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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below 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. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety 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. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 has been considered by the examiner. The prior art listed under U.S. Patent Application Publications appears to be listed in error and is not a U.S. Patent Application Publication, and therefore has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “one or more of a look-ahead road grade, and look-ahead traffic information” but should instead recite --one or more of a look-ahead road grade[[,]] and look-ahead traffic information--.
Claim 14 recites “one or more of a look-ahead road grade, and look-ahead traffic information” but should instead recite --one or more of a look-ahead road grade[[,]] and look-ahead traffic information--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “electronic control system” in claims 1-10.
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 above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “electronic control system” in claims 1-10 uses a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Electronic control system: [0016-0017]
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “receiving one or more requests to perform a diagnostic of the engine with the engine in a motoring state, selecting a selected diagnostic corresponding to one of the one or more requests, the selected diagnostic varying in response to a duration of the engine motoring state” and it is unclear to the examiner what is being conveyed by this limitation. Is the diagnostic selected based on the varied duration, or is the diagnostic actually varied somehow? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that either the diagnostic is selected based on the duration or is the diagnostic varied after being selected.
Claim 1 recites “a motoring state” in two instances. It is unclear if these are referring to the same state or different ones. As best understood, the second instance is interpreted to read --the motoring state--.
Claim 6 recites “a predicted duration of an engine motoring state”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same duration of the motoring state that is introduced in claim 1, or a different duration and state. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to either be referring to the same duration or a different duration of the engine motor state introduced in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “an engine motoring state”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same motoring state that is introduced in claim 1, or a different state. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to read --the engine motoring state--.
Claim 11 recites “receiving one or more requests to perform a diagnostic of the engine with the engine in a motoring state, selecting a selected diagnostic corresponding to one of the one or more requests, the selected diagnostic varying in response to a duration of the engine motoring state” and it is unclear to the examiner what is being conveyed by this limitation. Is the diagnostic selected based on the varied duration, or is the diagnostic actually varied somehow? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that either the diagnostic is selected based on the duration or is the diagnostic varied after being selected.
Claim 11 recites “a motoring state” in two instances. It is unclear if these are referring to the same state or different ones. As best understood, the second instance is interpreted to read --the motoring state--.
Claim 15 recites “the electronic control system is configured to perform” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. As best understood, the claims will be interpreted broadly to instead recite that the process is further configured to perform the acts.
Claim 16 recites “a predicted duration of an engine motoring state”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same duration of the motoring state that is introduced in claim 11, or a different duration and state. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to either be referring to the same duration or a different duration of the engine motor state introduced in claim 11.
Claim 18 recites “an engine motoring state”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same motoring state (also referring to as engine motoring state) that is introduced in claim 1, or a different state. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to read --the engine motoring state--.
Claim 19 recites “the electronic control system is configured to perform” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. As best understood, the claims will be interpreted broadly to instead recite that the process is further configured to perform the acts.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1 and 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biester (DE 10 2013 224 716 A1, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Biester discloses a vehicle system comprising: an engine configured to selectably operate in a drive state wherein the engine outputs torque to propel the vehicle system and a motoring state wherein the engine is driven by torque from the vehicle system (see at least [0009, 0020, 0032] – coasting in overrun mode, applying a friction brake, coasting with drive engine disengaged… engine provides drive torque for the motor vehicle); and an electronic control system in operative communication with the engine, the electronic control system being configured to perform the acts of: receiving a plurality of inputs indicative of vehicle system operating conditions, receiving one or more requests to perform a diagnostic of the engine with the engine in a motoring state, selecting a selected diagnostic corresponding to one of the one or more requests, the selected diagnostic varying in response to a duration of the engine motoring state, and performing the selected diagnostic (see at least Figs. 2-3, [0021, 0045, 0050, 0054, 0058-0063] – enabling the execution of the requested diagnostic and/or adaptation function by providing a required operating state for a required duration… speed profile is determined based on the route characteristics… coasting in overrun mode in order to carry out a second requested diagnostic function D2 during a second period of time T2… if an unexpected event occurs that changes the operating state, this may lead to an abort of the diagnostic or adaptation function in an attempt to obtain the requested diagnostic).
Regarding claim 2, Biester discloses the vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs comprise a vehicle speed (see at least [0024] – speed profile), a brake status (see at least [0039, 0059] - braking), and a current road grade (see at least [0021, 0024, 0043, 0060] – slope or gradient).
Regarding claim 3, Biester discloses the vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs comprise one or more look-ahead inputs (see at least [0021, 0024, 0044, 0049] – preceding track characteristics).
Regarding claim 4, Biester discloses the vehicle system of claim 3, wherein the one or more look-ahead inputs comprise one or more of a look-ahead road grade, and look-ahead traffic information (see at least [0021, 0024, 0044, 0049] – preceding track characteristics… traffic… slope or gradient).
Regarding claim 5, Biester discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic control system is configured to perform the acts of: evaluating a respective strike parameter for the one or more requests, and in response to the evaluating, excluding from the selecting at least one of the one or more requests (see at least [0040-0042, 0062] – postpone or perform the diagnosis at a later time).
Regarding claim 6, Biester discloses the system of claim 1, comprising determining a predicted duration of an engine motoring state in response to the plurality of inputs, wherein the act of selecting the selected diagnostic is responsive to the predicted duration (see at least Figs. 2-3, [0021, 0045, 0050, 0054, 0058-0063] – enabling the execution of the requested diagnostic and/or adaptation function by providing a required operating state for a required duration… speed profile is determined based on the route characteristics… coasting in overrun mode in order to carry out a second requested diagnostic function D2 during a second period of time T2).
Regarding claim 9, Biester discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the electronic control system is configured to perform an act of adjusting the determining the predicted duration of the engine motoring state in response to operation of the engine (see at least [0058-0064] – when an unexpected event occurs that changes or necessitates a change in the operating state of the motor vehicle… perform adaptation function).
Regarding claim 10, Biester discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the act of adjusting the determining comprises comparing a predicted motoring time and an observed motoring time, and adjust the subsequent acts of the determining based on a difference between the predicted motoring time and the observed motoring time (see at least [0058-0064] – when an unexpected event occurs that changes or necessitates a change in the operating state of the motor vehicle… perform adaptation function).
Regarding claims 11-16 and 19-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-6 and 9-10, and it has been determined that claims 11-16 and 19-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-6 and 9-10; therefore, claims 11-16 and 19-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-6 and 9-10.
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, 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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biester in view of Wendt (WO 2017/207311 A1, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 7, Biester does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the selected diagnostic comprises a diagnostic comprising a greatest run time that does not exceed the predicted duration of the engine motoring state.
However, Biester does disclose wherein the selected diagnostic comprises a diagnostic comprising a run time that does not exceed the predicted duration of the engine motoring state (see at least [0059-0064]).
Wendt teaches a planning sequence when at least two diagnoses are included, and the diagnoses whose conditions are more difficult to meet can be given a higher priority when determining the planning sequence (see Wendt, at least [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Wendt into the invention of Biester with a reasonable expectation of success such that a greater run time is selected. In Wendt the diagnostic which is more difficult to meet is performed first and given higher priority because it is more difficult to perform this test and an opportunity to perform it is likely rarer. A diagnostic that takes a longer amount of time would be more difficult to perform and therefore, in light of the teachings of Biester and Wendt, selecting the longer diagnostic test would have been obvious because it should be given higher priority as it is more difficult to perform. This could be implemented to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 7; therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biester in view of Krupadanam (US 2009/0312889 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Biester does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the determining the predicted duration of an engine motoring state utilizes an empirically determined model.
However, Biester does disclose wherein the determining the predicted duration of an engine motoring state utilizes a model (see at least [0059-0064]).
Krupadanam, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the determining the predicted variable of a vehicle state utilizes an empirically determined model (see at least [0028] - Theoretical and empirical models of these stochastic processes and variables can be created to predict expected operating conditions and vehicle states.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Krupadanam into the invention of Biester with a reasonable expectation of success. Relying on an empirical model can provide more accurate and reliable predictions for various parameters, such as the predicted duration of the engine motoring state in Biester. This is applying a known tool or process (empirical model) which is used in various applications to a specific application (Biester’s predicted duration) and doing so would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 8; therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Miller (US 2019/0152411 A1) is directed to a method and apparatus for coordinating multiple vehicle diagnostic testers. An example vehicle includes communication buses, an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to one of the communication buses, and a gateway module. The a gateway module is configured to receive a request for communication with the ECU from a first in-vehicle diagnostic (IVD) tester, and responsively prevent communication with a second IVD tester while facilitating communication between the first IVD tester and the ECU.
Zsebedits (DE 10 2016 224 300 A1, a machine translation is attached) is directed to a method of carrying out a diagnosis of a vehicle component, whereby the diagnosis is planned based on predictions derived from information provided by an information supply unit, and the execution of the diagnosis depends on a reliability assessment of the information supply unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights