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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 03/21/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 setting module” in claim 8. The generic placeholder “module” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “setting a goal for optimization of the vehicle braking system parameters and determining vehicle braking system parameters to be optimized, and setting working conditions according to the vehicle braking parameters to be optimized” without reciting the structure of the module capable of performing the recited function.
“a simulation module” in claim 8. The generic placeholder “module” is linked by linking word “used for” to the functional limitation “establishing a simulation environment and simulating the working conditions” without reciting the structure of the module capable of performing the recited function.
“a calculating module” in claim 8. The generic placeholder “module” is linked by linking word “used for” to the functional limitation “for each set of vehicle braking system parameters, extracting vehicle signals associated with braking performances from a simulation result, and calculating evaluation values of the braking performances of each set of vehicle braking system parameters based on the vehicle signals and the goal” without reciting the structure of the module capable of performing the recited function.
“a judgement module” in claim 8. The generic placeholder “module” is linked by linking word “used for” to the functional limitation “judging whether the evaluation values reach the goal; if no, adjusting the vehicle braking system parameters and repeatedly iterating the simulation module and the calculating module until the goal is reached; if yes, performing an output module as follows” without reciting the structure of the module capable of performing the recited function.
“the output module” in claim 8. The generic placeholder “module” is linked by linking word “used for” to the functional limitation “outputting the vehicle braking system parameters and the corresponding evaluation values” without reciting the structure of the module capable of performing the recited function.
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 has returned the following respective structures:
part of a computer program stored on a computer-readable medium (original claim 11)
part of a computer program stored on a computer-readable medium (original claim 11)
part of a computer program stored on a computer-readable medium (original claim 11)
part of a computer program stored on a computer-readable medium (original claim 11)
part of a computer program stored on a computer-readable medium (original claim 11)
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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 at pg. 1 lines 6-7 “the vehicle braking parameters” should read --the vehicle braking system parameters--.
In claim 3 at pg. 1 line 3 “each set” should read --for each set--.
In claim 3 at pg. 1 line 4 “parameters,” should read --parameters--.
In claim 8 and pg. 3 line 14 “the vehicle braking parameters” should read --the vehicle braking system parameters--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 the limitation “each set of vehicle braking system parameters” at pg. 1 lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- each of a plurality of sets of vehicle braking system parameters--.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “if no” and “if yes” at pg. 3 lines 22 and 23, respectively. Claim 1 places the corresponding if no/yes limitations as a wherein clause with a colon indented under the judgment step. Unlike claim 1, however, claim 8 places the if no/yes limitations as separate clauses demarcated by semicolons, thus making it is unclear whether the if no/yes limitations necessarily refer to the judgment of the judgment module. For examination purposes the judgment paragraph in claim 8 has been considered as --a judgment module used for judging whether the evaluation values reach the goal, wherein: if no, adjusting the vehicle braking system parameters and repeatedly iterating the simulation module and the calculating module until the goal is reached; and if yes, performing an output module as follows; and--.
Claim 9 recites “The optimization system for vehicle braking system parameters according to claim 1” at pg. 3 lines 28-29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim because claim 1 recites a method. For examination purposes the claim has been considered as dependent upon claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “The optimization system for vehicle braking system parameters according to claim 3” at pg. 4 lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim because claim 3 recites a method. For examination purposes the claim has been considered as dependent upon claim 8.
Claims 2-7 and 9-12 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an optimization method for vehicle braking system parameters, comprising: (judicial exceptions in bold and additional elements underlined):
performing a setting step that includes setting a goal for optimization of the vehicle braking system parameters and determining vehicle braking system parameters to be optimized, and setting working conditions according to the vehicle braking parameters to be optimized;
performing a simulation step that includes establishing a simulation environment and simulating the set working conditions;
performing a calculating step that includes, for each set of vehicle braking system parameters, extracting vehicle signals associated with braking performances from a simulation result, and calculating evaluation values of the braking performances of each set of vehicle braking system parameters based on the vehicle signals and the goal; and
performing a judging step that includes judging whether the evaluation values of the braking performances reach the goal, wherein:
if no, adjusting the vehicle braking system parameters and repeatedly iterating the simulation step and the calculating step until the goal is reached; if yes,
performing an output step that includes outputting the vehicle braking system parameters and the corresponding evaluation values.
The analysis of claim 9 continues as:
Step 2A prong 1: The claim recites:
The mental processes of limitations (a) and (d).
The mental processes and/or mathematical concepts of limitations (b), (c), and (e).
Step 2A prong 2: The claim recites:
The additional elements of limitation (e).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations (e) is mere data output recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. This limitation amount to necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant has only disclosed the data outputting step of limitation (e) at a high level of generality and the step is taken as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claims 2-7 and 11-12 do not recite any further additional elements and thus do not recite any additional elements capable of integrating the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application or of providing an inventive concept.
The analysis of claim 8 follows that of claim 1 above but with one further additional element of program code stored on storage media introduced into the claim by the invocation of 112(f). However, the storage media amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A. The storage media is also disclosed at a high level of generality and is therefore considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity incapable of providing significantly more at step 2B.
Claims 9-10 do not recite any further additional elements and thus do not recite any additional elements capable of integrating the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application or of providing an inventive concept.
These rejections may be overcome by amending the claims to recite controlling a vehicle based on the outputted vehicle braking system parameters.
Closest Prior Art
MA (CN 11780927, n.b. this reference is an intervening reference) is the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, MA discloses an optimization method for vehicle braking system parameters, comprising:
performing a setting step that includes setting a goal for optimization of the vehicle braking system parameters (implied/inherent in “preset performance condition”, pg. 1 line 49) and determining vehicle braking system parameters to be optimized (implied/inherent in “according to the vehicle model parameters”, pg. 1 line 42), and setting working conditions according to the vehicle braking parameters to be optimized (implied/inherent in a vehicle model);
performing a simulation step that includes establishing a simulation environment and simulating the set working conditions (pg. 1 lines 47-48);
performing a calculating step that includes, for each set of vehicle braking system parameters, extracting vehicle signals associated with braking performances from a simulation result (pg. 6 lines 16-18),
performing a judging step that includes judging whether the vehicle signals of the braking performances reach the goal (pg. 4 lines 53-54), wherein:
if no, adjusting the vehicle braking system parameters and repeatedly iterating the simulation step and the calculating step until the goal is reached (pg. 4 lines 57-59);
if yes, performing an output step that includes outputting the vehicle braking system parameters (pg. 4 lines 56-57).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the claim limitation “calculating evaluation values of the braking performances of each set of vehicle braking system parameters based on the vehicle signals and the goal; and performing a judging step that includes judging whether the evaluation values of the braking performances reach the goal, wherein: if no, adjusting the vehicle braking system parameters and repeatedly iterating the simulation step and the calculating step until the goal is reached; if yes, performing an output step that includes outputting the vehicle braking system parameters and the corresponding evaluation values” in the manner defined in claim 1.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this prior art because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747