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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
FIG. 7 fails to show every feature of the invention essential for a proper understanding of the invention; flow chart blocks should be filled in with an adequate description of each step (37 CFR 1.83(a)).
FIG. 8 axis should be labeled.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 DISPLAY SYSTEM FOR SPEED RESTRICTION BASED ON INSTANTANEOUS POWER DELIVERY AS A PROPORTION OF POWER CAPABILITY—.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Page 3, lines 2-3 should read —For example, an example threshold may be a speed limit for the road on which the vehicle is travelling. —.
Page 3, lines 19-21 should read —Optionally, the first function and second function are [[the]] identical such that the indication value is assessed in relation to the threshold value to determine if the predetermined condition is met.—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1, 6-11, and 14-17 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first function and second function are the identical such that the indication value is assessed in relation to the threshold value to determine if the predetermined condition is met”, which appears to have an extra word “the”.
For the purposes of examination the examiner will take claim 1 as — wherein the first function and second function are [[the]] identical such that the indication value is assessed in relation to the threshold value to determine if the predetermined condition is met —.
Claims 6-11 and 14-17 inherit and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis outlined above.
Claim 9 recites “a vehicle display system” but does not specify a display. Some dependent claims make reference to an aforementioned display while others introduce a display as a separate element. Therefore it is unclear whether the vehicle display system comprises a display, and, if not, what constitutes the vehicle display system.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take claim 9 as — the vehicle display system comprising a display —.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take claim 16 as — A vehicle display system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the display [[to]] graphically renders information—.
Claims 10-11 and 15-17 inherit and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10 and are therefore rejected on the same basis outlined above.
Claim 10 recites “the gauge marker” which lacks antecedent basis and is unclear if the gauge recited to is in reference to the gauge previously recited.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take claim 10 as — [[the]] a gauge marker that—.
Claims 11 and 17 inherit and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10 and are therefore rejected on the same basis outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 6, and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fracchia (WO 2019162151 A1), henceforth known as Fracchia.
Regarding claim 1, Fracchia discloses A control system for a vehicle display system for a vehicle (Fracchia, FIG. 2; Page 13, line 33-Page 14, line 10), the control system comprising one or more controller (Fracchia, FIG. 2: (32)), wherein the vehicle display system is configured to display information relating to the operation of a powertrain of the vehicle (Fracchia, FIG. 2; Page 13, line 33-Page 14, line 10) and the control system is arranged to:
receive restriction data (Fracchia, Page 15, lines 23-28: receive data), including a restriction speed to which the vehicle is restricted (Fracchia, Page 15, lines 23-28: receive a speed limitation), relating to a powertrain-related speed restriction of the vehicle (Page 13, lines 15-23: speed restriction based on powertrain capability) and speed data comprising a speed the vehicle is travelling (Fracchia, Page 15, lines 23-28: receives instantaneous speed of vehicle);
determine from the restriction data and the speed data whether a predetermined criterion is met, said determination comprising calculating a value for a first function of the restriction speed and the speed the vehicle is travelling (Fracchia, Page 15, line 30-Page 16, line 5: determine if predetermined criterion is met), and assessing that value in relation to a threshold value; and (Fracchia, Page 17, lines 21-26: determine if vehicle speed is near threshold speed)
output a signal to the vehicle display system to display an indication that the vehicle is subject to a speed restriction when the predetermined criterion is met (Fracchia, Page 17, lines 28-34: display limitation when criterion is met), said indication comprising an indication value, wherein the indication value is a value for a second function of the restriction speed and the speed the vehicle is travelling (Fracchia, Page 18, line 29-Page 19, line 3: powertrain capability indicator 34 adds marker based on power limit for the speed restriction); and
wherein the first function and second function are [[the]] identical such that the indication value is assessed in relation to the threshold value to determine if the predetermined condition is met. (Fracchia, Page 17, lines 21-31: speed restriction in relation to power, assessed relative to a threshold value to determine if vehicle speed is near limit; Page 9, lines 7-8: predetermined criterion is a threshold value).
Regarding claim 6, Fracchia discloses A control system according to claim 1 wherein the second function is configured such that the indication value corresponds to a value representative of a power suitable for maintaining the restriction speed as a proportion of a power capability of the powertrain. (Fracchia, Page 8, lines 18-20: power level required to maintain vehicle speed at restriction speed; Page 10, lines 6-9: display restriction indicator as a proportion of powertrain capability).
Regarding claim 9, Fracchia discloses the control system according to claim 1. Fracchia further discloses A vehicle display system for a vehicle (Fracchia, Abstract), the vehicle display system comprising a display configured to display information relating to the operation of a powertrain of the vehicle and comprising the control system according to claim 1. (Fracchia, Page 12, line 31-Page 13, line 2: displays gauge that shows the vehicle’s instantaneous power delivery).
Regarding claim 10, Fracchia discloses A vehicle display system as claimed in claim 9. Fracchia further discloses wherein the display comprises a gauge having a lower limit representing zero or negligible power delivery of the powertrain and an upper limit representing maximum power delivery equal to the instantaneous power capability, and [[the]] a gauge marker that is positionable between the lower limit and the upper limit. (Fracchia, FIG. 3a-c; Page 12, line 31-Page 13, line 2: Gauge with limits; Page 19, line 20-Page 20, line 26: lower limit 54, upper limit 56, vehicle power delivery 62, limitation maker 64).
Regarding claim 11, Fracchia discloses A vehicle display system as claimed in claim 10. Fracchia further discloses:
where the gauge marker is positionable on the gauge at a position corresponding to the indication value. (Fracchia, FIG. 3a-c; Page 18, line 29-Page 19, line 3: powertrain capability indicator 34 adds marker based on power limit for the speed restriction; Page 19, line 20-Page 20, line 26: lower limit 54, upper limit 56, vehicle power delivery 62, limitation maker 64).
Regarding claim 12, Fracchia discloses A method of rendering, on a vehicle display system, information relating to the operation of a powertrain of the vehicle, the method comprising: (Fracchia, FIG. 2; Page 13, line 33-Page 14, line 10)
determining from restriction data (Fracchia, Page 15, lines 23-28: receive data), including a restriction speed to which the vehicle is restricted (Fracchia, Page 15, lines 23-28: receive a speed limitation), relating to a speed restriction of the vehicle (Page 13, lines 15-23: speed restriction based on powertrain capability) and speed data comprising a speed the vehicle is travelling (Fracchia, Page 15, lines 23-28: receives instantaneous speed of vehicle) whether a predetermined criterion is met, said determination comprising calculating a value for a first function of the restriction speed and the speed the vehicle is travelling (Fracchia, Page 15, line 30-Page 16, line 5: determine if predetermined criterion is met), and assessing that value in relation to a threshold value; and (Fracchia, Page 17, lines 21-26: determine if vehicle speed is near threshold speed)
displaying an indication, at a position determined by an indication value, that the vehicle is subject to a speed restriction when the predetermined criterion is met (Fracchia, Page 17, lines 28-34: display limitation when criterion is met), wherein the indication value is a value for a second function of the restriction speed and the speed the vehicle is travelling; and (Fracchia, Page 18, line 29-Page 19, line 3: powertrain capability indicator 34 adds marker based on power limit for the speed restriction)
wherein the first function and second function are identical such that determining if the predetermined condition is met comprises assessing the indication value in relation to the threshold value. (Fracchia, Page 17, lines 21-31: speed restriction in relation to power, assessed relative to a threshold value to determine if vehicle speed is near limit; Page 9, lines 7-8: predetermined criterion is a threshold value).
Regarding claim 13, Fracchia discloses the method of claim 12. Fracchia further discloses A non-transitory computer-readable data carrier having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 12. (Fracchia, Page 10, lines 18-22: computer-readable data carrier storing program to carry out method).
Regarding claim 14, Fracchia discloses A vehicle comprising the control system according to claim 1. (Fracchia, FIG. 1: (12); Page 13, lines 33-34: vehicle display system in vehicle 12).
Regarding claim 15, Fracchia discloses A vehicle comprising the vehicle display system according to claim 9. (Fracchia, FIG. 1: (12); Page 13, lines 33-34: vehicle display system in vehicle 12).
Regarding claim 16, Fracchia discloses A vehicle display system as claimed in claim 9. Fracchia further discloses wherein the display [[to]] graphically renders information relating to the operation of the powertrain of the vehicle and wherein the output is configured to include a signal for a gauge marker on the display as the indication. (Fracchia, FIG. 3a-b; Page 19, line 28-Page 20, line 24: Gauge display rendering vehicle powertrain information including markers, such as limitation marker 64, requiring a signal).
Regarding claim 17, Fracchia discloses A vehicle display system as claimed in claim 11. Fracchia further discloses wherein the display comprises a power indicator adapted to represent the instantaneous power delivery of the powertrain as a proportion of the instantaneous power capability wherein the power indicator is positionable between the lower limit of the gauge and the gauge marker. (Fracchia, FIG. 3a-c; Page 12, line 31-Page 13, line 2: displays gauge that shows the vehicle’s instantaneous power delivery at marker 62, positioned between lower limit 54 and restriction gauge marker 64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fracchia as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Brockley (US 20180001897 A1), henceforth known as Brockley.
Regarding claim 7, Fracchia discloses A control system according to claim 1 wherein a value for one or both of the first function and the second function is derived from [a look- up table based on] the speed the vehicle is travelling and the restriction speed. (Fracchia, Page 7, lines 11-27: speed restriction based on the speed the vehicle is traveling; Page 8, lines 18-29: power level to maintain the vehicle at restriction speed; )
Fracchia is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Brockley teaches the following limitations, bolded for emphasis:
…wherein a value… is derived from a look- up table based on the speed the vehicle is travelling... (Brockley, ¶[0102]: speed control system sets speed to a value from a look-up table based on speed vehicle is traveling).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Fracchia with the features taught by Brockley because this is an example of Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP §2143 B. That is, the format of storing and referencing data in a look-up table was known and does not provide any unpredictable results. Further, using a look-up table to format data would have been "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP §2143 E.
Regarding claim 8, Fracchia and Brockley teach A control system as claimed in claim 7. Brockley teaches the look-up table as outlined in claim 7, above. Fracchia further discloses:
wherein the… comprises values representative of a power suitable for maintaining the vehicle at a steady speed as a proportion of a power capability of the powertrain. (Fracchia, Page 8, lines 18-20: power level required to maintain vehicle speed at restriction speed; Page 10, lines 6-9: display restriction indicator as a proportion of powertrain capability).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the inventions of Fracchia and Brockley for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 7, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ott et al. (US 20140214289 A1) discloses that an engine speed 306 is provided to a function or lookup table 402 that is populated or provides a value for the maximum transmission output power 404 that corresponds to any given engine speed 306 input. The maximum transmission output power 404 provided by the lookup table 402 is pre-determined based on the maximum cooling capability of the engine for the corresponding engine speed. As shown in the illustration of FIG. 4, the lookup table 402 is configured to provide an increasing transmission power with increasing engine speed over a controlled region 406 until a maximum engine speed 408 is reached. For engine speeds above the maximum engine speed 408, a power limit 410 is provided that is maintained relatively constant for increasing engine speed. In this way, a maximum transmission output power value or limit is provided for each engine speed value. For higher engine speed values, the transmission power limit is increased, but for lower engine speed values, the power limit is decreased.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tawri M McAndrews whose telephone number is (571)272-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (0800-1000).
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/TAWRI M MCANDREWS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3668