DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
Claims 1-3 are currently pending for examination.
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: “uphill road determination unit that determines – corresponding to element 162b in Fig. 2”, “determination unit that determines – corresponding to element 162c in Fig. 2”, “notification unit that notifies – corresponding to element 162f in Fig. 2”, “reception unit that receives– corresponding to element 162h in Fig. 2” and “a control unit that activates– corresponding to element 162g in Fig. 2” in claims 1-3.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follen et al. (Follen; US 2017/0129492) in view of Eriksson et al. (Eriksson; US 2014/0200788).
For claim 1, Follen discloses a control device for a vehicle [E.g. 0019, 0021, 0023], comprising:
an uphill road determination unit that determines whether or not there is an uphill road continuing for a certain distance or more forward of the vehicle [E.g. 0037: The route grade signal 302 is provided to the section grade and surface classification module 230. A non-limiting example of the route grade signal 302 is illustrated in FIG. 4. The route grade signal 302 may contain data for an entire route the vehicle will be travelling during a route trip, 0039: The route grade sectioning module 316 receives the filtered route grade 314 and sections of the filtered route grade 314 into a route sections output 318 based on the filtered route grade 314 and a section length, or resolution, 0041: The surface classification module 324 receives the average grade 234 and determines a surface classification 232 for each route section. One non-limiting example of the surface classification 232 is illustrated in FIG. 5. An example surface classification module 324 determines the surface classification 232 for each route section based on each section grade and a classification threshold for each classification. In certain embodiments, each route section may be classified as one of the following surface classifications: an uphill surface, a downhill surface, and a flat surface. In one example non-limiting embodiment, the classification threshold may be a grade percentage. For example, when the section grade has a positive grade greater than an uphill surface percentage threshold, the route section may be classified as the uphill surface, when the section grade has a negative grade less than a downhill surface percentage threshold, the route section may be classified as the downhill surface, and when the section grade has a positive grade less than or equal to uphill surface percentage threshold or a negative grade greater than or equal to the downhill surface percentage threshold, the route section may be classified as the flat surface. In certain embodiments, it is contemplated that other thresholds may be used in addition to and/or alternatively to the grade percentage classification threshold, such as a hysteresis based threshold defined as a function of the current state, and/or determining a threshold using a search heuristic, such as a genetic algorithm, and/or adaptive control logic];
a determination unit that determines whether or not a reaching time or a reaching distance required for the vehicle to enter the uphill road from a present position is equal to or lower than a predetermined value [E.g. 0051: From operation 908, procedure 900 continues to procedure 910, where a current section and a next section are determined from the route sections determined at operation 906, 0031: speed mode determination module 240 may determine each section as being one of a cruise speed mode (i.e., return to or maintain a cruise speed that may be defined by the operator of the vehicle), a pre-uphill speedup speed mode (i.e., speed up before entering an upcoming uphill surface), an uphill slowdown speed mode (i.e., slow down during a hill surface), a pre-downhill slowdown speed mode (i.e., slow down before entering an upcoming downhill surface), and a downhill speedup speed mode (i.e., speed up during a downhill surface). 0043: The mode identification adjustment module 336 receives the average grade 234 and the speed mode output 334 as inputs to determine and output the vehicle speed mode 242 to allow for a pre-hill adjustment length, which may be applied to each route section; Notes; Follen discloses identifying the current section of a route and next section of a route and making a pre-hill adjustment (a proactive change of cruise speed) based on that information, it is implied that in order to do that a reaching distance to enter an uphill needs to be compared to some sort of a stored threshold]; and
a notification unit that notifies, when the reaching time or the reaching distance becomes equal to or lower than the predetermined value, a driver of a speed maintaining function of the vehicle [E.g. 0009, 0011, 0024, 0038].
Follen fails to expressly disclose notifying the driver of an activation proposal of activating a speed maintaining function of the vehicle.
However, as shown by Eriksson, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include notifying the driver of an activation proposal of activating a speed maintaining function of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before
the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Follen with the teaching of Eriksson in order to give the driver the ability to activate the speed maintaining function when needed so that the driver has more control over the vehicle and thereby enhance the overall driving experience, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
For claim 2, Eriksson further teaches a reception unit that receives a response of the driver with respect to the activation proposal, wherein the notification unit ends notification of the activation proposal when the reception unit receives the response indicating refusal of the activation proposal [E.g. 0009, 0011, 0024, 0038], when the vehicle has entered the uphill road without reception of the response by the reception unit, or when a certain time has elapsed without reception of the response by the reception unit.
For claim 3, Eriksson further teaches a reception unit that receives a response of the driver with respect to the activation proposal; and a control unit that activates the speed maintaining function when the reception unit receives the response indicating acceptance of the activation proposal [E.g. 0009, 0011, 0024, 0038].
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. 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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689