DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: authentication module configured to search in claims 11 and 20.
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. The examiner is interpreted the authentication module to be Body domain controller (BDC) #18.
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 § 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 10-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US2021/0070194) in view of Zhang et al. (CN108327480A) and herein after will be referred as Oh and Zhang respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Oh teaches a method for controlling an electric vehicle (Fig.5 for method and Fig.2 electric vehicle),
determining whether the driver getting into the electric vehicle has been completed based on a preset condition (Para [0052] : “The processor 140 may determine whether the user rides in the vehicle based on whether a door of the vehicle is opened or closed or whether the user is seated in the seat, and may control to switch a power source of the vehicle using at least one or more of the result of determining whether the user rides in the vehicle, or whether a brake input occurs.”);
searching for an authentication mechanism inside the electric vehicle; and switching from the reservation mode to a start mode based on the authentication mechanism (Para [0053] : “When the stage of switching the power source of the vehicle is classified as a power-off stage, a power-on stage, or a drivable stage (an EV ready stage), in the power-off stage of the vehicle, when a door adjacent to the driver's seat is opened and when the smart key succeeds in being authenticated in the interior of the vehicle, or when all the doors are closed after a door except for the door adjacent to the driver's seat is opened and when the smart key succeeds in being authenticated in the interior of the vehicle, the processor 140 may switch from the power-off stage of the vehicle to the power-on stage of the vehicle.”).
Oh does not expressly teaches determining whether a function is operated in a reservation mode before a driver gets into the electric vehicle.
Zhang teaches determining whether a function is operated in a reservation mode before a driver gets into the electric vehicle (Para [0034-0035]: “Receive instructions sent by the remote terminal and determine whether the relevant parameters inside the vehicle have reached the corresponding preset values; If all relevant parameters reach their respective preset values, the instruction will be parsed into authentication information and an air conditioner start instruction, and the authentication information will be identified as consistent with the preset authentication information.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oh to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to include determining whether a function is operated in a reservation mode before a driver gets into the electric vehicle. Doing so would optimize the operation of the electric vehicle.
Similarly Claim 11 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 2, Oh in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhang teaches wherein the function comprises a remote air conditioning function or a reserved air conditioning function (Para [0033]).
Regarding Claim 3, Oh in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1.
Oh teaches wherein the preset condition is based on conversion from a door open state of at least one among a driver’s door, a front passenger’s door, a rear left passenger’s door, or a rear right passenger’s door to door closed states of all the doors (Para [0052]).
Similarly Claim 12 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 4, Oh in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1.
Oh teaches wherein the preset condition is based on a depression of a brake pedal after a door open state of a driver's door (Para [0052]).
Similarly Claim 13 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 5, Oh in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1.
Oh teaches wherein switching from the reservation mode to the start mode comprises determining whether it is allowed for a current vehicle state to be switched to the start mode (Para [0053] : “When the stage of switching the power source of the vehicle is classified as a power-off stage, a power-on stage, or a drivable stage (an EV ready stage), in the power-off stage of the vehicle, when a door adjacent to the driver's seat is opened and when the smart key succeeds in being authenticated in the interior of the vehicle, or when all the doors are closed after a door except for the door adjacent to the driver's seat is opened and when the smart key succeeds in being authenticated in the interior of the vehicle, the processor 140 may switch from the power-off stage of the vehicle to the power-on stage of the vehicle.”).
Similarly Claim 14 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 10, Oh in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1.
Oh teaches wherein the authentication mechanism comprises a smart key or a digital key (Para [0053]).
Similarly Claim 19 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 20, Oh teaches an electric vehicle (Fig.2) comprising:
an electronics controller configured to control electrical elements of the electric vehicle (Fig.1 #100);
an authentication module configured to search for an authentication mechanism inside the electric vehicle and perform authentication (Para [0064-0065] #133 and 10 and Fig.2); and
determine whether a driver's getting into the electric vehicle has been completed based on a preset condition, and request the electronics controller to switch to a start mode based on the authentication mechanism (Para [0062]).
Zhang teaches an air temperature controller configured to be operated by the electronics controller (Fig.2 Para [0036]), a second controller configured to receive a signal according to a remote/reserved air conditioning state from the electronics controller to determine whether a remote/reserved air conditioning mode is maintained (Para [0036]: “If they match, the air conditioner start command will be sent to the air conditioner controller to turn on the air conditioner.”).
Claims 6 -7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Zhang and in further view of Federal Register/ Vol.68 No.94/ Thursday, May 15,2003/ proposed rules 26269 and herein after will be referred as Federal Motor Safety.
Regarding Claim 6, Oh in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 5.
Oh may not expressly teaches wherein determining whether it is allowed for the current vehicle state to be switched to the start mode comprises determining whether a transmission of the electric vehicle is in parking mode.
However, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requires that before a vehicle can be started the transmission level must be in Park/ neutral position due to safety reasons and hence would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art to incorporate this feature to optimize the safety of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oh and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard to include transmission to be at the park position before starting the vehicle. Doing so would optimize the safety of the vehicle operation as disclosed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.
Similarly Claim 15 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 7, Oh in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 6.
Oh may not expressly teaches further comprising requesting the driver to switch to the parking mode based on a determination that the transmission is not in the parking mode.
From the above claim, it is obvious to have the transmission in Park mode if the driver wants to start the vehicle and hence requesting or driver switching it to park mode would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art to operate/drive the vehicle forward or reverse.
Similarly Claim 16 is rejected on the similar rational.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Zhang and in further view of Takase (US20250178457) and herein after will be referred as Takase.
Regarding Claim 8, Oh in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 5.
Oh may not expressly teaches wherein determining whether it is allowed for the current vehicle state to be switched to the start mode comprises determining whether a charging connector is connected to a charging terminal of the electric vehicle.
Takase teaches wherein determining whether it is allowed for the current vehicle state to be switched to the start mode comprises determining whether a charging connector is connected to a charging terminal of the electric vehicle ( Para [0042] : “In another application example, in response to detection of the power feeding connector of the charging cable from the power feeding device 45 being inserted to the power feeding socket of the charging power connector 44, the start prohibitor 63 prohibits starting of the electric motor 1.” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oh and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Takase to include determining whether it is allowed for the current vehicle state to be switched to the start mode comprises determining whether a charging connector is connected to a charging terminal of the electric vehicle. Doing so would optimize the safety of the vehicle operation.
Similarly Claim 17 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 9, Oh in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 8.
Oh may not expressly teaches further comprising requesting the driver to remove the charging connector based on a determination that the charging connector is connected.
However, Takase teaches when the charging cable is connected to the vehicle, the vehicle cannot be started and hence it would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art to have the driver remove the charging cable if he /she wants to drive the vehicle. Doing so would optimize the safety of vehicle operation.
Similarly Claim 18 is rejected on the similar rational.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanson et al. (US20170259783A1) discloses systems and methods for selectively activating operation of one or more vehicle powertrain elements are presented. In one example, a propulsion source of a vehicle is activated in response to a driver moving a shift lever from a first location to a second location. Further, activation of propulsion source may be made contingent on whether or not the vehicle is coupled to an electrical grid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668