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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Vehicle Control Device for a plurality of vehicles
Double Patenting
Examiner suggests applicant keep copending 18623261 in mind when making amendments. Obviousness double patenting on the copending case was found for Claims 1, 3, and 4. However, currently, the limitations of Claim 1 are distinct enough that double patenting on this application is not necessary.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a data collection unit configured to collect data on traveling characteristics of a plurality of vehicles” in claim Claims 1-4.
“an analysis unit configured to analyze traveling characteristics” in Claims 1-4
“a control unit configured to apply common settings” in Claims 1-4
These elements are described by ¶[38; published specification] to be realized by a CPU
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite “ analyze traveling characteristics common to vehicles belonging to at least one of a predetermined area and a predetermined vehicle type among the plurality of vehicles by using the collected data; and
[[a control unit configured to]] apply common settings related to vehicle equipment to the vehicles belonging to at least one of the predetermined area and the predetermined vehicle type among the plurality of vehicles based on a result of analysis performed by the analysis unit” (i.e. a mental processing step able to be performed by the human mind and/or by paper; data could have already been collected, applicant has not claimed the structural limitations of a communication unit, and even if there was, it is general purpose equipment, while data collection is an insignificant extra-solution activity).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because applicant has not claimed how the data actually modifies the vehicle operations. Rather, applicant’s claims are in 112[f] format (“data collection unit configured to collect data”, analysis unit configured to apply common settings”, “a control unit configured to apply common settings”), and the operations could all have occurred in the human mind and/or a single computer. Noted that the “apply common settings” does not even clearly state that the settings being applied are commands to modify the vehicle operations, nor labels the types of settings.
Claims 3 and 4 recite clear changes meant to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claims 1 and 2 in light of 112[f] analysis, can be considered 1 controller. The data collection unit can be taking data already collected or stored, and be an input for the controller [while routine data collection is understood to be an insignificant extra-solution activity]. As noted above, applicant’s claims do not specify what “apply common settings” mean practically (e.g. is it transmitted as command, etc.). It could just mean that the data is processed differently.
Claims 3 and 4, in the alternative, clearly demonstrate elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they describe a cooling operation being modified based upon the processed data.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iga (USPGPN 20130317692).
Independent Claim 1, Iga discloses a vehicle control system (Figs. [1-3], esp. element 2 shown in Figs. [1, 3], see claim interpretation) comprising:
a data collection unit (21, 20, 203), configured to collect data on traveling characteristics (¶’s [50, 56, 67, 111], at least speed) of a plurality of vehicles (1);
an analysis unit (23, 25, 24, 26) configured to analyze traveling characteristics common to vehicles belonging to at least one of a predetermined area and a predetermined vehicle type among the plurality of vehicles by using the collected data (¶’s [78, 87, 89, 104, 107, 110, 111, esp. 78, 87, 89, 107]);
and a control unit configured to apply common settings related to vehicle equipment to the vehicles belonging to at least one of the predetermined area and the predetermined vehicle type among the plurality of vehicles based on a result of analysis performed by the analysis unit (¶’s [78, 87, 107, 110] describes sending commands based on vehicle type, i.e. predetermined vehicle type, esp. from 253 of 26).
Dependent Claim 2, Iga discloses the control unit is configured to apply the common settings to a vehicle expected to belong to at least one of the predetermined area and the predetermined vehicle type among the plurality of vehicles, the common settings being related to vehicle equipment applied to each of the vehicles belonging to at least one of the predetermined area and the predetermined vehicle type among the plurality of vehicles (vehicle sensors being sent the command are vehicular equipment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iga (USPGPN 20130317692) in view of Oh (USPGPN 20200290464)
Dependent Claim 3, Iga teaches analyze a load on a vehicle’s power supply by using the collected data each of the vehicles belonging to at least one of the predetermined area and the predetermined vehicle type among the plurality of vehicles, and send commands to each of the vehicles belonging to at least one of the predetermined area and the predetermined vehicle type among the plurality of vehicles (as described above, the speed and other data collected is a load on a vehicle’s power supply)
Iga is silent to the analysis unit is configured to analyze a load on a battery that causes deterioration of the battery by using the collected data, the battery being mounted on each of the vehicle; and the control unit is configured to increase a cooling intensity for the battery mounted on each of the vehicle.
Oh teaches a vehicle control system (Figs. [1, 2, 7]), comprising:
a data collection unit (12, 13) configured to collect data on driving characteristics of a vehicle by a user (¶’s [45-48] describes vehicle speed, gradient being used to determine the load & whether in towing mode on a vehicle by a user/driver ¶’s [29, 38, 39]);
an analysis unit configured to analyze, using the collected data, a burden on a battery mounted on the vehicle (14, ¶’s [46-48], Fig. 6) that contributes to degradation of the battery (noted that any use of a vehicle at any temperature can contribute to the degradation of a battery, however, being above reference temperatures can cause degradation to be even worse, ¶’s [09, 12, 32, 35, 36, 58-63, 65] describes setting the reference temperature based upon the load); and
a control unit configured to cool the battery (¶’s [31, 58-63]) with a cooling intensity according to an analysis result (as the reference temperature to cool the battery at can be lowered based on the higher load [as demonstrated above], this means the cooling intensity is set according to the analysis result [i.e. in towing mode, cooling reference temperature is lowered, leading to increased cooling intensity], noted that this limitation is an intended use/capable-of/configure-to limitation, and Oh is certainly capable of performing the claimed feature). While Iga is silent to an electric vehicle with a battery propulsion (engine sensor ¶[50], but does not say whether hybrid or non-hybrid), Oh does teach an electric vehicle (¶’s [05, 21], abstract) which uses both the engine of Iga and an electrical battery for propulsion. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that electric/hybrid vehicles can serve to reduce emission [and thus reduce pollution] over only engine propelled vehicles. Further, while Iga is silent to a battery being cooled, Oh teaches cooling of the battery.
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that loading on a battery to propel the vehicle increases heat. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by keeping the battery in an ideal temperature range [i.e. by cooling when too hot, or heating when too cold], it can optimize battery range/efficiency and reduce deterioration of the battery capacity (official notice taken, ¶[32]). Thus by cooling a battery when being discharged/burdened/loaded, maintenance of the battery within the ideal temperature range can be achieved.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iga with Oh to provide reduced battery deterioration and emissions, and improved battery efficiency and range.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iga (USPGPN 20130317692) in view of Oh (USPGPN 20200290464), further in view of Kawahara et al (USPGPN 20110313613; hereinafter Kawa), Ozcelik et al (USPGPN 20230226948; hereinafter Ozce), and Takatsuji (USPGPN 20130297244; hereinafter Taka)
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Iga and Oh teaches the cooling intensity based upon the battery burden (as described above for claims 1 and 3).
Iga in view of Oh is silent to when the number of times is determined that the burden on the battery is great reaches a predetermined value, increase the cooling intensity and reduce an upper limit value of a current to be supplied to the battery during charging of the battery.
Taka teaches when the number of times the burden is great [electric current above threshold] and the temperature is above a threshold (¶’s [82-85, esp. 83], it is used to determine the deterioration of the battery, see analogous system of Fig. 1 which shows temperature sensors). Taka teaches this determination provides improved accuracy (¶[29])
Kawa teaches deterioration/degradation/state-of-health[SOH] is used to determine to reduce the maximum discharge/charge current as it gets worse (¶[34], analogous structure in Figs. [1-3], analogous cooling operation in ¶’s [80, 90], ¶’s [08, 34] describes this operations provides optimal charging [further, official notice taken that one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by reducing the current limit, it can suppress further degradation of the battery, and thus extend the lifetime of the battery])
Ozce teaches SOH of a battery is used to determine whether to increase cooling amounts in order to slow down aging/extend battery lifetime (analogous Figs. [1-3b], ¶’s [71, 96]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iga in view of Oh with Kawa, Ozce, and Taka to provide improved accuracy, optimal operation, and extended battery lifetime. Iga in view of Oh is modified by Taka to determine the more accurate SOH based upon the number of times the temperature and load/discharge currents exceed a threshold. This SOH is further used to determine the cooling intensity (Ozce) and the maximum charging current limit (Kawa) to optimally extend the lifetime of the vehicle’s battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights