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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 and 7/3/2026 have been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 18/298,650 filed on 7/3/2026, in which Claims 1, 5-13, 16, 18-20, and 22-27 are presented for examination. Applicant amends Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18-20, and 22 cancels Claims 2-4, 14-15, 17, and 21, and adds new Claims 23-27.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, for Application No. KR10-2022-0164544.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2023 has been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments, a new claim objection is introduced. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pgs. 2-12, filed 7/3/2026, with respect to the claim interpretation for Claims 1, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive. With respect to the interpretation of Claim 1, the amendments to Claim 1 remove the language “vehicle control unit configured to” and therefore, the interpretation of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) set forth in the office action of 4/3/2026 is withdrawn. With respect to the interpretation of Claim 13, Examiner respectfully disagrees that “a control apparatus” or “vehicle end control apparatus” is known to one of ordinary skill in the art and with respect to the interpretation of Claim 16, the amendments do not provide additional structure. For both Claims 13 and 16, MPEP 2181(I)(A) provides “a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f),” which includes module, device, and apparatus. Therefore, Examiner maintains the claim interpretations of Claims 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) set forth in the office action of 4/3/2026. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pgs. 2-10 and 12, filed 7/3/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in the office action of 4/3/2026 have been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are introduced. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pgs. 2-10 and 12-16, filed 7/3/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-14, and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-14, and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth in the office action of 4/3/2026. Examiner briefly addresses the arguments below. Further details regarding the allowable subject matter are provided below.
Applicant argues that Soliman does not discuss “receiving [data] from a mobile device” relating to a driver driving propensity because the inputs are sourced from within the vehicle without disclosing a mobile device as a component of the system. Applicant explains that Soliman discusses receiving vehicle control data (or direct driver input) from a vehicle control system and sensor data and separately discusses using a driver behavior learning algorithm to learn driving behavior of a driver using received data. Applicant further argues that Soliman does not discuss “determining, using a future required energy and based on a learning algorithm, an output torque of a driving source.” Instead, Applicant explains that Soliman discusses a driver behavior learning algorithm that correlates driving behavior to other parameters to be optimized, where the other parameters include fuel consumption, available driving range, travel time, etc., but does not further describe “fuel consumption” as a future required energy or how the fuel consumption is determined, as described in amended Claim 1, “a future required energy is predicted using a future driving condition and a determined driver driving propensity.” Applicant further argues that Liu does not discuss "transmit[ting] the output torque and a learned parameter to a vehicle end control apparatus," "receiv[ing] a control result that is fed back from the vehicle end control apparatus," "correct[ting] the output torque using the received control result," and then "transmit[ting] the corrected output torque and the learned parameter to the vehicle end control apparatus to cause the vehicle to be driven based on a final output torque determined by the vehicle end control apparatus.” Applicant states that Liu discusses a vehicle propulsion operation change request used to request a change of the vehicle speed or torque, which can be generated and received from an ECU or VSM of the vehicle or from inputs from a gas pedal or a brake pedal actuated by a vehicle operator. Finally, Applicant states that nothing in the cited prior art, Liu, Lurie, and Kentley, remedies the stated deficiencies of Soliman and nothing in the cited prior art, Soliman, Lurie, or Kentley remedies the stated deficiencies of Liu. Therefore, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose, alone or in combination, amended Claims 1, 13, and 20 and the dependent claims are allowable, at least, by dependency on their respective independent claim.
Examiner agrees that Soliman, nor the other cited prior art, discusses receiving driver driving propensity data from a mobile device. Examiner also agrees that Soliman, nor the other cited prior art, does not explicitly discuss predicting a future required energy. Examiner respectfully disagrees that that Liu does not discuss the transmitting, receiving, and correcting steps as described in Claims 1, 13, and 20. Liu [pg. 3, para 0023 and pg. 4, paras 0026-0027] explains that data can be transmitted and control can be shared between modules within the vehicle, where [pg. 5, para 0037] at least one of the modules is used for controlling the vehicle, such as [pg. 4, para 0025] the BCM, which can be used for “adjust[ing] certain operating parameters of the propulsion system,” including torque. Liu [pg. 6, paras 0042-0044] also discusses using vehicle systems and components for predicting changes to torque requests, and [pg. 8, paras 0053-00540], further discusses using the information to determine operating states and supporting transitioning between operating states by adjusting the operating parameters. Liu [pg. 5, para 0037] does discuss using algorithms for managing components, however, Examiner agrees that Liu does not explicitly discuss transmitting a “learned parameter.” Soliman does discuss transmitting data from the algorithm to the propulsion control adjustment, but does not explicitly discuss transmitting and correcting torque values or specifically transmitting a learned parameter and propulsion control adjustments.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 (line 2) recites “a wireless communication device including a V2X module that is configured to.” Although the specification and drawings do discuss a communication device capable of V2X communication and software modules, the specification and drawings do not explicitly recite the language of Claim 16. Therefore, the language should be updated to match the disclosure descriptions and include any changes to reflect the claim interpretation as noted below. For example, Claim 16 could use language to convey “a communication device that can perform V2X communication comprising software and electronic circuits configured to […].”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
"vehicle end control apparatus configured to" in Claim 13.
Corresponding structure is found in specification paragraphs [0091] and primarily FIG’s. 1-3 and 8-9. The vehicle end control apparatus will be interpreted as a “control device for controlling a vehicle actuator, such as a motor at an end of a vehicle, a battery, etc., and may include a vehicle control unit (VCU) […].”
"communication device including a V2X module that is configured to" in Claim 16,
Corresponding structure is found in specification paragraphs [0058-0061] and [0191]. The communication device including a module will be interpreted as a “hardware device with electronic circuits” with software, which is part of the vehicle driving control apparatus capable of “in-vehicle network communication techniques” and “wireless communication technique(s).”
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 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 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 1 (line 14), Claim 13 (line 16), and Claim 20 (line 13) recite the limitation “the information received from the autonomous driving control apparatus." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, and consistency, Claim 1 (line 11), Claim 13 (line 13), and Claim 20 (line 10) will be read as "receive, from an autonomous […], information that includes […],” similar to Claim 1 (line 4).
Claim 5 (line 2), Claim 18 (lines 2-3), Claim 23 (line 1), and Claim 25 (line 1) recite the limitation "the control result." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Claim 5 (line 2), Claim 18 (lines 2-3), Claim 23 (line 1), and Claim 25 (line 1) will be read as “the received control result,” similar to Claim 1 (line 24) and Claim 13 (line 25).
Claim 13 (line 42) recites the limitation "a vehicle end control apparatus.” “A ” is already defined in Claim 13 (lines 22-23). For clarity, Claim 13 (line 42) should recite “the .”
Claim 23 (lines 1-2), Claim 25 (line 1), and Claim 27 (line 2) recite the limitation "a final output torque.” “A ” is already defined in Claim 1 (line 26), Claim 13 (line 27), and Claim 20 (line 24). For clarity, Claim 23 (lines 1-2), Claim 25 (line 1), and Claim 27 (line 2) should recite “the .”
Claims 6-12, and 24 are rejected by dependency on Claim 1.
Claims 16, 18, 19, and 26 are rejected by dependency on Claim 13.
Claim 22 is rejected by dependency on Claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-13, 16, 18-20, and 22-27 contain allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 1, 13, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5, 18, 23, 25, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-12, 16, 19, 22, 24, and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The arts of record, especially Soliman, PG Pub US-2020/0031371-A1, do not singularly or in combination disclose the vehicle comprising a vehicle actuator, a vehicle end control apparatus configured to output the final output torque to the vehicle actuator that is based on the corrected torque received from a vehicle driving control apparatus or the learned parameter of the learning algorithm for determining the output torque, where the vehicle driving control apparatus comprises: a processor, a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method comprising: receive, from a mobile device, information that includes driver propensity pattern information, driver position pattern information, driver schedule information, and an external API signal; determine, using at least some of the received information from the mobile device, a driver driving propensity for each driver of a plurality of drivers; determine, using at least some of the received information from the mobile device, which driver driving propensity to use based on driver identification; receive, from an autonomous driving control apparatus, 3D map information, path information, radar information, camera information, driver information, a scheduled driving speed, and a future driving path; predict, using at least some of the information received from the autonomous driving control apparatus, a future driving condition; predict, using the future driving condition and the determined driver driving propensity, a future required energy; determine, using the future required energy and based on a learning algorithm, an output torque of a driving source; transmit the output torque and a learned parameter to a vehicle end control apparatus; receive a control result that is fed back from the vehicle end control apparatus; correct the output torque using the received control result; and transmit the corrected output torque and the learned parameter to the vehicle end control apparatus to cause the vehicle to be driven based on a final output torque determined by the vehicle end control apparatus, as recited in independent Claims 1, 13, and 20.
The uniqueness of the claimed invention is, as recited in Claims 1, 13, and 20, the combination of all the recited features, especially the combination of receiving driver data from a mobile device and using that driver data to determine a driver driving propensity that is used with other data to predict a future driving condition and a future required energy that is used for determining an output torque that is transmitted, with a learned parameter, to another device to correct a torque value that is used for controlling the vehicle.
Soliman being one of the closest prior arts discloses a method using a controller and an artificial intelligence algorithm for providing a suggested driving adjustment including receiving driver input data and sensor data, determining a predicted driver behavior using the received data and a driver behavior learning algorithm, determining behavior differences between the predicted and ideal driver behavior, determining a suggested driving adjustment based on the behavior difference, and notifying the driver of the suggested driving adjustment. However, there are no teachings in Soliman pertaining to the claimed combination of all the recited features, especially the combination of receiving driver data from a mobile device and using that driver data to determine a driver driving propensity that is used with other data to predict a future driving condition and a future required energy that is used for determining an output torque that is transmitted, with a learned parameter, to another device to correct a torque value that is used for controlling the vehicle.
Further, the amendments to the independent Claims 1, 13, and 20 incorporate the claimed steps together in such a way that the claimed steps cannot be reasonably taught by the cited prior art or prior art found at this time. Claims 1, 13, and 20 do not just combine a system that uses algorithms to adjust propulsion controls with systems for predicting energy use through driver habits and driving conditions. Instead Claims 1, 13, and 20 distinctly link an energy prediction system with managing propulsion control adjustments. Although portions of the claimed invention can be found in the prior art at this time, the prior art at this time does not provide any reasonable motivation to combine the portions in the way Claims 1, 13, and 20 incorporate the recited elements.
Therefore, the allowable subject matter found in the claims that has not been found to have been taught or disclosed in the prior art found at this time is all the claimed limitations of independent Claims 1, 13, and 20. All the dependent claims, Claims 5-12, 16, 18, 19, and 23-27, also contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on their base claim.
Therefore, Claims 5-12, 16, 18, 19, and 23-27 are allowable by dependency on Claims 1, 13, and 20, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference A, Vassilovski et al., PG Pub US-2020/0236521-A1, discusses methods, systems, media, and apparatuses for vehicle emergency V2X notification based on sensor fusion by determining a nature of impairment of a vehicle and transmitting a V2X notification to neighboring vehicles so that the neighboring vehicles can proceed based on the impairment of the vehicle.
Reference B, Liu et al., PG Pub US-2019/0232942-A1, discusses a system and method for placing electric propulsion motors into an operating state in anticipation of a vehicle event, by sharing operating instructions between modules of a vehicle for calculating operating parameters, such as torque modifications, and using operating states of the propulsion system and transitionary, or intermediate, states.
Reference D, Lurie et al., Patent No. US-9,387,861-B1, discusses a control system, method, and apparatus for optimizing a vehicle’s performance by modifying and controlling a damping value based on operator behavior and for managing aggressive use of an accelerator pedal by an operator.
Reference E, Kentley et al., PG Pub US-2017/0123422-A1, discusses autonomous vehicles and systems for providing an autonomous vehicle fleet service that provides vehicle commands, coordinates user requests, and manages configurations for adapting a vehicle subsystem, through a mobile device using an API, where the service also uses an autonomous vehicle system fleet manager and repository.
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 ERIN MARIE HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5309. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights