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
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Examiner notes that new rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) for claims 1 and 18 have been made in response to the amendments to the claims
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An updated rejection has been made in response to the claim amendments, and a broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended portion of the claims has been set forth on the record. Therefore, the rejection, as updated has been maintained.
Regarding Claims , Applicant's arguments are based only upon dependencies from claim . Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § for Claim has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments to Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 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) contain(s) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “”
However, the instant specification disclosure contains only reference to (See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶). No reference is made in the specification to . Therefore, the specification does not provide adequate written description of “.”
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date. The specification fails to mention a how to
Regarding Claim 8,
The claim recites “”
However, the instant specification disclosure contains only reference to (See at least Instant Pg Pub ¶¶). No reference is made in the specification to . Therefore, the specification does not provide adequate written description of “.”
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date. The specification fails to mention a how to
Regarding Claims 2-11 and 19-20,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement and is/are rejected for depending therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim (as amended),
The claim recites the limitation "" in Line .
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The subjective term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim as vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and are rejected for depending therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter ”.
Regarding Claim (as best understood by the Examiner),
discloses:
An apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry; See at least ¶¶0026-0033, 0125; Figs 2-3
machine readable instructions; See at least ¶¶0003-0005, 0052, 0055, 0061-0066 and
programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to cause an adjustment to a relationship between a steering wheel angle change and an orientational change of steerable wheels in response to a projected path of a vehicle intersecting a potential obstruction. See at least ¶¶0033, 0050,0052-0053, 0061-0066, 0088-0089, 0097, 0099, 0105-0107 0120; Examiner notes that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, cross traffic following a yellow right is interpreted as a potential obstruction
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the programmable circuitry is to identify a maneuver based on information from an optical sensor that detects optics external to the vehicle. See at least ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein, to cause the adjustment to the relationship, the programmable circuitry is to:
cause a first output signal to be delivered to a steering actuator when the steering wheel angle change is a first steering wheel angle change and the vehicle is to perform a first maneuver; See at least ¶¶ and
cause a second output signal to be delivered to the steering actuator when the steering wheel angle change is a second steering wheel angle change and vehicle is to perform a second maneuver different from the first maneuver, the second output signal different than the first output signal. See at least ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein, to cause the adjustment to the relationship, the programmable circuitry is to adjust a gear ratio in a steering actuator of the vehicle. See at least ¶¶0033
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the programmable circuitry is to limit the adjustment to the relationship based on a speed of the vehicle. See at least ¶¶0049, 0059, 0061, 0065
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the programmable circuitry is to increase a steering ratio associated with the relationship when a maneuver to be performed by the vehicle includes turning the vehicle at an intersection. See at least ¶¶0051-0054, 0061-0066, 0081-0089
disclose:
The method of claim 18,
causing the first angular displacement of the steering wheel to correspond to the second angular displacement of the steerable wheel when the vehicle is to travel along a first trajectory; See at least ¶¶0049, 0059, 0061, 0065, 0067-0076 and
causing the first angular displacement of the steering wheel to correspond to the third angular displacement of the steerable wheel when the vehicle is to travel along a second trajectory different from the first trajectory. See at least ¶¶0049, 0059, 0061, 0065, 0067-0076
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶0030
References Cited
R1: ()
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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 on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights