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 claim(s) is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Canceled:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by the Applicant listed below:
September 27, 2024
October 7, 2025
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). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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:
[0053] For close-range assistance systems, such as a parking assistant, targeted braking and speed control are subject to deviations during longitudinally guided maneuvering. These physically unavoidable deviations, which are dependent on a current situation in which the vehicle 1 is being operated, are taken into consideration during remaining distance control in that the remaining distance control is performed in a comfort mode or a high-precision mode depending on the situation. The core features of trajectory management performed in this way are: different levels of control performance which perform a high-precision or comfortable longitudinal control, taking into consideration the clearance R between the vehicle 1 and obstacles located in the surroundings of the vehicle, for example the objects O1 to O10,taking into consideration a pitch of a surface that the vehicle 1 drives on, taking into consideration maneuver moves of the vehicle 1, which are completed at an early stopping point, and/or taking into consideration maneuver moves of the vehicle 1, during or after the performance of which a remaining distance s (shown in FIG. 8 ) falls below a specified value, i.e., which end when a remaining distance is exceeded.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
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 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 . 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). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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:
[0008] …The selection is based on a comparison of the current situation with a list of specified situations. The mode in which the remaining distance control is to be carried out is predetermined in the list for each of the specified situations. It is therefore predetermined in which of the specified situations the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the comfort mode and in which of the specified situations the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the high-precision mode.
[0009] The current situation is compared to the list with the specified situations, preferably by identifying a specified situation corresponding to the current situation in the list with the specified situations as a function of the current situation and selecting the mode predetermined for this situation in order to carry out the remaining distance control. In particular, it is determined which of the listed specified situations best matches the current situation and a predetermined mode is selected as the mode for this situation, in which the remaining distance control is to be carried out.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
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 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 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). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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:
[0008] …The selection is based on a comparison of the current situation with a list of specified situations. The mode in which the remaining distance control is to be carried out is predetermined in the list for each of the specified situations. It is therefore predetermined in which of the specified situations the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the comfort mode and in which of the specified situations the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the high-precision mode.
[0009] The current situation is compared to the list with the specified situations, preferably by identifying a specified situation corresponding to the current situation in the list with the specified situations as a function of the current situation and selecting the mode predetermined for this situation in order to carry out the remaining distance control. In particular, it is determined which of the listed specified situations best matches the current situation and a predetermined mode is selected as the mode for this situation, in which the remaining distance control is to be carried out.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
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 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 . 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). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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:
[0008]
In the method for closed-loop control of a remaining distance for a vehicle in order to stop the vehicle at a specified stopping position, the remaining distance control is carried out in one of either of two modes, wherein one of the two modes is a comfort mode, i.e., a mode configured for comfort, and the other mode is a high-precision mode, i.e., a mode configured for a high degree of precision. This means that the mode in which the remaining distance control is carried out is set selectively, i.e., based on a selection, and thus can be selectively switched between the comfort mode and the high-precision mode. The method is used in the case of multiple-move maneuvers, in which the vehicle is guided to the specified stopping position in several maneuver moves. These individual maneuver moves each end in a target position at which the vehicle is to be stopped. A current situation is determined taking into consideration at least one already performed maneuver move, in particular taking into consideration maneuver performance accuracy of the at least one already performed maneuver move. Depending on the current situation, a selection is made as to which of the two modes the remaining distance control is to be carried out in, i.e., whether the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the comfort mode or in the high-precision mode. The selection is based on a comparison of the current situation with a list of specified situations. The mode in which the remaining distance control is to be carried out is predetermined in the list for each of the specified situations. It is therefore predetermined in which of the specified situations the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the comfort mode and in which of the specified situations the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the high-precision mode.
[0011]
In a possible embodiment of the method, the current situation, in particular the maneuver performance accuracy based on which the current situation is determined, is determined taking into consideration a stopping accuracy with which the vehicle has reached the respective target position in at least one maneuver move.
[0012]
In a further possible embodiment of the method, the current situation, in particular the maneuver performance accuracy based on which the current situation is determined, is determined taking into consideration at least one maneuver move which has been completed at an early stopping point before reaching the respective target position.
[0013]
In a further possible embodiment of the method, the current situation, in particular the maneuver performance accuracy based on which the current situation is determined, is determined taking into consideration at least one maneuver move, during or after the performance of which a remaining distance to the respective target position falls below a specified value.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶, 0011-0013
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 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 . 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). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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:
[0008]
In the method for closed-loop control of a remaining distance for a vehicle in order to stop the vehicle at a specified stopping position, the remaining distance control is carried out in one of either of two modes, wherein one of the two modes is a comfort mode, i.e., a mode configured for comfort, and the other mode is a high-precision mode, i.e., a mode configured for a high degree of precision. This means that the mode in which the remaining distance control is carried out is set selectively, i.e., based on a selection, and thus can be selectively switched between the comfort mode and the high-precision mode. The method is used in the case of multiple-move maneuvers, in which the vehicle is guided to the specified stopping position in several maneuver moves. These individual maneuver moves each end in a target position at which the vehicle is to be stopped. A current situation is determined taking into consideration at least one already performed maneuver move, in particular taking into consideration maneuver performance accuracy of the at least one already performed maneuver move. Depending on the current situation, a selection is made as to which of the two modes the remaining distance control is to be carried out in, i.e., whether the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the comfort mode or in the high-precision mode. The selection is based on a comparison of the current situation with a list of specified situations. The mode in which the remaining distance control is to be carried out is predetermined in the list for each of the specified situations. It is therefore predetermined in which of the specified situations the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the comfort mode and in which of the specified situations the remaining distance control is to be carried out in the high-precision mode.
[0011]
In a possible embodiment of the method, the current situation, in particular the maneuver performance accuracy based on which the current situation is determined, is determined taking into consideration a stopping accuracy with which the vehicle has reached the respective target position in at least one maneuver move.
[0014]
In a further possible embodiment of the method, scatter in the stopping accuracies of all of the performed maneuver moves is determined and stored and is taken into consideration when determining the current situation. The scatter thus influences the selection of the mode and is thus taken into consideration when continuing the maneuver with each subsequent maneuver move. This enables, for example, an interface between a trajectory controller and a higher-level or lower-level controller to incorporate scatter in the remaining distance control into a trajectory control or remaining distance specification. This enables a further improvement in the imitation of human maneuvering behavior.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶, 0011, 0014, 0020, 0073-0074, 0080, 0086
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 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 . 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). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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:
[0014] In a further possible embodiment of the method, scatter in the stopping accuracies of all of the performed maneuver moves is determined and stored and is taken into consideration when determining the current situation. The scatter thus influences the selection of the mode and is thus taken into consideration when continuing the maneuver with each subsequent maneuver move. This enables, for example, an interface between a trajectory controller and a higher-level or lower-level controller to incorporate scatter in the remaining distance control into a trajectory control or remaining distance specification. This enables a further improvement in the imitation of human maneuvering behavior.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
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 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 . 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). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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:
[0015] In a further possible embodiment of the method, the current situation is determined taking into consideration a pitch of a surface that the vehicle drives on and/or a clearance between the vehicle and at least one obstacle. This allows a simple and reliable estimation and determination of the situation in a particularly advantageous manner. By considering the clearance when controlling the remaining distance and making the switch, a high level of comfort for the vehicle user can be achieved particularly frequently depending on the situation. By taking the pitch of the driving surface into consideration, the vehicle can be started up more quickly in a maneuver.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "wherein the determined current situation is compared to the list with the specified situations by identifying a specified situation corresponding to the determined current situation in the list with the specified situations as a function of the determined current situation and selecting from the two modes mode predetermined for the specified situation perform the remaining distance control." in Lines .
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim as vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Claim ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The subjective term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim as vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Claim ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The subjective term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim as vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and 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.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
:
of the maneuver See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶, 0085
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶, 0085
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is 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. 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.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights