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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 7, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims refer to elements previous defined but refer to certain limitations as “an” instead of “the” which raises antecedent issues. For example, “in the generating an image” in claims 3-4; “in the estimating a power consumption amount” in claims 4, 7, and 10; and “in the calculating a remaining power amount after movement” in claim 10. 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: “an acquisition part”, “an estimation part”, “a calculation part”, “a generation part”, and “an output part” in claim 1. These limitations are embodied as a processor as supported in para. 170 of the specification as filed and Fig. 2.
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
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (JP2011217509A) in view of Lars (EP2690408A1) in view of 鬼丸 寛之 (JP6325583B2).
As per claims 1, 11, and 12, Koga teaches an information processing device comprising:
an acquisition part that acquires a departure point of an electric moving body and a current remaining power amount of a battery included in the electric moving body (see at least para. 11 for CPU 11 and ROM 12; see at least para. 14 for acquiring current position and remaining battery capacity of the host vehicle);
an estimation part that estimates a power consumption amount in a case where the electric moving body moves from the departure point to each of a plurality of mesh regions obtained by dividing a map (see at least para. 22 for calculating the power consumption level of the target mesh; see at least para. 16 for diving map into a plurality of meshes);
a calculation part that calculates a remaining power amount after movement in a case where the electric moving body moves from the departure point to each of the plurality of mesh regions based on the current remaining power amount and the power consumption amount (see at least para. 31 for determining whether the host vehicle can travel the target mesh based on the calculated power consumption level and the remaining capacity of the vehicle battery; see at least para. 34 for comparing a calculated travel distance based on calculated power consumption level and a calculated travel distance based on remaining capacity of the vehicle battery to determine whether the host vehicle can travel the target mesh; see at least para. 50 for determining remaining battery level after subtracting power capacity consumed to travel to target mesh);
a generation part that generates an image in which a color or brightness in a drawing region formed by connecting representative points of four of the mesh regions is changed
Koga is not explicit regarding, however Lars teaches changing the color gradually (see at least para. 13 and claim 1 for indicating available amount of energy during road segment; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an available mount of energy would also be indicative of an available travel range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention of modify the device of Koga with the features of Lars because it provides an easy to understand visual identifier of the probability the vehicle can reach a particular location.
Modified Koga is not explicit regarding, however 鬼丸 寛之 teaches an output part that outputs information obtained by superimposing the generated image on a map (see at least para. 10 and 13 and Figs. 7 and 8 for superimposing data onto a map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention of modify the device of modified Koga with the features of 鬼丸 寛之 because it makes it possible to determine at a glance how displayed information correlates to a map on a single screen instead of looking at one screen with the information and a second screen with the map.
As per claim 4, Koga further teaches wherein in the estimating a power consumption amount, the power consumption amount is read out, for each of the plurality of mesh regions, from a power consumption amount storage part that stores in advance a power consumption amount in a case where the electric moving body moves between the plurality of mesh regions (see at least para. 22 for power consumption level is carried out in advance and stored).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619