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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending and examined.
Drawing
Figures 1-7 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because features as recited in the claims are not presented in the drawing: “thrust calculation unit” as recited in claim 1, “acquisition unit” as recited in claim 5, “moving velocity calculation unit” as recited in claim 5, and “thrust prediction unit” as claims 6 and 7. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Drawing(s) are required to facilitate understanding of the invention.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There are numerous confusion and inconsistency among “horizontal direction” and “longitudinal direction”. For example, “[0056] When the vehicle 10 is caused to travel based on the vehicle speed V, the yaw rate r, and a traveling command value of the acceleration u, the travel control unit M20 predicts the thrusts FL, FR produced by motor rotation of the drive wheels 21, 22 based on the traveling command value, based on the traveling command value and the position Px, Py of the center of gravity of the vehicle 10. If the thrusts FL, FR exceed a predetermined limit value, the travel control unit M20 limits the rotational speeds or the moving velocities of the drive wheels 21, 22. In this case, while considering influence of the position Py of the center of gravity in the horizontal direction (y-axis direction) on the thrusts FL, FR and influence of the position Px of the center of gravity in the longitudinal direction (x-axis direction)”, and “[0061] FIG. 8 is a flowchart of a procedure of calculating parameters. The present process is repeatedly performed by the control device 40 at predetermined intervals. In the present process, every time the vehicle travels, as parameters of the vehicle 10, the weight m of the vehicle 10, the position Px of the center of gravity in the horizontal direction (x direction), the position Py of the center of gravity in the longitudinal direction (y direction), the inertia Iz, which is rotary inertia, and the tread b are appropriately calculated.” Is the horizontal direction the y direction and longitudinal direction the x direction as in [0056]? Is the horizontal direction the x direction and longitudinal direction the y direction as in [0061]? According to Fig. 2, x direction is the longitudinal direction, and y direction is the horizontal direction. Applicant is requested to go through the specification and make the appropriate correction.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
Claims 1-10 are rejected because the following units as recited have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function:
“thrust calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 10;
“a center of gravity calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 1;
calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 2;
“second calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 2;
“acquisition unit that acquires” as recited in claim 2;
“weight calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 4;
“moving velocity calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 5;
“tread calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 5;
“thrust prediction unit that predicts” as recited in claims 6, 7, 8;
“inertia calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claims 8, 9;
“prediction unit that predicts” as recited in claim 9; and
“rotary inertia calculated by the inertia calculation unit” as recited in claim 9.
These phrases could be interpreted to be hardware, software, etc. Any of these interpretations would change the scope of the claim. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. If the claimed subject matter is software, Applicant is required to show adequate algorithm from the disclosure of the specification capable of carry out the function. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-9 are further rejected based on their dependency on the respective independent claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“thrust calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 10;
“a center of gravity calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 1;
“a control unit that controls” as recited in claim 1, “control unit limits” as recited in claim 6;
“first calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 2;
“second calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 2;
“acquisition unit that acquires” as recited in claim 2;
“weight calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 4;
“moving velocity calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 5;
“tread calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 5;
“thrust prediction unit that predicts” as recited in claims 6, 7, 8;
“inertia calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claims 8, 9;
“prediction unit that predicts” as recited in claim 9; and
“rotary inertia calculated by the inertia calculation unit” as recited in claim 9.
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.
The following placeholders invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and the corresponding structure or lack of corresponding structures according to the specification are:
“thrust calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 10;
“a center of gravity calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 1;
“a control unit that controls” as recited in claim 1, “control unit limits” as recited in claim 6;
“first calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 2;
“second calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 2;
“acquisition unit that acquires” as recited in claim 2;
“weight calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 4;
“moving velocity calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 5;
“tread calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claim 5;
“thrust prediction unit that predicts” as recited in claims 6, 7, 8;
“inertia calculation unit that calculates” as recited in claims 8, 9;
“prediction unit that predicts” as recited in claim 9; and
“rotary inertia calculated by the inertia calculation unit” as recited in claim 9.
Except for “control unit” as recited in claims1 and 6 corresponds to a microprocessor, “control unit limits” as recited in claim 6, corresponds to a microprocessor according to “[0033] The vehicle 10 includes a control device 40 having a microcomputer”, 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 for all the units other than the control unit. The disclosure is devoid of any structure for all the units other than the control unit that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcomethe rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of Kato, US 2015/0266487 (A1) teaches while keeping the sum of torques for all four driving wheels constant, a torque control part sequentially determines torque control values so the rotational speed of first, second, and third selected driving wheel pair become the same. Then, a driving force estimation part estimates driving forces of the driving wheels on the basis of the determined torque control values. Subsequently, a centroid estimation part calculates ratios of the driving forces from information about the correlation among the driving forces of the first through third selected driving wheel pairs. Then, the centroid estimation part estimates the centroid position of a moving body on the basis of the ratios of the relevant driving forces. Consequently, the centroid of the moving body can be estimated with a simple configuration without the provision of any special sensors.
In regarding to independent claims 1 and 10, Kato taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a vehicle control system and method for calculating a position of a center of gravity of the vehicle in a coordinate system whose origin is a center position between the pair of drive wheels, based on the thrust calculated; and controlling rotational speeds or moving velocities of the drive wheels based on the position of the center of gravity.
Examiner’s Note
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 entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. 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.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. 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://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667