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
Claims 6-10 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 09/06/2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“an occupant protection device” in claim 5. The generic placeholder “device” is linked by linking word “such that” to the functional limitation “a driver (34) sitting on a seat system (58) of the motor vehicle (10), or a body part (60) of the driver (34), is movable” without reciting the structure of the device capable of performing the recited function.
“a coupling device” in claim 5. The generic placeholder “device” is linked by linking word “that” to the functional limitation “couples the vehicle wheel (12) to the occupant protection device (50), wherein via the coupling device (70), when the occupant protection device (50) is triggered, a pivoting angle (36) of the vehicle wheel (12) around the pivoting axis (28) caused by a steering intervention of the driver (34) is influenceable when a set criterion (76) is fulfilled and is not influenceable when the set criterion (76) is not fulfilled” without reciting the structure of the device capable of performing the recited function.
“a detection device” in claim 5. The generic placeholder “device” is linked by linking word “via which” to the functional limitation “a touch position (98) of a touch region (100) of the steering device (32) is detectable, wherein, in the steering intervention, a hand (102) of the driver (34) touches the steering device (32) in the touch region (100) and wherein the set criterion (76) is fulfilled when a detected touch position (98) corresponds to a set critical touch position (106)” without reciting the structure of the device capable of performing the recited function.
“a steering support device” in claim 8. The generic placeholder “device” is linked by linking word “via which” to the functional limitation “a support torque (76) pivots the vehicle wheel (12) around the pivoting axis (28)” without reciting the structure of the device capable of performing the recited function.
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. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
an airbag (0048 lines 6-7)
No structure found
No structure found
power steering (0055 lines 4-5)
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 § 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 6-10 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 6 recites the limitation “a coupling device (70) that couples the vehicle wheel (12) to the occupant protection device (50), wherein via the coupling device (70), when the occupant protection device (50) is triggered, a pivoting angle (36) of the vehicle wheel (12) around the pivoting axis (28) caused by a steering intervention of the driver (34) is influenceable when a set criterion (76) is fulfilled and is not influenceable when the set criterion (76) is not fulfilled” in lines 9-13. The specification fails to sufficiently describe the structure of the coupling device to evidence possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore, the limitation is rejected for insufficient written description.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a detection device (78) via which a touch position (98) of a touch region (100) of the steering device (32) is detectable, wherein, in the steering intervention, a hand (102) of the driver (34) touches the steering device (32) in the touch region (100) and wherein the set criterion (76) is fulfilled when a detected touch position (98) corresponds to a set critical touch position (106)” in lines 13-18. The specification fails to sufficiently describe the structure of the coupling device to evidence possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore, the limitation is rejected for insufficient written description.
Claims 7-10 are rejected for depending upon rejected base claims.
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 6-10 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 6 recites the claim limitation “when the occupant protection device (50) is triggered” in lines 10-11. OED defines the ordinary meaning of ‘when’ as “referring to an antecedent denoting a period of time: at or on which.” However, a review of Applicant’s disclosure finds that
Further regarding claim 6, the claim limitation “a detection device (78) via which a touch position (98) of a touch region (100) of the steering device (32) is detectable, wherein, in the steering intervention, a hand (102) of the driver (34) touches the steering device (32) in the touch region (100) and wherein the set criterion (76) is fulfilled when a detected touch position (98) corresponds to a set critical touch position (106)” invokes 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. No disclosure of the structure of the detection device is found in the disclosure. 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.
Claims 7-10 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
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 Analysis - 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 6-10 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 1 because the claims for not recite any judicial exceptions.
Closest Prior Art
Regarding claim 6, ISHIKAWA (JP H11- 334636) is the closest prior art of record.
ISHIKAWA discloses a motor vehicle (Fig. 4), comprising:
a vehicle wheel (11,12) which is pivotable around a pivoting axis by a steering device (1) of the motor vehicle such that cornering and/or changes of a direction of the motor vehicle is causable (implied/inherent);
an occupant protection device (75) which is triggerable in an event of an imminent collision or in an event of a detected collision (0054 lines 1-7); and
a coupling device that couples the vehicle wheel to the occupant protection device (inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention), wherein via the coupling device, when the occupant protection device is triggered (yes at S22, 0054 lines 1-4), a pivoting angle of the vehicle wheel around the pivoting axis caused by a steering intervention of the driver is influenceable (reduce assist torque and/or increase steering ratio, S26, 0055 lines 1-7) when a set criterion is fulfilled (yes at S24, Fig. 8).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the claims are directed to an apparatus (rather than a method) which must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP §2114 and 2173.05(g). Hence, the functional limitation “such that a driver sitting on a seat system of the motor vehicle, or a body part of the driver, is movable” which is narrative in form has been given very little patentable weight, insomuch as the Examiner bears the burden of supplying art that discloses the claimed structure and is capable of performing the claimed functions, while not necessarily needing to explicitly disclose performing the claimed functions. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional limitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In the instant case, the claim term “is movable” is considered to require only the capability of generating movement. The steering wheel airbag of ISHIKAWA is capable of moving at least the hand or arm of a driver.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “when the occupant protection device is triggered, a pivoting angle of the vehicle wheel around the pivoting axis caused by a steering intervention of the driver…is not influenceable when the set criterion is not fulfilled; and a detection device via which a touch position of a touch region of the steering device is detectable, wherein, in the steering intervention, a hand of the driver touches the steering device in the touch region and wherein the set criterion is fulfilled when a detected touch position corresponds to a set critical touch position” in the manner defined in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CAZZOLI (US 10,577,008) teaches a motor vehicle wherein the hand wheel angle is repositioned according to a driver’s hand location when an airbag inflation is imminent to decrease risk of the airbag injuring the driver (i.a. Fig. 3, col. 7 lines 42-46, col. 9 lines 33-37, col. 10 line 11, col. 15 lines 29-32). The repositioning of the hand wheel angle cannot be considered to influence the road wheel angle because the steering column is decoupled (col. 7 lines 42-46).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747