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 02 December 2024. Claims 1-5 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. JP2024-021867, filed on 16 February 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
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:
a drive control device in claims 1, 5;
The structure of the drive control device is disclosed in para 0031-0032 of the specification: “the driving ECU 20 and the drive device 22 cooperate with each other to function as the drive control device 26…the drive device is a so-called hybrid system that is a combination of an engine and a transmission, an engine and a motor, a so-called plug-in hybrid system, a combination of a fuel cell and a motor, and a motor”.
a braking control device in claims 1, 5;
The structure of the braking control device is described in para 0034 of the specification as “the braking ECU 30 and the braking device 32 cooperate with each other to function as the braking control device 36”, while the structure of the braking device 32 is not disclosed in the specification.
a control unit in claims 1-3;
The structure of the control unit is not disclosed in the specification.
an electronic control device in claim 5;
The structure of the electronic control device 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 1-3 and 5 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 1 and 5 recite “a braking control device”. Claims 1-3 recite “a control unit” and claim 5 recites “an electronic control device”. The “braking control device”, “control unit” and “electronic control device” invoke 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the …device/…unit to perform the respectively recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the …device/…unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the …device/…unit is, what the advantages of using a …device/…unit are and how the recited functions are performed by the …device/…unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitations of “a braking control device”, “a control unit” and “an electronic control device”.
Claims 2-3 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-5 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 1 recites “A vehicle travel control device comprising a drive control device that controls a drive force of a vehicle according to at least an accelerator operation amount, a braking control device that decelerates the vehicle by applying a braking force to wheels, and a control unit that executes vehicle speed limit control for limiting the drive force by controlling the drive control device when a vehicle speed exceeds a limit vehicle speed” which is ambiguous. It is not clear if the “braking control device” and “control unit” is in parallel with “accelerator operation amount” OR “a drive control device”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “A vehicle travel control device comprising a drive control device, a braking control device and a control unit, wherein the drive control device controls a drive force of a vehicle according to at least an accelerator operation amount, the braking control device decelerates the vehicle by applying a braking force to wheels, and the control unit executes vehicle speed limit control for limiting the drive force by controlling the drive control device when a vehicle speed exceeds a limit vehicle speed” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites “…and a control unit that executes vehicle speed limit control for limiting the drive force by controlling the drive control device when a vehicle speed exceeds a limit vehicle speed, the control unit being configured to execute override control for canceling limitation on the drive force until the vehicle speed becomes equal to or less than the limit vehicle speed when the accelerator operation amount is increased by a driver during execution of the vehicle speed limit control, wherein the control unit is configured to decelerate the vehicle by controlling the braking control device when a time for which the accelerator operation amount is 0 becomes equal to or longer than a reference time in a situation in which the override control is being executed…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how the different actions of the “control unit” are related to each other and how the different actions of the “control unit” work. It is not clear “when the accelerator operation amount is increased by a driver during execution of the vehicle speed limit control”, i.e., the vehicle speed is greater than the limit vehicle speed, how canceling the limitation on the drive force, i.e., the accelerator operation amount being increased without limitation, reduces the speed of the vehicle to “less than the limit vehicle speed”. Meanwhile, “when the accelerator operation amount is increased…during execution of the vehicle speed limit control”, the vehicle speed is higher than the limit vehicle speed, which according to the previous limitation, triggers executing vehicle speed limit control, thus it is not clear whether the limitation should be executed or overridden. In addition, the claim recites “…execute override control …when the accelerator operation amount is increased by a driver…” and further recites “when a time for which the accelerator operation amount is 0 becomes equal to or longer than a reference time in a situation in which the override control is being executed”, it is not clear what is the condition for the override to be executed. 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.
Claims 4-5 recite similar language as claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 1 and 5 recite “a braking control device”. Claims 1-3 recite “a control unit” and claim 5 recites “an electronic control device”. The “braking control device”, “control unit” and “electronic control device” invoke 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 “braking control device”, “control unit” and “electronic control device” are each recited in the claims as having respective functions. 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 functions. 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 2-3 are rejected in virtue of the dependency on claim 1.
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniwa (US20250108799) in view of Miyajima (US20090240413).
As to claims 1, 4 and 5, Oniwa teaches a vehicle travel control device, a vehicle drive control method and a non-transitory storage medium storing a travel control program comprising a drive control device that controls a drive force of a vehicle according to at least an accelerator operation amount, a braking control device that decelerates the vehicle by applying a braking force to wheels, and a control unit that executes vehicle speed limit control for limiting the drive force by controlling the drive control device when a vehicle speed exceeds a limit vehicle speed (Oniwa para 0059: accelerator pedal, brake pedal, driving assistance device…; para 0061: operation amount of accelerator pedal…operation amount of brake pedal…; para 0062: traveling device force output device outputs a traveling drive force…), the control unit being configured to execute override control for canceling limitation on the drive force until the vehicle speed becomes equal to or less than the limit vehicle speed when the accelerator operation amount is increased by a driver during execution of the vehicle speed limit control (Oniwa para 0078: …execute more proper override (switch to manual driving of the driver) control to the slow deceleration control by determining an intention of the driver by the accelerator operation; para 0107-0111: …since an accelerator operation of a prescribed amount or more is not executed, the slow deceleration control continues…at time T14 at which the accelerator operation of a prescribed amount or more is executed, the slow deceleration controller 142A stops the slow deceleration control. Thereafter, since the host vehicle M is accelerated according to an accelerator operation degree by manual driving of the driver, the vertical G according to acceleration is generated. With this, the override control to the slow deceleration is executed, Fig. 11-12).
Oniwa does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to decelerate the vehicle by controlling the braking control device when a time for which the accelerator operation amount is 0 becomes equal to or longer than a reference time in a situation in which the override control is being executed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Miyajima teaches …the accelerator pedal is in a released state after the point P, and therefore the deceleration Gf is selected for determining the timing of the start of the speed reduction control. At the point P, the current vehicle speed Vc exceeds the reference vehicle speed Vf. As a consequence, the speed reduction control is executed once the point P is passed…a required deceleration Gp may be calculated from the distance from the point P to the point Rs, the current vehicle speed Vc and the target vehicle speed Vreq at the point… (see at least Miyajima para 0045).
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 Oniwa so as to include wherein the control unit is configured to decelerate the vehicle by controlling the braking control device when a time for which the accelerator operation amount is 0 becomes equal to or longer than a reference time in a situation in which the override control is being executed in view of Miyajima et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Oniwa and Miyajima because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing an improved driving assistance system that control the deceleration of the vehicle while also reflect the driver’s intent (Miyajima para 0007).
As to claim 2, Oniwa in view of Miyajima teaches the vehicle travel control device according to claim 1.
Miyajima further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to compute, when the time for which the accelerator operation amount is 0 becomes equal to or longer than the reference time in a situation in which the override control is being executed, a target deceleration of the vehicle so as to gradually increase from a deceleration of the vehicle at a time point when the time for which the accelerator operation amount is 0 becomes equal to or longer than the reference time, and decelerate the vehicle by controlling the braking control device such that the deceleration of the vehicle becomes the target deceleration (Miyajima para 0045: …obtains a plurality of deceleration patterns with different deceleration rates and/or schemes for decelerating to the target vehicle speed… a graph showing the reference vehicle speeds for respective positions in the deceleration zone Zd as calculated based on the decelerations Go and Gf; also see para 0046-0052, Fig. 4-7).
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 Oniwa so as to include wherein the control unit is configured to compute, when the time for which the accelerator operation amount is 0 becomes equal to or longer than the reference time in a situation in which the override control is being executed, a target deceleration of the vehicle so as to gradually increase from a deceleration of the vehicle at a time point when the time for which the accelerator operation amount is 0 becomes equal to or longer than the reference time, and decelerate the vehicle by controlling the braking control device such that the deceleration of the vehicle becomes the target deceleration in view of Miyajima et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Oniwa and Miyajima because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing an improved driving assistance system that control the deceleration of the vehicle while also reflect the driver’s intent (Miyajima para 0007).
As to claim 3, Oniwa in view of Miyajima teaches the vehicle travel control device according to claim 1.
Miyajima further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to compute a target deceleration of the vehicle so as to gradually increase to a maximum target deceleration set in advance (Miyajima para 0048: … deceleration Go is selected for determining the timing at which the speed reduction control is to be initiated…; para 0051: … deceleration can be achieved in a manner that resembles the deceleration pattern of a gradual deceleration to reach a target vehicle speed at a predetermined position; also see Fig. 4-7).
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 Oniwa so as to include wherein the control unit is configured to compute a target deceleration of the vehicle so as to gradually increase to a maximum target deceleration set in advance in view of Miyajima et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Oniwa and Miyajima because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing an improved driving assistance system that control the deceleration of the vehicle while also reflect the driver’s intent (Miyajima para 0007).
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