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 Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on February 27, 2026. Claims 1-10 were previously pending, of which claim 1 has been amended and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-9 filed February 27, 2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the amended independent claim or the specification does not provide sufficient structure to overcome the previous claim interpretations on Claims 1 and 8. Therefore, The interpretation of the speed control part is maintained below.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)/(b), applicant's arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the speed control part as agreed cannot be a computing element and appears to receive the output of the CPU to provide mechanical control to the vehicle. As the CPU (12) is not inclusive of the speed control part (4) described in Fig. 1, it cannot be claimed to be part of a processor." Therefore, the lack of written description to support the claim limitation renders the argument moot and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)/(b) is maintained.
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.
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:
In claims 1 and 8, the “speed control part” in the limitation ”speed control part controlling a speed of the vehicle” invokes 112(f) as “part” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the speed of the vehicle to be controlled.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, 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.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this 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 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 being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim limitation “speed control part” invokes 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 function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states that the claimed function of controlling the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle is performed by the speed control unit. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the control of the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle. The use of the term speed control part is not adequate structure for performing controlling the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term controlling the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle refers to the speed control part and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of controlling the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 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.
The prior art does not sufficiently teach or suggest all the claimed limitations, as amended, in their entirety as presented in the current application. In this regard, it is noted that applicants' amendments and arguments submitted on September 24, 2025 as well as the Examiner' s interpretation of the claims as indicated on pages 3-5 of the Office Action dated November 19, 2025 overcome the previous rejections.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art found at this time, taken alone or in combination, teach the specifics in the claims of the processor including a determining part that determines a corrected acceleration/deceleration, which is an acceleration/deceleration to be indicated to a speed control part controlling a speed of the vehicle at a second timing in a cycle subsequent to a cycle corresponding to the first timing, by adding a difference between the acceleration/deceleration detected by the detecting part at the first timing and the model acceleration/deceleration output by the reference model to which the target acceleration/deceleration instruction at the first timing is input, to an acceleration/deceleration corresponding to the target acceleration/deceleration instruction. The examiner could find no motivation to combine references to read on all the limitations without improper hindsight.
The only relevant prior art located was publication US 20200231153 A1, and is considered to be closest to the subject matter of claim 1. It discloses in [0044-0051], “vehicle control device 10 shown in FIG. 8 … is applied to the vehicle 2 … The vehicle control device 10 is an electronic control unit (ECU) having at least one processor 21 and at least one memory 22 … The planner 11 calculates a required acceleration and a required speed when the vehicle 2 travels along a set travel route from the present over a predetermined period in the future, and updates them at a constant cycle … vehicle control device 10 calculates a target acceleration composed of an acceleration feedforward term and a speed feedback term. The required acceleration calculated by the planner 11 is used as the acceleration feedforward term (hereinafter referred to as the acceleration F/F term) of the target acceleration. The speed feedback term (hereinafter referred to as the speed F/B term) is a feedback term for making an actual speed of the vehicle 2 obtained by the speed sensor 6 match the required speed. The speed F/B term is calculated by a speed F/B term calculation unit 12 of the vehicle control device 10. The speed F/B term calculation unit 12 calculates a deviation between the required speed and the actual speed obtained from the vehicle 2, and calculates the speed F/B term by proportional-integral control with respect to the deviation … The vehicle control device 10 adds an acceleration feedback term for making an actual acceleration of the vehicle 2 obtained by the speed sensor 6 match the target acceleration. The acceleration feedback term (hereinafter referred to as the acceleration F/B term) is calculated by an acceleration F/B term calculation unit 13 of the vehicle control device 10. The acceleration F/B term calculation unit 13 corrects a response of the target acceleration by a response delay of the vehicle 2 for a braking operation or a driving operation, and calculates a deviation between the corrected target acceleration and the actual ground acceleration obtained from the vehicle 2. Then, the acceleration F/B term calculation unit 13 calculates the acceleration F/B term by proportional-integral control with respect to the deviation … The acceleration force correction term is calculated by an acceleration force correction term calculation unit 14. The vehicle control device 10 calculates a required braking/driving force by adding the acceleration force correction term to the required acceleration force converted from the corrected target acceleration … The vehicle control device 10 distributes the required braking/driving force into the braking force and the driving force in a braking force/driving force distribution unit 15 … The vehicle control device 10 corrects the braking force and the driving force distributed from the required braking/driving force by a braking force/driving force correction unit 16 to A powertrain control unit 17.“ Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 differs from the known method in that a corrected acceleration/deceleration is generated by adding a difference between the acceleration/deceleration detected by the detecting part at the first timing and the model acceleration/deceleration output by the reference model to which the target acceleration/deceleration instruction at the first timing is input, to an acceleration/deceleration corresponding to the target acceleration/deceleration instruction if no overriding control is detected, and is therefore novel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights