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 1-3 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.
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: “vehicle posture calculation device” in claims 1-3 and “headlight optical axis control device” in claim 3.
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: “vehicle posture calculation device” in claims 1-3 and “headlight optical axis control device” in claim 3 all use a generic placeholder “device” 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:
Vehicle posture calculation device: Fig. 1, [0015-0016, 0019-0020]
Headlight optical axis control device: Fig. 1, [0015-0016, 0025]
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 1-3 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 “A vehicle posture calculation device that calculates… comprising: calculating… detecting… detecting”. This claim is drafted as a device, but does not appear to recite any structural elements and instead the remainder of the claim is drafted in the form of a process by defining one or more steps that are performed. If the claim is intended to be a device that is configured to perform the one or more steps, it is unclear which element(s) perform the recited one or more steps. 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 as a device comprising an ECU (or equivalent element) which is configured to perform the one or more steps.
Claim 2 recites “it” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. Is this intended to refer to the vehicle posture calculation device or another limitation? 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 to be referring to the vehicle posture calculation device.
Claim 2 recites “the position” and it is unclear if this is intended to refer to the position and/or orientation, or if the claim is now limited to position only. 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 to be referring to the position and/or orientation.
Claim 3 recites “A headlight optical axis control device… wherein it adjusts…”. This claim is drafted as a device, but does not appear to recite any structural elements and instead the remainder of the claim is drafted in the form of a process by defining one or more steps that are performed. If the claim is intended to be a device that is configured to perform one or more steps, it is unclear which element(s) perform the recited one or more steps. 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 as a device comprising an actuator (or equivalent) which is configured to perform the one or more steps.
Claim 3 recites “it” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. Is this intended to refer to the headlight optical axis control device or another limitation? 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 to be referring to the headlight optical axis control device.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a device, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified device claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“A vehicle posture calculation device that calculates a posture of a vehicle using an acceleration sensor, comprising: calculating a sensor detection angle, which is a rotation angle around an axis along a vehicle width direction relative to a horizontal plane, based on a detection result of the acceleration sensor; detecting a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a road surface angle if a position and/or orientation of the vehicle changes between ignition off and ignition on; and detecting a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a pitch angle of the vehicle if the position and/or orientation of the vehicle does not change between ignition off and ignition on.”
The limitations of calculating, detecting, and detecting, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a vehicle posture calculation device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a vehicle posture calculation device” language, calculating, detecting, and detecting in the context of the claim encompasses a person using acceleration sensor data and performing simple calculations (with the aid of pen and paper) to determine an angle, using acceleration data in ignition on and ignition off conditions and performing simple calculations (with the aid of pen and paper) to determine if a change in angle occurs between ignition on and ignition off conditions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of using an acceleration sensor. The acceleration sensor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of gathering data used for the calculating and detecting steps) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim 2 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim 2 recites a step of determining whether the position has changed based on GPS or camera image data, which can be performed in the human mind by a simple comparison of GPS/camera data at two different times to identify if position has changed.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa (US 2022/0099267 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa discloses a vehicle posture calculation device that calculates a posture of a vehicle using an acceleration sensor (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0061-0064] – Acceleration sensor 32 is attached to the vehicle 300… Specifically, a total angle θ including a road surface angle θr and a vehicle attitude angle θv is derivable from the output value from the acceleration sensor 32.), comprising: calculating a sensor detection angle, which is a rotation angle around an axis along a vehicle width direction relative to a horizontal plane, based on a detection result of the acceleration sensor (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0061-0064] –The inclination of the vehicle 300 relative to the gravitational acceleration vector G can be derived from the output value from the acceleration sensor 32 obtained while the vehicle is at rest. Specifically, a total angle θ including a road surface angle θr and a vehicle attitude angle θv is derivable from the output value from the acceleration sensor 32.); detecting a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a road surface angle if a position and/or orientation of the vehicle changes between ignition off and ignition on (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0073, 0076-0080, 0175] - The leveling ECU 30 determines whether the vehicle 300 has moved while the ignition switch 314 is off (S201). If the vehicle 300 has moved (Y at S201), the leveling ECU 30 calculates the road surface angle θr by subtracting the reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv read out from the memory 40 from the current total angle θ (S202). Then, the leveling ECU 30 updates the reference value of the road surface angle θr with the obtained road surface angle θr used as a new reference value of the road surface angle θr (S203).); and detecting a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a pitch angle of the vehicle if the position and/or orientation of the vehicle does not change between ignition off and ignition on (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0073, 0076-0080, 0176] - If the vehicle 300 has not moved (N at S201), the leveling ECU 30 calculates the vehicle attitude angle θv by subtracting the reference value of the road surface angle θr read out from the memory 40 from the current total angle θ (S205). Then, the leveling ECU 30 updates the reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv with the obtained vehicle attitude angle θv used as a new reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv (S206).).
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa discloses wherein it determines whether the position of the vehicle has changed based on a position information of the vehicle obtained using GPS or a camera image obtained by a camera that captures a surroundings of the vehicle (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0119, 0164-0166, 0175-0176] - The movement determining unit 46 can determine whether the vehicle has moved by comparing the position information held before the ignition switch 314 is turned off and the position information held after the ignition switch 314 is turned on. Moreover, the movement determining unit 46 can determine whether the vehicle has moved by comparing the image information acquired from the camera 316 before the ignition switch 314 is turned off and the image information acquired from the camera 316 after the ignition switch 314 is turned on.).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa discloses a headlight optical axis control device comprising the vehicle posture calculation device according to claim 1, wherein it adjusts an optical axis of a headlight of the vehicle in accordance with the change in the pitch angle of the vehicle detected by the vehicle posture calculation device (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0050, 0057, 0069, 0073, 0076-0080, 0175-0176] - Moreover, the controlling unit 36 adjusts the optical axis Ax with the use of either the obtained vehicle attitude angle θv or the new reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv. Thus, the change in the vehicle attitude angle θv observed while the ignition switch 314 is off can be incorporated into the reference value, and the optical axis angle θo can be adjusted to an appropriate position… If the vehicle 300 has not moved (N at S201), the leveling ECU 30 calculates the vehicle attitude angle θv by subtracting the reference value of the road surface angle θr read out from the memory 40 from the current total angle θ (S205). Then, the leveling ECU 30 updates the reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv with the obtained vehicle attitude angle θv used as a new reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv (S206).).
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:
Yamazaki (US 2015/0142275 A1) is directed to a control unit is configured to: a) hold a road surface angle reference value and a vehicle posture angle reference value in a volatile manner; b) generate an optical axis adjusting signal using a vehicle posture angle in response to variation in a total angle during the stop of the vehicle; c) avoid generating or outputting the optical axis adjusting signal or output an optical axis holding signal, and hold a road surface angle as a new reference value, in response to variation in the total angle during travelling of the vehicle; and d) in response to receiving the turn-off signal of the switch, d-1) write at least the road surface angle reference value in the storage unit or continue to execute the step (c) while delaying the step (d-1).
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