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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § for Claims has/have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presents the following arguments:
Applicant respectfully submits that referring to paragraphs 0067-0070, a first axial load and a second axial load are determined from a specification of the vehicle, and the axial load ratio is determined from the first axial load and the second axial load, and an axial load ratio gain is determined from the axial load ratio. Further, the torque limit values are reduced according to the axial load ratio gain. At this time, the axial load ratio gain includes a value between 0 and 1, and is close to 0 as the axial load ratio is smaller. Example of determination of the axial load ratio gain are disclosed in the specification.
In addition, for the axial load calculations, Applicant respectfully submits that the
determination of axial loads is a well-known and established technique in the field of the vehicle dynamics. In support, vehicle dynamics literature routinely treats axle load calculation as a basic assumption (e.g., Steady-state drifting stabilization of RWD vehicles, Elsevier, ScienceDirect,
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although applicant contends " in regards to claim limitation: “, this is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Applicant's arguments amount to an assertion that it would be common practice for a person skilled in the art to control a torque limit value of the first electric limited slip differential and a torque limit value of the second electric limited slip differential based on a difference between an axial load of the first driveshaft and an axial load of the second driveshaft via a controller operatively connected to a first and second electric limited slip differential, determine an axial load ratio gain, set tolerances.
Applicant asserts that a person skilled in the art understands how to determine axial loads, set tolerances, and determine an axial load ratio gain. Although a person skilled in the art may arguably have familiarity with determining axial loads, such a person would not understand that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Employing a control strategy with set axial load ratio gains and setting tolerances would require at least tuning for multiple specific applications. Absent knowledge of how these factors are employed with the specified inputs, a person skilled in the art would be faced with a vast amount of inputs, algorithms, model training, and data sets that would confound the process of implementing Applicant's actual invention.
Moreover, Applicant does not direct Examiner to any language, steps or flow charts in the disclosure to show particular hardware or an algorithm, such that a skilled artisan would understand how to . There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs and output a value. As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.)
Absent from the Specification is any discussion as to the particular steps, i.e., algorithm, necessary to perform the claimed functions. As such, the rejection is maintained as the instant Specification does not disclose sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to . Stated differently, the steps, procedure or algorithm taken to perform the claimed functions are not described in sufficient detail in the instant Specification to demonstrate that the inventor was in possession of that knowledge.
Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 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 claims contain 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how . There is no written content as to how or what specific algorithms are performed (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example)
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
[0060] The controller 70 may be configured for controlling a torque limit value of the first electric limited slip differential 40 and a torque limit value of the second electric limited slip differential 50 based on a difference between an axial load of the first driveshaft 10 and an axial load of the second driveshaft 20.
[0061] Here, the torque limit value may mean the maximum torque which may be applied to the clutch 60 of the limited slip differentials 40 and 50.
[0062] In a normal state, the torque limit value may be a maximum torque allowed in specifications of the limited slip differentials 40 and 50. When the torque limit value is reduced, the torque which may be applied to the clutch 60 of the limited slip differentials 40 and 50 may be smaller than the maximum torque.•
[0063] To the present end, the controller 70 may be implemented as one or more processors which operate by a set program, and a memory of the controller 70 stores program instructions programmed to perform each step of the method of controlling the vehicle according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure through one or more processors.
See at least: Instant Specification ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I). In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in controlling which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm as to how this value is generated raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how to There is no written content as to how or what specific algorithms are performed (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example)
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
[0060] The controller 70 may be configured for controlling a torque limit value of the first electric limited slip differential 40 and a torque limit value of the second electric limited slip differential 50 based on a difference between an axial load of the first driveshaft 10 and an axial load of the second driveshaft 20.
[0061] Here, the torque limit value may mean the maximum torque which may be applied to the clutch 60 of the limited slip differentials 40 and 50.
[0062] In a normal state, the torque limit value may be a maximum torque allowed in specifications of the limited slip differentials 40 and 50. When the torque limit value is reduced, the torque which may be applied to the clutch 60 of the limited slip differentials 40 and 50 may be smaller than the maximum torque.•
[0063] To the present end, the controller 70 may be implemented as one or more processors which operate by a set program, and a memory of the controller 70 stores program instructions programmed to perform each step of the method of controlling the vehicle according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure through one or more processors.
See at least: Instant Specification ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I). In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in controlling which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm as to how this value is generated raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Regarding Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement and is/are rejected for depending therefrom.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights