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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 30 October 2024. Claims 1-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2023 210 901.8, filed on 03 November 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 30 October 2024 and 23 November 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS’s were considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 1, “claims 1” should read --claim 1--;
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 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:
“operating element” in claim 1, 8;
The structure of the operating element is “a brake pedal, alternatively an accelerator pedal” (see para 0019 of the specification)
“control unit” in claims 5-7, 9;
The structure of the control unit is not disclosed in the specification.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-7 and 9 recite “a/the control unit…designed to sense a current orientation… (claim 5)/ …designed to control… (claim 6)/designed to correct… (claim 7)/configured to conduct…(claim 9)”. The “control unit” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the control unit to perform the recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the control unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the control unit is, what the advantages of using a control unit are and how the recited functions are performed by the control unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a control unit.
Claims 6-9 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 5.
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 5-7 and 9-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the control unit is configured to conduct a plausibility check of an orientation of the operating element sensed by the second sensor depending on a sensor signal of at least one further sensor” which is ambiguous. It is not clear “depending on …” is further limiting “the second sensor” or “an orientation” or “a plausibility check”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 10 recites “a setting device”, while claim 1, from which claim 10 is dependent, also recites “a setting device”. It is not clear if the “setting device” of claim 10 is the same setting device as the “setting device” of claim 1 or is a different setting device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “A motor vehicle having the setting device according to claim 1” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 11 recites “A method for operating a setting device according to claim 1 wherein a current orientation of the operating element is determined as a function of a sensor signal of the second sensor” which is ambiguous. The claim is directed to a “method” but does not positively recite any step or act of the method and instead merely refers to apparatus claim 1. It is not clear how the method is performed “according to claim 1”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting similar language as claim 11.
Claim limitation “control unit” in claims 5-7 and 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “control unit” is recited in the claim as having the functions of “…designed to sense a current orientation… (claim 5)/ …designed to control… (claim 6)/designed to correct… (claim 7)/configured to conduct… (claim 9)”. However, the specification 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. 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.
Claims 6-7, 9 and 12-13 are rejected in virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 is presented as a method claim and depends from claim 1, an apparatus claim. A dependent claim must further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends. Claim 11 does not properly further limit the apparatus of claim 1 because claim 11 is drawn to a different statutory class. Therefore, claim 11 is improper in dependent form.
Similarly, claim 13 is improper in dependent form.
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 9:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a setting device for sensing a driving request for a motor vehicle (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
The setting device according to claim 5, wherein the control unit is configured to conduct a plausibility check of an orientation of the operating element sensed by the second sensor depending on a sensor signal of at least one further sensor.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “conduct a plausibility check of an orientation of the operating element...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
The setting device according to claim 5, wherein the control unit is configured to conduct a plausibility check of an orientation of the operating element sensed by the second sensor depending on a sensor signal of at least one further sensor.
The claim limitations of claims 1 and 5, from which claim 9 is dependent from, are incorporated into claim 9:
Claim 1, A setting device for sensing a driving request for a motor vehicle comprising:
an operating element configured to be actuated by a driver of the motor vehicle, wherein a first sensor is associated with the operating element and configured to sense an actuation acting on the operating element,
the operating element is arranged such that it is displaceable by a bearing device in different idle positions, and
a second sensor is associated with the operating element and configured to sense a current orientation of the operating element.
Claim 5, The setting device according to claim 1, wherein a control unit is specifically designed to sense a current orientation of the operating element when used as intended, depending on a signal of the second sensor.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an operating element configured to be actuated by a driver of the motor vehicle, wherein a first sensor is associated with the operating element and configured to sense an actuation acting on the operating element”, “the operating element is arranged such that it is displaceable by a bearing device in different idle positions”, “a second sensor is associated with the operating element and configured to sense a current orientation of the operating element” and “a control unit is specifically designed to sense a current orientation of the operating element when used as intended, depending on a signal of the second sensor” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the sensing steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the conduct step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The operating element configured to…, the operating element is arranged… is also recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “control unit” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the specification does not provide any descriptions for the control unit. The control unit is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the recited steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional limitations of “an operating element configured to be actuated by a driver of the motor vehicle, wherein a first sensor is associated with the operating element and configured to sense an actuation acting on the operating element”, “the operating element is arranged such that it is displaceable by a bearing device in different idle positions”, “a second sensor is associated with the operating element and configured to sense a current orientation of the operating element” and “a control unit is specifically designed to sense a current orientation of the operating element when used as intended, depending on a signal of the second sensor”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations related to “sensing…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle. As to the operating element configured to…/is arranged…, the claim limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As to claim 13:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a method for operating a motor vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites:
Claim 13, A method for operating a motor vehicle according to claim 10, wherein a current orientation of the operating element is determined as a function of a sensor signal of the second sensor.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “a current orientation of the operating element is determined as a function of a sensor signal...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 13 incorporates all the limitations of claim 1. The 101 analysis of Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B is similar to claim 9 above. The limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible
Therefore, claims 9 and 13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 5-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuerle (US20230034281) in view of Budig (DE102012024846, paragraph numbers are cited based on the attached machine translated copy).
As to claim 1, Beuerle teaches a setting device for sensing a driving request for a motor vehicle comprising:
an operating element configured to be actuated by a driver of the motor vehicle (Beuerle para 0029-0031 brake pedal, Fig. 1, Fig. 5), wherein
a first sensor is associated with the operating element and configured to sense an actuation acting on the operating element (Beuerle para 0044-0045: The brake pedal module 10 furthermore comprises a sensor unit 32 for detecting a braking intention of a driver. The sensor unit 32 comprises a sensor 34 for detecting an actuating travel and a sensor 36 for detecting an actuating force, also see para 0049-0052: …sensor 36 for detecting an actuating force on the brake pedal…),
the operating element is arranged such that it is displaceable by a bearing device (Beuerle para, para 0040: the brake pedal 12 is mounted on the carrier component 24 in a pivot bearing…; Figs. 1-2 and 5), and
a second sensor is associated with the operating element and configured to sense a current orientation of the operating element (Beuerle para 0044-0045: The brake pedal module 10 furthermore comprises a sensor unit 32 for detecting a braking intention of a driver. The sensor unit 32 comprises a sensor 34 for detecting an actuating travel and a sensor 36 for detecting an actuating force, also see para 0048-0052: … sensor 34 for detecting the actuating travel is an angle sensor…sensor 36 for detecting an actuating force on the brake pedal…).
Beuerle does not explicitly teach the operating element being displaceable in different idle positions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Budig teaches adjustability of the pedal arrangement in relation to the direction of action thus makes it possible to adapt the pedal arrangement more ergonomically… the pedal to be adjustable not in just one, but in several directions of action, which can also be kinematically independent of each other… (Budig para 0018-0019)…the adjustment procedure…includes the following steps: a) Actuating the pedal with a predetermined pedal actuation force, b) Measuring at least the pedal actuation force and a pedal angle position by means of at least one sensor, c) using the data processing unit to provide the measured values from b) and determine a pedal actuation time, d) after exceeding a predetermined threshold pedal actuation time, processing the measured values from b) in the data processing unit and determining a predetermined output signal for the second actuator unit, so that a restoring force of the second actuator unit corresponds to the pedal actuation force and the pedal angle position remains constant… (Budig para 0034) … angle sensor(s) for detecting the pedal angle position may be/can be used (Budig para 0026).
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 Beuerle so as to include the operating element being displaceable in different idle positions in view of Budig et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that adjustable pedal angle positions of Budig used in Beuerle, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Beuerle and Budig because this would have achieved the desirable result of to providing a motor vehicle pedal arrangement that is more ergonomically usable for a user (Budig para 0007).
As to claim 2, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches the setting device according to claim 1.
Budig further teaches wherein the second sensor is an accelerometer (Budig para 0026).
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 Wagner so as to include wherein the second sensor is an accelerometer in view of Budig et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wagner and Budig because this would have achieved the desirable result of to providing a motor vehicle pedal arrangement that is more ergonomically usable for a user (Budig para 0007).
As to claim 3, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches the setting device according to claim 1.
Beuerle further teaches wherein the operating element is assigned at least one controllable actuator which is controllable to apply a force to the operating element to perform a verification of the current orientation sensed by the second sensor (Beuerle para 0032: The damping unit 14 is used to generate a resistance when the brake pedal 12 is actuated… para 0048: an angle sensor; also see para 0074, Fig. 4).
As to claim 5, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches the setting device according to claim 1.
Beuerle further teaches wherein a control unit is specifically designed to sense a current orientation of the operating element when used as intended, depending on a signal of the second sensor (Beuerle para 0047-0048: the sensor for detecting the actuating travel…is an angle sensor, also see para 0011).
As to claim 6, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches the setting device according to claim 5.
Beuerle further teaches wherein the control unit is specifically designed to control at least one controllable actuator to perform a verification of the sensed current orientation when used as intended (Beuerle para 0032: The damping unit 14 is used to generate a resistance when the brake pedal 12 is actuated… para 0048: an angle sensor; also see para 0074, Fig. 4).
As to claim 8, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches the setting device according to claim 1.
Beuerle further teaches wherein the operating element is configured as a foot pedal or handle (Beuerle para 0029-0031 brake pedal, Fig. 1, Fig. 5).
As to claim 9, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches the setting device according to claim 5.
Beuerle further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to conduct a plausibility check of an orientation of the operating element sensed by the second sensor depending on a sensor signal of at least one further sensor (Beuerle para 0032: The damping unit 14 is used to generate a resistance when the brake pedal 12 is actuated… para 0048: an angle sensor; para 0008: By detection of the actuating travel and the actuating force, a braking intention of a driver is detected in a redundant manner; also see para 0074, Fig. 4).
As to claim 10: Claim 10 an apparatus claim (a motor vehicle) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim (a setting device). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Beuerle in combination with Budig.
As to claim 11: Claim 11 a process claim (a method) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim (a setting device). Beuerle further teaches wherein a current orientation of the operating element is determined as a function of a sensor signal of the second sensor (Beuerle para 0011, para 0044-0048). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Beuerle in combination with Budig.
As to claim 12, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches the method according to claim 11.
Beuerle further teaches wherein a driving request of a driver of the motor vehicle is determined as a function of the determined current orientation and a sensor signal of the first sensor (Beuerle para 0011-0015, para 0044-0048).
As to claim 13, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches a method for operating a motor vehicle according to claim 10.
Beuerle further teaches wherein a current orientation of the operating element is determined as a function of a sensor signal of the second sensor (Beuerle para 0011, para 0044-0048).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuerle in view of Budig and further in view of Hertlein (US20230365105).
As to claim 4, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches the setting device according to claim 3.
Beuerle modified by Budig does not teach wherein the at least one controllable actuator is configured as a vibration actuator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hertlein teaches the brake system 10 has a mechanical actuator 40 which is configured to induce the brake pedal 20 to vibrate during an ABS engagement in the braking… so that a vibration of the mechanical actuator 40 itself is transferred to the brake pedal 20…the mechanical actuator 40 can, for example, also be connected, in an alternative embodiment, to the connection 21 and integrated in the brake simulator 31. Any arrangement of the mechanical actuator 40 in which a vibration transmission to brake pedal 20 is possible is conceivable (Hertlein para 0040-0043).
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 Beuerle so as to include wherein the at least one controllable actuator is configured as a vibration actuator in view of Hertlein et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the vibration actuator of Hertlein used in Beuerle, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Beuerle and Hertlein because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007))
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuerle in view of Budig and further in view of Wagner (US20230114657).
As to claim 7, Beuerle in view of Budig teaches the setting device according to claim 5.
Beuerle modified by Budig does not teach wherein the control unit is specifically designed to correct an actuating force sensed by the first sensor or an actuating path sensed by the first sensor depending on an orientation of the operating element sensed by the second sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wagner teaches the vehicle brake pedal emulator assembly 100 still further comprises a position sensor assembly 200 for sensing the position of the sleeve 150 relative or with respect to the housing 130 and thus for sensing the position of the brake pedal arm 14… the position sensor assembly 200 includes redundant position sensor assemblies 200a and 200b as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, each including an inductive position sensor assembly 210 and a Hall Effect position sensor assembly 220… (Wagner para 0064-0065, para 0068-0069, para 0075).
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 Beuerle so as to include wherein the control unit is specifically designed to correct an actuating force sensed by the first sensor or an actuating path sensed by the first sensor depending on an orientation of the operating element sensed by the second sensor in view of Wagner et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the redundant measurement of the position of the brake pedal arm of Wagner used in Beuerle, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Beuerle and Wagner because this would have achieved the desirable result of to providing a method that allows for a higher functional safety and the redundant measurement of the position of the brake in the event of a malfunction in the sensors (Wagner para 0075).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664