. 7 lines 52-57), and to select the engine operating data set from the stored engine operating data sets according to a comparison result (col. 7 lines 57-61), on the basis of which the control unit sets the control variables (col. 7 lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 19, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 18.
HASHIMOTO further discloses that the other engine operating data comprises a control scheme (i.a. col. 5 lines 33-41).
Regarding claim 23, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 15.
HASHIMOTO further discloses wherein the data interface unit (30) is configured to transmit the engine operating data sets via a fleet server (Fig. 1, S104, S300, col. 7 lines 31-34, col. 8 lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 28, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 15.
HASHIMOTO further discloses the data interface unit (30) comprises a wireless fleet-vehicle-to-fleet-server data interface unit which is configured to transmit the engine operating data sets via a fleet server (Fig. 1, S104, S300, col. 7 lines 31-34, col. 8 lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 33, HASHIMOTO discloses a method for operating an engine control unit (e.g., 10-1, Fig. 2) of an internal combustion engine (18) of a fleet vehicle in a vehicle fleet with at least two fleet vehicles (10-1 to 10-N, Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 32-35), the method comprising:
- receiving at least one engine operating data set from at least one other engine control unit of an internal combustion engine of one other fleet vehicle at the engine control unit (col. 5 lines 20-32; col. 7 line 57 - col. 8 line 1);
- setting control variables of the engine control unit while considering at least one of the received engine operating data set(s) of the at least one other engine control unit (col. 8 lines 24-28);
wherein the at least one engine operating data set comprises at least one control scheme comprising a multi-dimensional operating parameter map (i.a. col. 5 lines 33-41), and
wherein the method comprises the following additional steps:
storing different, transmitted engine operating data sets of one or more engine control units in a memory unit (120)(implied, i.a. col. 6 lines 32-34, col. 7 lines 52 - col. 8 line 1), wherein the stored engine operating data sets each comprise at least one environmental parameter (implied, i.a. col. 5 lines 44-46 and 50-58, col. 7 lines 52-54, Fig. 4) and other engine operating data (e.g., an engine rpm and/or a fuel injection amount, col. 5 lines 36-41),
selecting at least one engine operating data set from the engine operating data sets stored in the memory unit, on the basis of which the control unit sets the control variables (col. 7 line 52 - col. 8 line 1),
generating at least one meta engine operating data set (124, Figs. 3-4, col. 6 lines 39-42) from the engine operating data sets stored in the memory unit (Fig. 4, col. 6 lines 39-42), wherein the engine operating data sets underlying a respective meta engine operating data set each comprise at least one environmental parameter (temperature, pressure, information, Fig. 4), and
controlling the internal combustion engine using the set control variables (i.a. col. 4 line 66 - col. 5 line 3, S304 Fig. 7).
HASHIMOTO discloses the memory unit is part of the fleet server rather than part of the engine control unit as claimed.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of HASHIMOTO such that the memory unit is part of the engine control unit rather than the fleet server to reduce the storage requirement of the fleet server. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in the memory unit being part of the engine control unit rather than the fleet server in the practice of Applicant’s invention (n.b. the memory unit and selection unit may be part of either the engine control unit or the fleet server, 0018 lines 6-10).
HASHIMOTO as modified teaches storing different, transmitted engine operating data sets of one or more engine control units in a memory unit of the engine control unit.
HASHIMOTO is silent regarding the resolution of the meta engine operating data set.
WEISBROD teaches the resolution of engine operating data sets (i.e., map 40) may be selected in accordance with the required performance (col. 11 lines 1-4), i.e., the resolution of control maps is a result effective variable.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a resolution for the meta engine operating data set of HASHIMOTO in accordance with the required performance as taught by WEISBROD to achieve a desired performance, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the resolution of control maps and performance is predictable. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the engine operating data sets differing from one another by less than a predetermined limit value.
HASHIMOTO as modified renders obvious the limitation “the values of which each differ from one another by less than a predetermined limit value.”
Regarding claim 34, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the method of claim 33.
HASHIMOTO further teaches wherein receiving at least one engine operating data set includes transmitting the at least one engine operating data set via a fleet server (Fig. 1, S104, S300, col. 7 lines 31-34, col. 8 lines 22-24).
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASHIMOTO (US 11,255,290) in view of WEISBROD (US 6,189,523) and GLUGLA (US 2015/0224997, provided by Applicant on 05/19/2023 IDS).
Regarding claim 20, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 18.
HASHIMOTO is relied upon to teach the selection unit configured to select the engine operating data set from the stored engine operating data sets according to a comparison result (col. 7 lines 57-61).
HASHIMOTO is silent regarding the selection unit being configured to select the engine operating data set for which the comparison result yielded the lowest deviation from the environmental parameter.
GLUGLA teaches a selection unit is configured to select an engine operating data set (vehicles having the corresponding cells of their calibration table filled, 0052 lines 13-14), for which the comparison result yielded the lowest deviation from the environmental parameter (ambient conditions, 0067 line 4) detected by the engine control unit (controller implicitly looks to cell closest to the measured operating conditions in the updated calibration table, S504, Fig. 5; 0067 lines 1-10), for setting the control variables by the control unit (determine actuator setting based on updated calibration table, S504, Fig. 5) to determine actuator settings for optimal vehicle powertrain output at the estimated conditions (0067 lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the engine operating data set according to a comparison result in HASHIMOTO by selecting the data set for which the comparison result yielded the lowest deviation from the environmental parameter as taught by GLUGLA to determine actuator settings for optimal vehicle powertrain output at the estimated condition.
Regarding claim 22, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 15.
HASHIMOTO does not disclose the generation unit generates the meta engine operating data set by means of machine learning.
GLUGLA teaches a generation unit that generates at least one meta engine operating data set from stored engine operating data sets (i.a. 0074 lines 22-end) by means of machine learning (0066 lines 2-end), wherein the machine learning optimizes a torque response and/or fuel consumption and/or an exhaust gas composition (0008 lines 3-4), to optimize vehicle performance for fuel economy, emissions, and driveability (0008 lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate the meta engine operating data set of HASHIMOTO by machine learning as taught by GLUGLA to optimize vehicle performance for fuel economy, emissions, and driveability.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASHIMOTO (US 11,255,290) in view of WEISBROD (US 6,189,523) and TURNER (US 8,515,654).
Regarding claim 24, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 15.
HASHIMOTO further discloses the data interface unit coupled to the fleet server by a network (col. 4 lines 25-29).
HASHIMOTO fails to disclose the network is achieve through vehicle-to-vehicle communication with a transmission range of less than 10 km.
TURNER teaches a mobile data flow collection and dissemination system (Fig. 1) comprising a wireless vehicle-to-vehicle data interface unit, which includes a limited transmission range of less than 10 km (including links among cars having a range of about 0.8 km; col. 3 lines 12-13, 19-20, and 32-33) to form a mesh of car nodes (col. 3 lines 19-20).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the data interface unit of HASHIMOTO as a link among cars having a range of about 0.8 km as taught by TURNER to provide a practical implementation of communication by forming a mesh of car nodes. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the use of vehicle-to-vehicle communication nor the range thereof for the practice of Applicant’s invention.
Regarding claim 25, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 24.
HASHIMOTO as modified currently teaches the limited transmission range is less than 5 km (0.8 km, Turner col. 3 lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 26, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 24.
HASHIMOTO as modified currently teaches the limited transmission range is less than 2 km (0.8 km, Turner col. 3 lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 27, HASHIMOTO as modified teaches the engine control unit according to claim 24.
HASHIMOTO as modified currently teaches the limited transmission range is less than 1 km (0.8 km, Turner col. 3 lines 32-33).
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 01/12/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the claims under 103, see pgs. 7-10, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pg. 8 lines 22-24 Applicant asserts the Office argues that HASHIMOTO does NOT disclose “wherein the engine operating data sets underlying a respective meta engine operating data set each comprise at least one environmental parameter”. This assertion is false. The Office relied upon HASHIMOTO (implied, i.a. col. 5 lines 44-46 and 50-58; col. 7 lines 52-54, Fig. 4) to teach this limitation as cited in the previous Office Action of 09/12/2025 at item 14.
At pg. 9 lines 6-12 Applicant argues that WEISBROD is nonanalogous art because it discloses controlling an air-to-fuel ratio of a gaseous-fuel internal combustion engine that is operated in isolation from any other gaseous-fuel internal combustion engine (see MPEP 2141.01(a)). The argument is not persuasive because WEISBROD is relied upon to teach only that the resolution of engine control maps is a result-effective variable. WEISBROD is considered analogous art to Applicant’s invention at least because both WEISBROD and Applicant disclose engine control maps. Furthermore, WEISBROD is not relied upon to teach an engine control unit for an internal combustion engine of a fleet vehicle in a vehicle fleet with at least two fleet vehicles. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
At pg. 9 lines 16-18 Applicant argues that the resolution of a map populated with empirical data as in WEISBROD has nothing to do with the creation of a meta engine operating data set as claimed. The argument is not persuasive because WEISBROD is relied upon to teach only that the resolution of engine control maps is a result-effective variable. WEISBROD is not relied upon to teach the creation of the meta engine operating data set as claimed. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
At pg. 9 lines 18-26 Applicant argues that the claim requires to only use engine operating data sets that are used in similar conditions when creating the meta engine operating data set. The argument is not persuasive because the feature is not recited in the claim. The current claim language recites “the values of which each differ from one another by less than a predetermined limit value” the scope of which includes an engine map with the environmental parameter as one dimension wherein the values of the environmental parameter in the engine map differ from one another (i.e., from each adjacent value) by less than the predetermined limit value (i.e., some number greater than the resolution of the map in the dimension of the environmental parameter). The claim recites “each differ from one another” not “each differ from every other” as appears to be argued by Applicant (pg. 9 lines 18-26). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At pg. 9 lines 27-29 Applicant argues that WEISBROD fails to disclose “wherein the engine operating data sets underlying a respective meta engine operating data set each comprise at least one environmental parameter, the values of which each differ from one another by less than a predetermined limit value”. The argument is not persuasive because WEISBROD is relied upon to teach only that the resolution of engine control maps is a result-effective variable. WEISBROD is not relied upon to teach the creation of the meta engine operating data set as claimed. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
At pg. 10 lines 4-20 Applicant argues that modifying HASHIMOTO as proposed by the Office would render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose. As above, the issue appears to come down to claim scope. Applicant appears to be arguing that the values of each data set in the environmental parameter dimension differ from every other value by less than the predetermined limit value whereas the claim recites that the values differ from one another less than the predetermined limit value. The inoperability argument is unpersuasive because the modification purported by Applicant is not required by the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747