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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 have been canceled. Claims 11-19 have been added. Claims 11-19 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 11-18 contain conditional limitations which include:
Claim 11 recites the limitation(s), “when predetermined conditions are satisfied at a time of vehicle stop, executing an idling stop control for stopping an engine; controlling the first disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state before restart of the engine at the latest when executing the idling stop control; and when an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned OFF during execution of the idling stop control, controlling the first disconnecting device to be brought into a conduction state, and subsequently, controlling the second disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state.”
Claim 12: recites the limitation(s), “prohibiting start of the engine by the starting motor until the second disconnecting device is brought into the interruption state.”
Claim 13: recites the limitation(s), “when ending the idling stop control and restarting the engine, driving the starting motor by power of the first power storage device with the first disconnecting device being held in the interruption state.”
Claim 14: recites the limitation(s), “when failing to restart the engine, controlling the first disconnecting device to be brought into a conduction state, subsequently, controlling the second disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state, and driving the starting motor by power of the first power storage device.”
Claim 15: recites the limitation(s), “when the second disconnecting device is fixed in an interruption state and also the predetermined conditions are satisfied at the time of the vehicle stop, executing the idling stop control with the first disconnecting device being held in a conduction state.”
Claim 16: recites the limitation(s), “when the second disconnecting device is fixed in an interruption state, prohibiting the automatic driving of the vehicle.”
Claim 17: recites the limitation(s), “as one of the predetermined conditions, including a condition that the second disconnecting device is in a conduction state.”
Claim 18: recites the limitation(s), “when the first disconnecting device is in the interruption state, supplying power to the second automatic driving electric load from the first power storage device.”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. See MPEP § 2111.04(II).
The contingent limitations in claim(s) 11-18 recite method or process steps that require a first step if a first condition happens and a second step if a second condition happens. Accordingly, the analysis set forth in Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) applies to method claim contingent limitations . See MPEP § 2111.04(II). When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met)". Schulhauser at 9.
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 11 does not require “when predetermined conditions are satisfied at a time of vehicle stop, executing an idling stop control for stopping an engine; controlling the first disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state before restart of the engine at the latest when executing the idling stop control; and when an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned OFF during execution of the idling stop control, controlling the first disconnecting device to be brought into a conduction state, and subsequently, controlling the second disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state,” since the conditional limitations are not actually required to occur (i.e., “operate the retracting unit when both a first condition and a second condition are satisfied” rather than the first condition and the second condition actually occurring)
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) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 12,337,855 B2) hereinafter Ide and Higashitani et al. (US 2020/0079366 A1) hereinafter Higashitani.
Claim 11:
Ide discloses a method of controlling a vehicle having a first power storage device that supplies power to at least one starting motor, [Fig. 1, Items 11-13; col. 6, lines 41-44] a second power storage device that supplies power to an automatic driving electric load necessary for automatic driving of the vehicle, [Fig. 1, Items 21-22; col. 7, lines 22-27] a second disconnecting device provided between the automatic driving electric load and the second power storage device [First load of Ida is automatic driving electric load see col. 1 line 61 to col. 2, line 13; second switch 40 in Fig. 1 is the second disconnecting device; auxiliary power supply is the second power storage device].
Ide doesn’t explicitly disclose a first disconnecting device that is provided between the automatic driving electric load and the first power storage device.
However, Higashitani does disclose a first disconnecting device that is provided between the automatic driving electric load and the first power storage device [¶57].
The limitations, “the method comprising: when predetermined conditions are satisfied at a time of vehicle stop, executing an idling stop control for stopping an engine; controlling the first disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state before restart of the engine at the latest when executing the idling stop control; and when an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned OFF during execution of the idling stop control, controlling the first disconnecting device to be brought into a conduction state, and subsequently, controlling the second disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state.” are contingent and therefore not required to be disclosed in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle system and controller of Ide with the disconnect of Higashitani to prevent additional damage in the event of an accident [¶57].
Claims 12-18 ultimately depend on independent claim 11 and contain only contingent limitations which are not required. See Claim Interpretation for more information.
Examiner recommends amending the claims to substitute conditional language with a positive recitation. For example, rather than, “when” recite, “in response to.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record, as shown applied to claim 11 above, is the closest prior art of record but fails to anticipate or render obvious, “a controller configured to, when predetermined conditions are satisfied at a time of vehicle stop, execute an idling stop control for stopping an engine, and control the first disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state before restart of the engine at the latest, and further configured to, when an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned OFF during execution of the idling stop control, control the first disconnecting device to be brought into a conduction state, and subsequently, control the second disconnecting device to be brought into an interruption state.” as disclosed in claim 19. It would require impermissible hindsight to control the invention of Ide as modified by Higashitani, specifically the second disconnecting device when the ignition switch of the vehicle is turned off.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishii (US 2023/0323846 A1) discloses an engine with an idle-stop capability dependent on a number of conditions being met.
Arnot (US 2019/0010910 A1) discloses a retrofit engine start/stop system dependent on a number of conditions being met.
Kitamura (US 2015/0032314 A1) discloses a working machine with a generator and a capacitor with a start-stop system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights