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 Office action is in response to the amendments filed on March 06, 2026. Claims 11-15 and 17-20 are currently pending, with Claims 11-15 and 17-20 being amended, and Claim 16 being cancelled.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed March 06, 2026, the Examiner maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, and maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, filed March 06, 2026, pertaining to the teachings of restricting the operation of the vehicle after a predefined time period has elapsed (see page 6 of instant arguments), the Examiner is unpersuaded. MacFarlane teaches that if a fault is determined to be present, and the key cycle limit has been exceeded, that the vehicle continues to be restricted until the counter resets and the fault is addressed (see at least Paragraphs [0039], [0040], [0045], [0048] of MacFarlane). In other words, MacFarlane teaches that a time limit for addressing a fault in the vehicle has expired, and restricts the vehicle operation in response. Diehl more explicitly teaches that the reaction is checked for during the time period (see at least Paragraphs [0031]-[0035] of Diehl). MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, teaches that the system determines if an action has taken place in a certain time period, and if the reaction has not, the vehicle operation is restricted. As such, the Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of this Office action, the Examiner is interpreting the claim language regarding “a processing unit” as comprising structure plus hardware for a computer or computer equivalent. If the Applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted as such, the Applicant may amend or cancel the claim limitations to clarify the record.
For the purposes of this Office action, the Examiner is interpreting the claim language regarding “critical error functions” to mean a fault, failure, or error associated with a component of the vehicle. If the Applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted as such, the Applicant may amend or cancel the claim limitations to clarify the record.
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 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 limitations 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 limitations are:
“a display unit …” in Claims 12 and 18.
“an output unit …” in Claims 17-20.
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:
Regarding the limitation of “a display unit …”, the instant specification at Paragraphs [0013] and [0016] at least states that “displaying to the vehicle driver on a display unit, for example an onboard display of the vehicle …” and “it is provided that the information is output on an output unit, designed as a display unit, of the vehicle, for example, as already mentioned above, on the onboard display of the vehicle … and the display unit is in particular a multimedia display unit … displayed on the display unit by means of text, numbers, images, and/or pictograms …”. As such, a display unit is a screen, interface, dashboard display, or equivalent, capable of receiving signals and providing information to the driver.
Regarding the limitation of “an output unit …”, the instant specification at Paragraphs [0016] and [0029] only states that “the information is output on an output unit, of the vehicle, … on the onboard display of the vehicle …”. The structure for the output unit is a display, or interface, which provides information to the driver.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0071332 A1, to MacFarlane, et al (hereinafter referred to as MacFarlane; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0179045 A1, to Diehl, et al (hereinafter referred to as Diehl; previously of record).
As per Claim 11, MacFarlane discloses the features of a method for operating a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0020]; where the control system (170) for a vehicle controls an engine start of the engine based on a notification of faults within the vehicle), comprising the steps of:
detecting a predefined critical error that (e.g. Paragraphs [0022], [0031]; where the sensor array measures and obtains information for use by the controller (204) in controlling a notification of any faults detected within the vehicle (100); and where when a fault is detected, the notification unit provides the notifications to the driver),
absent a predefined reaction of a driver, restricts operation of the vehicle after the vehicle has come to a standstill (e.g. Paragraphs [0037], [0039]; where the operation of the vehicle is restricted when a fault is determined to be present, and the processor (220) provides instructions so that the engine does not start until the driver provides a predetermined action in response to the notification; and where the system determines that a required action has not been performed by the driver, the vehicle operation continues to be restricted), wherein
restricting operation of the vehicle constitutes deactivating and/or preventing reactivation of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0037], [0039]; where the operation of the vehicle is restricted when a fault is determined to be present, and the processor (220) provides instructions so that the engine does not start until the driver provides a predetermined action in response to the notification; and where the system determines that a required action has not been performed by the driver, the vehicle operation continues to be restricted);
in response to detecting the predefined critical error, determining whether the vehicle has come to the standstill (e.g. Paragraphs [0022], [0037]; where the system determines or detects a state of the gear or transmission of the vehicle (100), for example as to whether the vehicle is in a park, drive, and/or reverse mode; and where the operation of the vehicle is restricted when a fault is determined to be present, and the processor (220) provides instructions so that the engine does not start (i.e. vehicle is at a standstill) until the driver provides a predetermined action in response to the notification);
in response to determining that the vehicle has come to the standstill, determining, during a predefined time period (e.g. Paragraphs [0037], [0064]; where the processor (220) keeps or maintains the transmission in a "park mode" (i.e. the vehicle is at a standstill), and the engine may be prevented from starting until the driver provides an acknowledgement of the notification and a countdown time has also expired) ‘…’;
after the predefined time period, restricting operation of the vehicle in response to determining that the predefined reaction has not taken place during the predefined time period (e.g. Paragraphs [0034], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0045], [0048]; where a determination is made as to whether a fault exists in the vehicle or its components, and if the fault is present, the operation of the vehicle is restricted until the driver provides a predetermined action, and the vehicle may deny requests to move the transmission mode from the “park” mode after a predetermined number of ignition cycles in which the fault has been provided, and the display identifies how many key cycles are remaining before operation of the vehicle will be prohibited, and when the key cycle limit has been exceeded, then a further notification is provided and the vehicle is not allowed to be moved from the “park” mode (i.e., the time limit for a user to initiate an action/ address a fault has been exceeded, and the vehicle remains restricted until the key counter resets and the fault has been addressed)); and
from a start of the predefined time period, outputting information to the driver, wherein the information relates to: the predefined time period, the restricting of the operation of the vehicle, and relating to the predefined reaction (e.g. Paragraphs [0071]- [0072]; where an updated notification is provided which an includes an updated time remaining in the countdown timer as the timer continues to run, and the display warning identifies the fault and the notice that a driver can acknowledge or dismiss the notification).
MacFarlane fails to disclose every feature of determining, during a predefined time period, whether the predefined reaction takes place.
However, Diehl, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for controlling a brake system of a vehicle, where the system determines if the timer has expired, i.e., a predefined time period has passed, and the system checks whether a brake function has been initiated until the time has expired (i.e. checking whether a reaction of the driver has taken place) (e.g. Paragraphs [0031]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the fault notification system of MacFarlane, with the feature of determining if a driver has taken an action during a specified time period in the system of Diehl, in order to increase availability of the vehicle control function during a failure (see at least Paragraph [0014] of Diehl).
As per Claim 12, MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, teaches the features of Claim 11, and MacFarlane further discloses the features of wherein the information is output on a display unit of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0002], [0045], [0057]; where the notification includes a display warning and a display notice, such as on a front dashboard display).
As per Claim 13, MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, teaches the features of Claim 11, and MacFarlane further discloses the features of wherein the information relating to the predefined time period is output as a timer or countdown (e.g. Paragraphs [0069]-[0071]; where the display notice indicates an amount of time remaining on a countdown timer).
As per Claim 15, MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, teaches the features of Claim 11, and MacFarlane further discloses the features of wherein it is determined that the vehicle has come to the standstill when the following predefined standstill conditions have been met: a current speed of the vehicle is 0 km/h; a gear selector lever of the vehicle is in a neutral position or a park position; and a hand brake of the vehicle is activated (e.g. Paragraphs [0022], [0041]; where the system includes keeping or maintaining the transmission mode in a "park" mode (i.e. speed is equal to zero and the vehicle is in park); and where the system may include wheel speed sensors and electric park brake sensors, to determine the state of ignition of the vehicle and determine if a fault exists that prevents engine operation).
As per Claim 17, MacFarlane discloses the features of a device for operating a vehicle, wherein the device is configured to perform the method (e.g. Paragraph [0022]; where the controller (204) receives information from the sensors for controlling an engine start of the engine and a notification of any faults detected within the vehicle), comprising:
a processing unit (e.g. Paragraph [0025]; where the computer system of the controller includes a processor (220), a memory (222), and interface (224), a storage device (226), and a bus (228)) configured to:
detect a predefined critical error that (e.g. Paragraphs [0022], [0031]; where the sensor array measures and obtains information for use by the controller (204) in controlling a notification of any faults detected within the vehicle (100); and where when a fault is detected, the notification unit provides the notifications to the driver),
absent a predefined reaction of a driver, restricts operation of the vehicle after the vehicle has come to a standstill (e.g. Paragraphs [0037], [0039]; where the operation of the vehicle is restricted when a fault is determined to be present, and the processor (220) provides instructions so that the engine does not start until the driver provides a predetermined action in response to the notification; and where the system determines that a required action has not been performed by the driver, the vehicle operation continues to be restricted), wherein
restricting operation of the vehicle constitutes deactivating and/or preventing reactivation of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0037], [0039]; where the operation of the vehicle is restricted when a fault is determined to be present, and the processor (220) provides instructions so that the engine does not start until the driver provides a predetermined action in response to the notification; and where the system determines that a required action has not been performed by the driver, the vehicle operation continues to be restricted);
in response to detecting the predefined critical error, determine whether the vehicle has come to the standstill (e.g. Paragraphs [0022], [0037]; where the system determines or detects a state of the gear or transmission of the vehicle (100), for example as to whether the vehicle is in a park, drive, and/or reverse mode; and where the operation of the vehicle is restricted when a fault is determined to be present, and the processor (220) provides instructions so that the engine does not start (i.e. vehicle is at a standstill) until the driver provides a predetermined action in response to the notification);
in response to determining that the vehicle has come to the standstill, determine, during a predefined time period (e.g. Paragraphs [0037], [0064]; where the processor (220) keeps or maintains the transmission in a "park mode" (i.e. the vehicle is at a standstill), and the engine may be prevented from starting until the driver provides an acknowledgement of the notification and a countdown time has also expired) ‘…’;
restricting operation of the vehicle in response to determining that the predefined reaction has not taken place during the predefined time period (e.g. Paragraphs [0034], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0045], [0048]; where a determination is made as to whether a fault exists in the vehicle or its components, and if the fault is present, the operation of the vehicle is restricted until the driver provides a predetermined action, and the vehicle may deny requests to move the transmission mode from the “park” mode after a predetermined number of ignition cycles in which the fault has been provided, and the display identifies how many key cycles are remaining before operation of the vehicle will be prohibited, and when the key cycle limit has been exceeded, then a further notification is provided and the vehicle is not allowed to be moved from the “park” mode (i.e., the time limit for a user to initiate an action/ address a fault has been exceeded, and the vehicle remains restricted until the key counter resets and the fault has been addressed)); and
generate, from a start of the predefined time period, information output to the driver, wherein the information relates to: the predefined time period, the restricted operation of the vehicle after the predefined time period has elapsed, and the predefined reaction (e.g. Paragraphs [0071]- [0072]; where an updated notification is provided which an includes an updated time remaining in the countdown timer as the timer continues to run, and the display warning identifies the fault and the notice that a driver can acknowledge or dismiss the notification), and
output the information to the driver (e.g. Paragraphs [0071]- [0072]; where an updated notification is provided which an includes an updated time remaining in the countdown timer as the timer continues to run, and the display warning identifies the fault and the notice that a driver can acknowledge or dismiss the notification).
MacFarlane fails to disclose every feature of determine, during the predefined time period, whether the predefined reaction takes place.
However, Diehl, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for controlling a brake system of a vehicle, where the system determines if the timer has expired, i.e., a predefined time period has passed, and the system checks whether a brake function has been initiated until the time has expired (i.e. checking whether a reaction of the driver has taken place) (e.g. Paragraphs [0031]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the fault notification system of MacFarlane, with the feature of determining if a driver has taken an action during a specified time period in the system of Diehl, in order to increase availability of the vehicle control function during a failure (see at least Paragraph [0014] of Diehl).
As per Claim 18, MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, teaches the features of Claim 17, and MacFarlane further discloses the features of wherein the output unit is a display unit (e.g. Paragraphs [0002], [0045], [0057]; where the notification includes a display warning and a display notice, such as on a front dashboard display).
As per Claim 19, MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, teaches the features of Claim 17, and MacFarlane further discloses the features of wherein the processing unit and/or the output unit is/are coupled to a controller area network of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0027]; where the interface (224) allows communication to the computer system of the controller (204), and includes one or more network interfaces to communicated with other systems or components).
As per Claim 20, MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, teaches the features of Claim 17, and MacFarlane further discloses the features of wherein the processing unit and the output unit are configured as a joint unit (e.g. Paragraph [0025]; where the computer system of the controller includes a processor (220), a memory (222), and interface (224), a storage device (226), and a bus (228)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0246590 A1, to Fairgrieve, et al (hereinafter referred to as Fairgrieve; previously of record).
As per Claim 14, MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, teaches the features of Claim 11, but the combination of MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, fails to teach every feature of wherein the information relating to the predefined reaction is output by displaying a section from a user manual of the vehicle that describes the predefined reaction.
However, Fairgrieve, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for controlling a vehicle, where the VCU (10) determines that the user has not provided the required confirmation within the prescribed time period or a fault is detected, the VCU (10) may notify the driver to refer to the user handbook, and may provide warnings to the user via the display (e.g. Paragraphs [0082], [0208]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the fault notification system of MacFarlane, in view of Diehl, with the feature of recommending the user see the vehicle manual in the system of Fairgrieve, in order to determine a way for addressing a determined fault or obstruction for the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0208] of Fairgrieve).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fischer, et al (U.S. 2018/0297610 A1), which teaches a method for monitoring vehicle functions and stopping the vehicle in response to a degraded condition, and stopping the vehicle in response.
Maron (U.S. 2006/0113138 A1), which teaches a method for transmitting safety-critical condition information to a driver and reducing operability of the vehicle until the user acknowledges the safety condition.
Mueller (U.S. 2019/0143916 A1), which teaches a method for operating a safety-critical controller of a vehicle, and generating a warning when an error is detected within a time frame, and determining if the error has been acknowledged before the time expires.
Niemann, et al (U.S. 2013/0338872 A1), which teaches a method for restricting operation of a vehicle component passed on a detected malfunction.
Schankula, et al (U.S. 2014/0277904 A1), which teaches a method for detecting an error and restricting operation of a vehicle until the error is corrected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights