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 Application
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 07/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 07/20/2026 “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Applicant's argument according to the Applicant’s Remarks, see pages 8-9 “Rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101”, with respect to claims 1-20, has been considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C § 101 is withdrawn.
Further, applicant’s arguments according to the Applicant’s Remarks, pages 9-13 “Rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103”, have been fully considered. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 14 to encompass new limitation of
“wherein the disturbance corrector is further configured to: in response that the vehicle stop condition is satisfied, calculate a disturbance as a difference between the longitudinal acceleration sensor value and the estimated inclination value estimated in the previous operation, and set, as the longitudinal acceleration input value, a value obtained by subtracting the disturbance from the longitudinal acceleration sensor value, and in response that the vehicle stop condition is not satisfied, set the longitudinal acceleration sensor value as the longitudinal acceleration input value”
However, the newly amended limitation resulted in a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. Please refer to the Office Action below for specific details.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
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 1-20 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.
In regard to claims 1 and 14, applicant has amended to include:
“calculate a disturbance as a difference between the longitudinal acceleration sensor value and the estimated inclination value estimated in the previous operation”
In this limitation, the applicant claimed that a disturbance is calculated as a difference between the longitudinal acceleration sensor value and the estimated inclination value estimated in the previous operation. However, the two values, i.e. the longitudinal acceleration sensor value and the inclination value (which is an inclination angle of a road, according to for example paragraph [0080] of the specification), have two different units which are m/s2 and degree (or radian), respectfully. In paragraph [0152] of the specification, it is stated that “inclination may be a value converted into meters per second squared (m/s2), a unit of acceleration”. However, there is no other support in the specification clarifying how the inclination value is converted to a value with a unit of acceleration.
In order to overcome the rejections above, the Examiner requires applicant to cancel or remove the cited new matter, or to traverse this rejection with a detailed explanation of their position, including paragraph citations and/or drawing figures of how the cited limitations are fully supported by applicant‘s original disclosure.
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 1-20 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.
In regard to claims 1 and 14, applicant has amended to include:
“wherein the disturbance corrector is further configured to: in response that the vehicle stop condition is satisfied, calculate a disturbance as a difference between the longitudinal acceleration sensor value and the estimated inclination value estimated in the previous operation, and set, as the longitudinal acceleration input value, a value obtained by subtracting the disturbance from the longitudinal acceleration sensor value, and in response that the vehicle stop condition is not satisfied, set the longitudinal acceleration sensor value as the longitudinal acceleration input value;”
It is unclear to the examiner how a disturbance is calculated as a difference between two values with two different units. The applicant’s specification does not provide details for this matter. Further clarification is required.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C § 112(b) as being dependent upon the rejected base claims 1 and 14.
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 HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
