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 .
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application filed in Japan on 04/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024, 11/26/2024 and 06/24/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OSAMURA et al (U.S.2016/0347201) and further in view of Sugie et al (U.S. 2013/0285589).
OSAMURA disclosed an electric vehicle comprising: a plurality of motors;
a driving force merging unit configured to merge driving forces of the plurality of motors in a state where rotation speeds of output shafts of the plurality of motors are interlocked with each other [The plant 30 is a drive system of the electric vehicle and includes a motor 31 and wheels 34 coupled to the motor 31 via an output shaft 32, a reduction gear 35, and drive shafts 33, as shown in FIG. 2. Rotations of the motor 31 are controlled by a motor torque command value T.sub.M, which is computed by the command value computing unit 18 shown in FIG. 1. When the motor 31 rotates in the drive system of the electric vehicle, a vibration (a torsional vibration) is generated from torsion of the drive shafts 33.] (Paragraph. 0022).
a rotation detection unit configured to detect a rotation speed of a target motor that is any one of the plurality of motors [The actual acceleration computing unit 14 is an approximate differentiator for obtaining acceleration by differentiating speed. The actual acceleration computing unit 14 computes rotational acceleration in reality (hereinafter, referred to as “actual acceleration”) by differentiating rotational speed in reality (hereinafter, referred to as “actual rotational speed”) ω.sub.M [rad/s] of the motor 31 in the plant 30. The actual rotational speed ω.sub.M can be detected by rotational speed detecting unit (a rotational speed sensor) 13, which is mounted on the output shafts 32 of the motor 31 in the plant 30, for example] (Paragraph. 0025);
a main control unit configured to generate a rotation speed command signal based on a target rotation speed [The plant 30 is a drive system of the electric vehicle and includes a motor 31 and wheels 34 coupled to the motor 31 via an output shaft 32, a reduction gear 35, and drive shafts 33, as shown in FIG. 2. Rotations of the motor 31 are controlled by a motor torque command value T.sub.M, which is computed by the command value computing unit 18 shown in FIG. 1. When the motor 31 rotates in the drive system of the electric vehicle, a vibration (a torsional vibration) is generated from torsion of the drive shafts 33. In FIG. 2, the torsion of the drive shafts 33 is schematically illustrated in spring shapes. To suppress the torsional vibration, correction is made when the command value computing unit 18 computes a motor torque command value] (Paragraph. 0022); and
a plurality of command units provided to correspond to the plurality of motors
PNG
media_image1.png
13
12
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and configured to transmit motor command signals to the corresponding motors [The command value computing unit 18 computes a final motor torque command value (a second motor torque command value) T.sub.M[Nm] of the motor that drives the vehicle by adding the correction amount to the first motor torque command value computed by the dividing unit 12. The second motor torque command value T.sub.M is inputted to the plant 30 and motor torque is generated to coincide with or to follow the second motor torque command value T.sub.M. Accordingly, the motor 31 is rotated. In addition, braking torque F.sub.B[N] caused by braking of the driver is also inputted to the plant 30] (The command value computing unit 18 computes a final motor torque command value (a second motor torque command value) T.sub.M[Nm] of the motor that drives the vehicle by adding the correction amount to the first motor torque command value computed by the dividing unit 12. The second motor torque command value T.sub.M is inputted to the plant 30 and motor torque is generated to coincide with or to follow the second motor torque command value T.sub.M. Accordingly, the motor 31 is rotated. In addition, braking torque F.sub.B[N] caused by braking of the driver is also inputted to the plant 30] (Paragraph. 0035),
wherein the main control unit is configured to transmit the rotation speed command signal to a first command unit that is the command unit corresponding to the target motor, and not to transmit the rotation speed command signal to a second command unit that is the command unit corresponding to the motor other than the target motor [ As described above, the driving force controller for an electric vehicle according to the first embodiment of the present invention is capable of suppressing the torsional vibration generated in the drive system by computing the target acceleration using the ideal vehicle model, also computing the actual acceleration by differentiating the actual speed, and computing the correction amount for reducing the deviation between the target acceleration and the actual acceleration such that the deviation becomes 0 or smaller. In addition, since the disturbance torque component is removed from the correction amount, the driving force controller for an electric vehicle is capable of suppressing a torque variation resulting from the disturbance torque (an external speed variation factor), which is difficult to be identified, with a simple configuration without using such an input torque estimator as stated in Patent Literature 1, and thereby capable of suppressing the divergence between the target driving force and the actual driving force] (Paragraph. 0040), and
However OSAMURA did not explicitly disclose, ”the second command unit is configured to generate a second motor command signal to be transmitted to the motor corresponding to the second command unit based on a processing result of the rotation speed command signal received by the first command unit”.
In the same field of endeavor Sugie disclosed, “A process procedure for a positioning control in the electric motor control system is explained next. FIG. 13 is a flowchart of an example of a procedure of a positioning process of the electric motor control system according to the second embodiment. First, when the command generation information including the target position, the speed, and the acceleration/deceleration time is input to the upper-level control device 10A via the command input unit 11 (Step S71), the acceleration/deceleration-command generation unit 15 generates the sequential command with the acceleration adjusted for each of the electric motors 20-1 to 20-3 for each communication cycle of the network 40 (Step S72). The sequential command to be generated may include a sequential command to be executed next or sequential commands of a plurality of successive communication cycles (sampling periods). Furthermore, it may be configured such that sequential commands of all communication cycles (sampling periods) are generated in advance based on the input command generation information (Paragraph. 0067).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated a process procedure for a positioning control in the electric motor control system is explained next. FIG. 13 is a flowchart of an example of a procedure of a positioning process of the electric motor control system according to the second embodiment. First, when the command generation information including the target position, the speed, and the acceleration/deceleration time is input to the upper-level control device 10A via the command input unit 11 (Step S71), the acceleration/deceleration-command generation unit 15 generates the sequential command with the acceleration adjusted for each of the electric motors 20-1 to 20-3 for each communication cycle of the network 40 (Step S72). The sequential command to be generated may include a sequential command to be executed next or sequential commands of a plurality of successive communication cycles (sampling periods). Furthermore, it may be configured such that sequential commands of all communication cycles (sampling periods) are generated in advance based on the input command generation information as taught by Sugie in the method and system of OSAMURA to make the electric motor control system more efficient.
2. As per claim 2 OSAMURA-Sugie disclosed wherein the first command unit is configured to generate a torque command signal based on the received rotation speed command signal (Paragraph. 0008),
generate a first motor command signal to be transmitted to the target motor based on the generated torque command signal (Paragraph. 0033), and
transmit the generated torque command signal to the second command unit, and the second command unit is configured to
generate the second motor command signal based on the torque command signal received from the first command unit (OSAMURA , Paragraph. 0035 & 0040).
3. As per claim 3 OSAMURA-Sugie disclosed wherein the rotation detection unit is provided in each of the plurality of motors, and the main control unit is configured to set,
in a case where the rotation detection unit of the target motor fails, any one of the plurality of motors in which the failed rotation detection unit is not provided, as a new target motor (OSAMURA, Paragraph. 0035), and
transmit the rotation speed command signal to a new first command unit corresponding to the new target motor, and not to transmit the rotation speed command signal to a new second command unit corresponding to the motor other than the new target motor (OSAMURA, Paragraph. 0040-0041).
4. As per claim 4 OSAMURA-Sugie disclosed wherein the rotation detection unit is provided in each of the plurality of motors, and the main control unit is configured to set,
in a case where the rotation detection unit of the target motor fails (Sugie, Paragraph. 0053), any one of the plurality of motors in which the failed rotation detection unit is not provided, as a new target motor, and
transmit the rotation speed command signal to a new first command unit corresponding to the new target motor, and not to transmit the rotation speed command signal to a new second command unit corresponding to the motor other than the new target motor (OSAMURA, Paragraph. 0025 & 0035). Claim 4 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a electric vehicle. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 6 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
An electric vehicle comprising:
a plurality of motors;
a driving force merging unit configured to merge driving forces of the plurality of motors in a state where rotation speeds of output shafts of the plurality of motors are interlocked with each other; a rotation detection unit configured to detect a rotation speed of a target motor that is any one of the plurality of motors;
a main control unit configured to generate a rotation speed command signal based on a target rotation speed; and
a plurality of command units provided to correspond to the plurality of motors and configured to transmit motor command signals to the corresponding motors,
wherein the main control unit is configured to transmit the rotation speed command signal to a first command unit that is the command unit corresponding to the target motor, and not to transmit the rotation speed command signal to a second command unit that is the command unit corresponding to the motor other than the target motor, and
the second command unit is configured to generate a second motor command signal to be transmitted to the motor corresponding to the second command unit based on a processing result of the rotation speed command signal received by the first command unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “transmit…” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An electric vehicle comprising:
a plurality of motors;
a driving force merging unit configured to merge driving forces of the plurality of motors in a state where rotation speeds of output shafts of the plurality of motors are interlocked with each other; a rotation detection unit configured to detect a rotation speed of a target motor that is any one of the plurality of motors;
a main control unit configured to generate a rotation speed command signal based on a target rotation speed; and
a plurality of command units provided to correspond to the plurality of motors and configured to transmit motor command signals to the corresponding motors,
wherein the main control unit is configured to transmit the rotation speed command signal to a first command unit that is the command unit corresponding to the target motor, and not to transmit the rotation speed command signal to a second command unit that is the command unit corresponding to the motor other than the target motor, and
the second command unit is configured to generate a second motor command signal to be transmitted to the motor corresponding to the second command unit based on a processing result of the rotation speed command signal received by the first command unit.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 1 further recite “an electrical vehicle comprising: a plurality of motors; a driving force merging unit configured to merge driving forces of the plurality of motors in a state where rotation speeds of output shafts of the plurality of motors are interlocked with each other” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “the second command unit is configured to generate a second motor command signal to be transmitted to the motor corresponding to the second command unit based on a processing result of the rotation speed command signal received by the first command unit” in claim 1 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “second command unit that is the command unit corresponding to the motor other than the target motor” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-4 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
6. 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: “a main control unit”; “a driving force merging unit”; “a plurality of command unit…”; “main control unit is configured to…”; “a second command unit is configured to…”; a driving force merging unit configured to in claim 1.
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.
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. 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.
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 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.
7. Claims 1-4 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.
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) are: “a main control unit”; “a driving force merging unit”; “a plurality of command unit…”; “main control unit is configured to…”; “a second command unit is configured to…” in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims limitation “a main control unit”; “a driving force merging unit”; “a plurality of command unit…”; “main control unit is configured to…”; “a second command unit is configured to…” in claim 1 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. 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 2-4 do not cure the deficiency of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph, for their dependency upon claim 1.
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.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
9. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
10. 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 un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667