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 .
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.
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 1-3, 6-8, and 14-17 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.
6. These claims use the word “civility” but it appears that perhaps the word “severity” is intended based on the priority document. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Brown reference (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0080991).
9. Regarding claim 1, the Brown reference discloses:
an energy consumption prediction system (400) for vehicle (112-1), comprising:
a travel condition acquisition unit (402-1) that acquires a travel condition including information on a number of travels of a predetermined route traveled by a vehicle [Paragraph 0036—driver behavior data—number of travels being the number of travels between the
applying of brakes] and a wear condition of a tire mounted on the vehicle [Paragraph 0036—wear and tear of tires];
a road surface civility acquisition unit (402-2) that acquires road surface civility corresponding to energy consumption per travel distance of the vehicle for each of the routes [Paragraph 0027—road elevation, quality of road, and level of the road]; and
an energy consumption prediction unit (420) that predicts the energy consumption of the vehicle based on the travel conditions and the road surface civility [Paragraph 0039].
10. Regarding claim 4, the Brown reference further discloses:
wherein the travel condition includes information on a plurality of wear states of the tire [Paragraph 0036—wear and tear of tires—implies multiple states of wear].
11. Regarding claim 5, the Brown reference further discloses:
wherein the travel condition acquisition unit (402-1) sets a difference in the number of travels of each route within a predetermined range (any range can be considered predetermined).
12. Regarding claim 7, the Brown reference discloses: an energy consumption prediction program for vehicle causes an energy consumption prediction system (400) to execute:
a travel condition acquisition step (402-1) for acquiring a travel condition including information on a number of travels of a predetermined route traveled by a vehicle [Paragraph 0036—driver behavior data—number of travels being the number of travels between the
applying of brakes] and a wear condition of a tire mounted on the vehicle [Paragraph 0036—wear and tear of tires];
a road surface civility acquisition step (402-2) for acquiring road surface civility corresponding to energy consumption per travel distance of the vehicle for each of the routes [Paragraph 0027—road elevation, quality of road, and level of the road]; and
an energy consumption prediction step (420) for predicting the energy consumption of the vehicle based on the travel conditions and the road surface civility [Paragraph 0039].
13. Regarding claim 8, the Brown reference further discloses:
an energy consumption prediction method (400) for vehicle comprising:
a travel condition acquisition process (402-1) for acquiring a travel condition including information on a number of travels of a predetermined route traveled by a vehicle [Paragraph 0036—driver behavior data—number of travels being the number of travels between the
applying of brakes] and a wear condition of a tire mounted on the vehicle [Paragraph 0036—wear and tear of tires];
a road surface civility acquisition process (402-2) for acquiring road surface civility corresponding to energy consumption per travel distance of the vehicle for each of the routes [Paragraph 0027—road elevation, quality of road, and level of the road]; and
an energy consumption prediction process (420) for predicting the energy consumption of the vehicle based on the travel conditions and the road surface civility [Paragraph 0039].
14. Regarding claim 13, the Brown reference further discloses:
wherein the travel condition acquisition unit (402-1) sets a difference in the number of travels of each route within a predetermined range (any range can be considered predetermined).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Brown reference.
17. Regarding claim 2, the Brown reference further discloses:
comprising a road surface civility correction unit (402-1) that corrects the road surface civility, wherein the road surface civility correction unit (402-1).
The Brown reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Brown reference fails to disclose corrects the road surface civility by using a road surface civility that differs depending on the wear state of the tire. This would be obvious to try. The road surface civility would either be the same or differs which is two identifiable finite predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the subject matter of claim 2 as obvious in light of the cited prior art.
18. Regarding claim 3, the Brown reference further discloses:
wherein the road surface civility correction unit (402-1) corrects the road surface civility different depending on a type of the tire input via a predetermined input means. This is an example of use of a known technique (correcting a value based on a derived second value) to improve similar devices (computer programs) in the same way (to modify calculations).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize claim 3 as obvious in light of the prior art.
19. Regarding claim 9, the Brown reference further discloses:
wherein the travel condition includes information on a plurality of wear states of the tire [Paragraph 0036—wear and tear of tires—implies multiple states of wear].
20. Regarding claim 10, the Brown reference further discloses:
wherein the travel condition includes information on a plurality of wear states of the tire [Paragraph 0036—wear and tear of tires—implies multiple states of wear].
21. Regarding claim 11, the Brown reference further discloses: wherein the travel condition acquisition unit (402-1) sets a difference in the number of travels of each route within a predetermined range (any range can be considered predetermined).
22. Regarding claim 12, the Brown reference further discloses:
wherein the travel condition acquisition unit (402-1) sets a difference in the number of travels of each route within a predetermined range (any range can be considered predetermined).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747