DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 10/23/2024. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 10/23/2024 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that in line 5 of the abstract, the phrase “fixed the vehicle” should be changed to “fixed to the vehicle.”
It appears that in the last line of the abstract, the phrase “move the first bracket toward inside of the vehicle” should be changed to “move the first bracket toward the inside of the vehicle.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that in line 5 of the Summary section on p. 2 of the specification, the phrase “fixed the vehicle” should be changed to “fixed to the vehicle.”
It appears that in the last two lines of the Summary section on p. 2 of the specification, the phrase “move the first bracket toward inside of the vehicle” should instead recite “move the first bracket toward the inside of the vehicle.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that lines 5-6 of claim 1 should recite “a second bracket that movably supports the first bracket and is configured to be fixed to the vehicle.”
It appears that in the last line of claim 1, the phrase “move the first bracket toward inside of the vehicle” should be changed to “move the first bracket toward the inside of the vehicle.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“an engagement mechanism that detachably engages the first bracket and the second bracket with each other” (claim 1)
“a vehicle collision detector configured to detect a collision of the vehicle” (claim 1)
“a drive device configured to drive the wheel” (claim 3)
“a drive device configured to rotate the first bracket” (claim 4)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (pp. 7-8: “As illustrated in FIG. 3C, the engagement mechanism 25 may include: a housing 25A; the unillustrated solenoid disposed inside the housing 25A; and the engagement pin 33 movable by the solenoid.” Further, p. 6: “The vehicle collision detector 24 may include an impact absorber and a collision detector. The unillustrated impact absorber may include a foamed resin material such as foamed polypropylene or a resin material such as polypropylene. The impact absorber may be continuously provided from a left end side of the vehicle 11 to a right end side of the vehicle 11. The collision detector may be disposed inside the front of the impact absorber, and have a substantially tubular shape. The collision detector may so deform as to be crushed when a collision such as a pedestrian collision or a vehicle collision occurs. Detection devices respectively disposed at both ends of the collision detector may detect the collision of the vehicle 11 by sensing an amount of deformation of the collision detector.” Also, p. 10 l. 4: “In some embodiments, the drive device 26 may be an electric motor.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta Gupta et al. (US 2020/0056909 A1), hereinafter referred to as Datta, in view of Izuka (JP 2019-166980 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Datta discloses the following limitations:
“A control apparatus for a vehicle, the control apparatus comprising: … a first bracket that holds [an accessory]; a second bracket that movably supports the first bracket and is configured to be fixed the vehicle.” (Datta ¶¶ 57-59 and FIGS. 3 and 5 shown below disclose a vehicle control apparatus including a peripheral sensor accessory 202, an active protection housing 204 for holding the sensor 202, and a bracket arm 214 that movably supports the active protection housing 204 and is fixed to the vehicle.)
PNG
media_image1.png
357
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
314
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“an engagement mechanism that detachably engages the first bracket and the second bracket with each other.” (Datta ¶ 61 and FIGS. 3 and 5 shown above disclose that “when the sensor protection mechanism is triggered for the active protection sensor 114, the actuator 116 causes the active protection sensor (e.g., the active protection housing 204 and the sensor 202) to move from its non-activated position. … In some examples, the actuator 116 may cause the active protection sensor (e.g., the active protection housing 204 and the sensor 202) to ‘back-slide’ or retract away from the front structure of the vehicle 100 along, for example, the longitudinal groove of the bracket arm 214.”)
“a vehicle collision detector configured to detect a collision of the vehicle.” (Datta ¶ 20: “The vehicle system monitors the vehicle for an impending collision, and, in response to detecting an impending collision, determines portion(s) of the vehicle that may be impacted by the impending collision.”)
“and a vehicle processor configured to move the engagement mechanism, based on a detection signal of the vehicle collision detector.” (Datta ¶ 5: “An example disclosed method includes detecting, via a processor of a vehicle, that a collision associated with the vehicle occurred, and responsive to the vehicle collision, obtaining, via the processor, diagnostic information from a sensor. The example method also includes determining, via the processor, whether to move the sensor from a first position to a second position based on the diagnostic information, and causing the sensor to move from the first position to the second position based on the determination.”)
“wherein the vehicle processor is configured to, in response to an input of the detection signal of the vehicle collision detector, move the engagement mechanism, and release the engagement of the first bracket and the second bracket and move the first bracket toward inside of the vehicle.” (Datta ¶ 61: “the actuator 116 may cause the active protection sensor (e.g., the active protection housing 204 and the sensor 202) to ‘back-slide’ or retract away from the front structure of the vehicle 100 along, for example, the longitudinal groove of the bracket arm 214.” Also, Datta ¶ 72: “first actuator 116a may cause the first active protection sensor 114a to move from non-activated position to its activated position in response to the sensor protector 112 detecting an impending collision.”)
Datta does not specifically disclose “a speaker configured to output a notification sound that notifies surroundings of an approach of the vehicle.” However, this limitation is taught by Izuka. (Izuka ¶¶ 21-22: “speaker 10 is a directional speaker, and is configured to be able to deliver an alarm sound only within an appropriate range in the outgoing state by the rotation of the driving unit 30. If the speaker 10 having such directivity and rotating is used, a necessary warning can be given to any pedestrian during driving.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Datta by applying the system to work with a speaker that can notify surroundings of an approach of the vehicle as taught by Izuka, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the speaker of Izuka) for another (i.e., the peripheral sensor of Datta) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the peripheral sensor of Datta with the speaker of Izuka to achieve the predictable result of providing a speaker that can avoid damage in the event of a vehicle collision. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that vehicle peripheral sensors and speakers can both be expensive devices that are easily damaged during vehicle collisions, and so it would be beneficial to provide measures for protecting either type of device when a collision is predicted to occur.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Datta and Izuka teaches “The control apparatus for the vehicle according to claim 1,” and Datta also teaches “wherein the second bracket comprises a rail along which the first bracket is configured to move, and the rail comprises a … structure directed toward the inside of the vehicle.” (Datta ¶ 64: “In FIG. 7C, the active protection sensor 114 ‘back-slides’ away from the transition position to the activated position. For example, the active protection sensor 114 may retract away from the front structure (e.g., the fascia of the bumper) of the vehicle 100 along a longitudinal groove of the bracket arm 214 of FIGS. 2 to 5.” Datta FIGS. 7A-7C below illustrate that the groove leads the sensor apparatus to move toward the inside of the vehicle.)
PNG
media_image3.png
691
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The combination of Datta and Izuka does not specifically teach that the rail comprises a structure that is “downwardly inclined.” However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Datta and Izuka by downwardly inclining the groove structure that is described in Datta ¶ 64. It would have been obvious to try this choice from the finite number (3) of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)). P. 8, third paragraph, of the instant specification and Datta ¶¶ 24 and 64 each explain that a rail structure can be used to prevent damage to vehicle accessories, which can be especially desirable since the location of accessories towards the periphery of the vehicle often leads to an increased likelihood of accessory damage during collisions. While Datta only explicitly describes an uninclined longitudinal groove, the groove could be oriented in any of three ways: upwardly inclined, uninclined, or downwardly inclined. Any of these three choices, including the downwardly inclined option, could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the longitudinal groove of Datta by making it downwardly inclined to allow gravity to assist in retracting the accessory and/or to allow movement of the vehicle accessory to a safer place located closer to the interior of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Datta and Izuka teaches “The control apparatus for the vehicle according to claim 1,” and Datta further teaches “wherein the second bracket comprises a drive device configured to rotate the first bracket, and the vehicle processor is configured to rotate the first bracket by the drive device, in response to the input of the detection signal of the vehicle collision detector.” (Datta ¶ 61: “the actuator 116 may cause the active protection sensor (e.g., the active protection housing 204 and the sensor 202) to rotate along the c-shaped groove 210 of the active protection housing 204. … In some examples, the actuator 116 may cause the active protection sensor (e.g., the active protection housing 204 and the sensor 202) to rotate along the c-shaped groove 210 of the active protection housing 204 and to retract away from the front structure of the vehicle 100 along, for example, the longitudinal groove of the bracket arm 214.” Further, Datta ¶ 72: “the actuators 116 are electric actuators that convert electrical energy into mechanical torque to move the active protection sensors 114 from their respective non-activated positions to their activated positions. For example, the first actuator 116a may cause the first active protection sensor 114a to move from non-activated position to its activated position in response to the sensor protector 112 detecting an impending collision.” The actuator 116 reads on the “drive device” as claimed.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu et al. (US 2015/0343961 A1) Abstract discloses a retractable speaker for a vehicle including “a case formed with a chamber; a driving member installed in the chamber and including a stepping motor and a transmission shaft connected to the stepping motor; a retracting mechanism disposed in the chamber and including a screw rod and a retractable rod fitted with the screw rod. The screw rod is driven by the transmission shaft to rotate, thereby enabling the retractable rod to perform a protruding/retracting movement relative to the screw rod; and a speaker secured at an end section of the retractable rod and moved with the retractable rod.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662