DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 10-18 are pending. Claims 1-9 are cancelled, and claims 10-18 are rejected as cited below.
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.
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:
Electronic control unit (claims 10-13, 17)
Power management unit (claims 10, 17-18)
First braking or driving torque division management sub-module (claim 12)
First braking torque division management sub-module (claim 14)
Dissipative braking torque actuation module (claims 13, and 15-17)
Dissipation module (claim 18)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The limitations listed below will be interpreted as comprising only the underlined excerpts from the specification.
Dissipative braking torque actuation module: Specification ¶ [0148] “the dissipative braking torque actuation module 8 (diagrammatically shown as a single block in the figures) comprises at least one brake pump, at least one electromechanical or electrohydraulic actuator, at least one brake assembly (i.e., the brake caliper, brake disc, pad(s) assembly), at least one hydraulic pipe assembly for connecting the aforesaid components to one another.”
Dissipation module: Specification ¶ [0158] “the dissipation module 9, for example a resistor, crossed by an electric power, therefore by an electric current, is capable of dissipating energy into heat due to the Joule effect.”
The specification does not explicitly define the corresponding structure of the electronic control unit, the power management unit, the first braking or driving torque division management sub-module, nor the first braking torque division management sub-module. Please refer to the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claim 10 recites “a system” wherein the claimed system is software per se, as it is not tangibly embodied on any sort of physical medium or hardware. Claim 10 recites a system comprising "an electronic control unit”, and “a power management unit”, but these limitations are described, respectively, in specification ¶ [0053] as “The electronic control unit 3 is, for example, a specially configured hardware module or a software logic present in a main hardware module of the braking/driving system 2 or more generally, in a hardware module of the vehicle 1.” and ¶ [0080] as “The power management unit 4 is, for example, a specially configured hardware module or a software logic present in a main hardware module of the braking/driving system 2 or more generally, in a hardware module of the vehicle 1”. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, both the “electronic control unit”, and the “power management unit” may be software logic only. Additionally, the disclosure does not define tangible embodiments for the “main hardware module” nor the “hardware module of the vehicle 1.” Accordingly the claimed system is software per se and therefore non-statutory.
Claims 11-18 are dependent on claim 10 but do not overcome the deficiency thereof, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites a “First braking or driving torque division management sub-module” however, there is no corresponding structure recited detailing a “sub-module” for braking or driving torque division management.
Claim 14 recites a “first braking torque division management sub-module” however, there is no corresponding structure recited detailing a “sub-module” for braking torque division management.
Claims 13, and 15-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12, and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
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 10-18 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.
Regarding claim 10:
Limitation electronic control unit is defined in specification ¶ [0053] as “… for example, a specially configured hardware module or a software logic present in a main hardware module of the braking/driving system 2 or more generally, in a hardware module of the vehicle 1.” while limitation power management unit is defined similarly in specification ¶ [0080] as “…for example, a specially configured hardware module or a software logic present in a main hardware module of the braking/driving system 2 or more generally, in a hardware module of the vehicle 1.” It is unclear whether the electronic control unit and the power management unit are hardware or software, thus the claim is rendered indefinite. Additionally, the specification is devoid of any tangible embodiments for the ”main hardware module”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret these limitations as software logic.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 recites the limitation of “a first braking or driving torque division management sub-module …”. The wording of this limitation makes it difficult for one skilled in the art to discern if Applicant is claiming a single component referred to as “a first braking or driving torque division management sub-module” or a plurality of components, choosing between either a “first braking torque division management sub-module” or a “first driving torque division management sub-module”. Specification ¶ [0134] describes “a first braking or driving torque division management sub-module” as drawing component 7, while ¶ [0146] describes the “first braking torque division management sub-module” as drawing component 7. These paragraphs contradict one another by assigning descriptor 7 to both components. The scope of the claim is unclear, and thus indefinite. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret “a first braking or driving torque division management sub-module” as a single component.
Regarding claims 12 and 14:
Claim 12 and 14 limitations “first braking or driving torque division management sub-module”, and “first braking torque division management sub-module”, respectively, invoke 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 disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first braking torque division management sub-module" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11, 13, and 15-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 10 and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al. (US Pat. 11,833928 B2)
Tate, JR. et al. (US Pub. 2012/0083948 A1)
Jeong (US Pub. 2014/0330463 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM 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, James J 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668