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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on April 22, 2024. Claims 1-25 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a system on board” and “a system on-board the vehicle”. The usage of the hyphen should be consistent.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “a system on board” and “a sensor system on-board”. The usage of the hyphen should be consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 and 25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduced “data from a first production sensor” and “data from a data storage”. Claim 1 later makes secondary reference to “the data received in (b)” and “the data received in (c)”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the data in (b) and (c)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the second production sensor in the second production vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 previously introduced “a second production sensor on-board the second production vehicle”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the data in (b)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 previously introduced “collecting information” in (b).
Claims 12-13 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the road segment in (a)”. Claim 14 previously introduced “a road segment” and made secondary reference to “the road segment”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same road segments.
Claims 15-16 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the degree of accuracy determined in (d)” and “the degree of accuracy”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same degree of accuracy. The secondary references must be consistent.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the information about the signal in (b)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 is dependent on claim 14, which introduced “a signal representative of a response to a sensor” and “information about the road surface profile”. There is no information about the signal in (b) established in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a vehicle” twice. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same vehicle, or a secondary vehicle.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites “a system on board a vehicle” and “a system on-board the vehicle”.
Claims 18-21 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 is dependent on claim 17. Claim 17 recites “a system on board a vehicle” and “a system on-board the vehicle”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the sensor system on-board the vehicle”. Claim 25 is dependent on claim 24 and claim 22. Claim 22 established “a sensor system on-board the vehicle” and made secondary reference to “the sensor system”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same sensor system. The secondary references must be consistent.
Claims 6-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
In claim 6, the cloud-based microprocessor is not connected to the vehicle or the data storage.
In claim 7, the cloud-based microprocessor is not connected to the vehicle or the data storage.
In claim 14, there is no way to determine a degree of accuracy of the sensor in (b). There is no data that can compare the actual road profile to the sensor data.
Claims 15-16 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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: “specialized road surface sensor system” in claim 1 and “specialized road surface sensor system” in claim 11.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666