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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/31/24 and 10/14/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the flow chart/decision tree for claims 6-9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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:
“a cooling target part” in claims 1, 3, 4, (note claim 5 adds in enough structure to not fall under 112f).
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “part” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling target”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
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. A review of the specification and drawing found a drive train (in para. 0014); thus this and equivalents will be considered to read on the limitation.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a cooling part” in claims 1 and 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “part” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
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. A review of the specification and drawing found a cooling system with a radiator; thus it and the equivalents will read on the limitation.
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 1-9 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.
The term “operating load of a driver” in claim 1-2 is a term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “operating load of a driver” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim does not make clear what exactly is considered to fall under this nor does the specification clearly define it. One skilled in the art would not know what exactly and clearly is covered by this term. Any system that can be operated by a driver will be considered to fall under this term.
The term “greater extent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “greater extent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Neither the claim nor the specification make clear how this is measured or determined. One skilled in the art is not apprised of how to measure or compare such. For example how is one determine if cruise control or lane departure or GPS is the greater in this claim?
The term “output reduction is resolved faster than in the first state” is claim 2 is unclear to one skilled in the art. One skilled in the art is not appraised on what this limitation means. The specification provides no clear meaning for this either. Paragraph 0064 (PGPub) states “The second state is a state that has a greater processing load than the first state and resolves output reductions faster than the first state. The second state is, for example, a standby, pause or inhibit state after the power supply is turned on (electric power is being supplied), a so-called power saving state”. Which further confuses matters as it is unclear how a standby, pause, or inhibit state resolves anything much less how it resolves anything faster than another option.
Examiner notes that claim 2 is so indefinite as to prevent the application of prior art to it.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the language of “the controller and the cooling target part need to be cooled while the vehicle is traveling” Thus this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). It is unclear if applicant is claiming a appliciaotn of the system or design of the system. The claim will be examined as reading “the controller and the cooling target part are configured to be cooled while the vehicle is traveling”.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the term “high speed” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term will be examined as reading on any speed.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the limitation of “towing travel” as this term is unclear and one skilled in the art would not know what is meant by the term. It is unclear if it means when the vehicle is towing something or when the vehicle is being towed. The specification provides no guidance as to the terms intention. It will be examined as any involvement with towing reading on the limitation.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the limitation of “climbing traveling” as this term is unclear and one skilled in the art would not know what is meant by the term. It is unclear if it means when the vehicle is going up a grade and if so what grades would fall under this term. It will be examined as any involvement with any angle upwards reading on it.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the language of “the controller reduces the output of the second controller in at least any one of the following cases” Thus this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). It is unclear if applicant is claiming a appliciaotn of the system or design of the system. The claim will be examined as reading “the controller is configured to reduce the output of the second controller in at least any one of the following cases”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the second state", there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No claim this depends from includes a first or second state.
Claim 7 is further indefinite as it is unclear what reducing the output of the second controller entails or how it differs from the independent claim 1 or is done with the reduction in claim 1. It is unclear if this is a further/additional reduction to the one already claimed or if it is the same reduction with a different activator.
Claim 7 is indefinite for the language of “the controller reduces the output of the second controller with the second state” Thus this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). It is unclear if applicant is claiming a appliciaotn of the system or design of the system. The claim will be examined as reading “the controller is configured to reduce the output of the second controller with the second state”.
Examiner notes that claim 7 is so indefinite as to prevent the application of prior art to it.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the first state", there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No claim this depends from includes a first or second state.
Claim 8 is further indefinite as it is unclear what reducing the output of the second controller entails or how it differs from the independent claim 1 or is done with the reduction in claim 1. It is unclear if this is a further/additional reduction to the one already claimed or if it is the same reduction with a different activator.
Claim 8 is indefinite for the language of “the controller reduces the output of the second controller with the first state” Thus this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). It is unclear if applicant is claiming a appliciaotn of the system or design of the system. The claim will be examined as reading “the controller is configured to reduce the output of the second controller with the first state”.
Claim 8 is indefinite for the limitation of “towing travel” as this term is unclear and one skilled in the art would not know what is meant by the term. It is unclear if it means when the vehicle is towing something or when the vehicle is being towed. The specification provides no guidance as to the terms intention. It will be examined as any involvement with towing reading on the limitation.
Examiner notes that claim 8 is so indefinite as to prevent the application of prior art to it.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the second state", there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No claim this depends from includes a first or second state.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the first state", there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No claim this depends from includes a first or second state.
Claim 9 is indefinite for the term “high speed” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term will be examined as reading on any speed.
Claim 9 is indefinite for the limitation of “towing travel” as this term is unclear and one skilled in the art would not know what is meant by the term. It is unclear if it means when the vehicle is towing something or when the vehicle is being towed. The specification provides no guidance as to the terms intention. It will be examined as any involvement with towing reading on the limitation.
Claim 9 is indefinite for the limitation of “climbing traveling” as this term is unclear and one skilled in the art would not know what is meant by the term. It is unclear if it means when the vehicle is going up a grade and if so what grades would fall under this term. It will be examined as any involvement with any angle upwards reading on it.
Examiner notes that claim 9 is so indefinite as to prevent the application of prior art to it.
Examiner notes that many of the 112b issues may be due to translation, applicant is apprised to follow MPEP 608.01 (V) if submitting correction due to translation error.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Automata et al. (U.S. Patent 12,415,525) in view of Denso (JP20180584444, referred to as Denso 444’).
Regarding claim 1, Automata teaches a control device for a vehicle (abstract) comprising a controller (element 130) cooled together with a cooling target part (motor components/power system) by a cooling part of a vehicle (“thermal management system” Col. 2, ln 52-col. 3,ln 19).
wherein the controller includes: a first controller (“partially autonomous”; Col. 9, ln 32-ln 58) configured to execute traveling control for reducing an operating load of a driver; and a second controller (“fully autonomous”; Col. 9, ln 32-ln 58) configured to execute traveling control for reducing the operating load of the driver to a greater extent than in the first controller (per Fig. 1A).
Automata does not expressly teach wherein an output of the second controller is reduced when the cooling load of the cooling target part is a predetermined load or more. Denso 444’ teaches wherein an output of the second controller is reduced when the cooling load of the cooling target part is a predetermined load or more (para.0053). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Automata with the temperature of the drivetrain of Denso 444’, the motivation would be to increase safety and prevent system failure (para. 0053).
Regarding claim 3, Automata teaches the controller and the cooling target part need to be cooled while the vehicle is traveling (Col. 2, ln 52-col. 3,ln 19).
Regarding claim 5, Automata teaches the cooling target part is a drive train of the vehicle (the motor components/power system may be considered part of the drivetrain).
Regarding claim 6, Automata teaches the controller reduces the output of the second controller in at least any one of the following cases: when the vehicle is traveling at high speed and when the vehicle is during climbing traveling (Col 9, ln 32- Col. 10, ln 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Automata et al. (U.S. Patent 12,415,525) in view of Denso (JP20180584444, referred to as Denso 444’), and further view of Huang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0041031).
Regarding claim 4, Automata does not teach the controller and the cooling target part are cooled in series by the cooling part. Huang teaches the controller(element 11) and the cooling target part (element 104) are cooled in series by the cooling part (per fig. 4). It would have been obvious to apply the element orientation of Huang to Automata, the motivoant would be the utilization efficiency of parts (Para. 0047).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
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, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (571) 270-7740. 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights