DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 19/009,440 filed on January 3, 2025 in which claims 1-7 were presented for examination.
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 1-7 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 102(a)(1).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed January 23, 2025 and November 6, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 recites a method including the steps of
an abnormality monitoring step of executing abnormality monitoring processing that determines presence or absence of abnormality of a mobile body and outputs abnormality notification information when recognizing the abnormality of the mobile body;
a specific electrical component state recognizing step of recognizing whether or not prescribed setting is completed for a specific electrical component mounted on the mobile body; and
an abnormality monitoring function setting step of setting an abnormality monitoring function disabled state and an abnormality monitoring function enabled state, the abnormality monitoring function disabled state being set to prohibit the abnormality monitoring processing from being executed in the abnormality monitoring step when it is not recognized in the specific electrical component recognizing step that the prescribed setting of the specific electrical component is completed, and the abnormality monitoring function enabled state being set to allow the abnormality monitoring processing to be executed in the abnormality monitoring step when it is recognized in the specific electrical component state recognizing step that the prescribed setting of the specific electrical component is completed. (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require “output[ting] abnormality notification information because the claim does not affirmatively require recognition of the abnormality of the mobile body. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation only requires one of “the abnormality monitoring function disabled state being set to prohibit the abnormality monitoring processing from being executed in the abnormality monitoring step” or “the abnormality monitoring function enabled state being set to allow the abnormality monitoring processing to be executed in the abnormality monitoring step” to occur because the prior limitation only recognizes “whether or not” the prescribed setting is complete; in other words, in the event that the prescribed setting is recognized as complete, the disabled state will not be set to prohibit the abnormality monitoring process from being executed and visa-versa. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim Interpretation—35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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 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).
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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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 limitations are: “an abnormality monitoring unit” and “a specific electrical component state recognizing unit” in claims 1-7 and 7 and “an abnormality monitoring step” and “a specific electrical component state recognizing step” in claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” “step,” or a generic placeholder, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function within the claim limitation itself. Such claim limitations are: “an abnormality monitoring function setting unit” in claims 1, 2, and 7 and “an abnormality monitoring function setting step” in claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because it depends from claim 2, while intervening claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, Applicant’s sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
This objection will be held in abeyance upon Applicant’s request.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, and 7, the claim limitations “an abnormality monitoring unit,” “a specific electrical component state recognizing unit,” “an abnormality monitoring step,” and “a specific electrical component state recognizing step” invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description 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 function.
When a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for a computer implemented means-plus-function claim, the specification must disclose the specific algorithm required to transform the general-purpose computing equipment into the required special purpose computer. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
The examiner could not find any specific structure or specific algorithm in the present specification, nor has Applicant pointed to such structure or algorithm.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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);
(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 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, these claims depend from at least one of the claims above and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Regarding claim 2 and 5, these claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fardoun et al., US Publication 6,889,792 (hereinafter Fardoun).
Regarding claim 1, Fardoun discloses a mobile body control device, comprising “an abnormality monitoring unit that executes abnormality monitoring processing that monitors presence or absence of abnormality of a mobile body and outputs abnormality notification information when recognizing the abnormality of the mobile body” (Fardoun col. 5, ll. 38-51) where the steering ECU executes anti-theft monitoring to output notifications when recognizing an attempted theft. This works by detecting whether the ignition switch is being bypassed, which is an “abnormality” within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Additionally, Fardoun discloses “a specific electrical component state recognizing unit that recognizes whether or not prescribed setting is completed for a specific electric component mounted on the mobile body” (Fardoun col. 5, ll. 52-60) by running self-tests on the electrical components to verify these component are “functioning properly,” which is a prescribed setting within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Finally, Fardoun discloses “an abnormality monitoring function setting unit that sets an abnormality monitoring function disabled state and an abnormality monitoring function enabled state, the abnormality monitoring function disabled state being set to prohibit the abnormality monitoring unit from executing the abnormality monitoring processing when the specific electrical component state recognizing unit does not recognize that the prescribed setting of the specific electrical component is completed, and the abnormality monitoring function enabled state being set to allow the abnormality monitoring unit to execute the abnormality monitoring processing when the specific electrical component state recognizing unit recognizes that the prescribed setting of the specific electrical component is completed” (Fardoun col. 5, l. 61-col. 6, l. 7) where the system switches from a state where the anti-theft detection (i.e., abnormality monitoring) occurs only after the initialization of the electrically-assisted power steering system, which is switching it from a disabled state to an enabled state when it recognizes that the components are “functioning properly” (i.e., in the prescribed state) but does not perform the anti-theft detection (i.e., it is in a disabled state) if the initialization fails.
Regarding claim 2, Fardoun discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fardoun discloses “wherein the abnormality monitoring function setting unit switches to the abnormality monitoring function enabled state when the specific electrical component state recognizing unit recognizes that the prescribed setting of the specific electrical component is completed in the abnormality monitoring function disabled state” (Fardoun col. 5, l. 61-col. 6, l. 7) where the anti-theft detection is initiated (i.e., switched to the abnormality monitoring function enabled state) only after completion of the initialization of the EPS system (i.e., recognition of the prescribed setting), which is during the disabled state as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Further, Fardoun discloses “wherein the abnormality monitoring function setting unit switches to the abnormality monitoring function enabled state … when the mobile body is switched from a standby state where the mobile body is not operable to an activated state where the mobile body is operable in accordance with operation in an operation unit that instructs switching between the activated state and the standby state” (Fardoun col. 5, l. 38-col. 6, l. 7) where the vehicle is off (i.e., in a standby state) until the vehicle is started (i.e., the mobile body is in an operative state) when the process occurs.
Regarding claim 3, Fardoun discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fardoun discloses “wherein the abnormality monitoring unit stores abnormality recognition information in a storage unit when recognizing the abnormality of the mobile body” (Fardoun col. 6, ll. 32-42) by storing an actual key identification code, which is used to recognize an attempted theft, making it “abnormality recognition information,” within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Further, Fardoun discloses “the abnormality monitoring unit stores the abnormality recognition information including a prescribed code in the storage unit when recognizing the abnormality of the mobile body within a predetermined time from a time when the abnormality monitoring function disabled state is switched to the abnormality monitoring function enabled state” (Fardoun col. 6, ll. 8-31) where the comparison occurs within a predetermined time period, which necessarily requires the code to be stored in some form of memory, such as RAM.
Regarding claim 4, Fardoun discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fardoun discloses “wherein the specific electrical component is an anti-theft device, and the prescribed setting is registration setting to enable an anti-theft function of the anti-theft device.” (Fardoun col. 5, ll. 30-37).
Regarding claim 5, Fardoun discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fardoun discloses “wherein the specific electrical component is an anti-theft device.” (Fardoun col. 5, ll. 30-37). Further, Fardoun discloses “the prescribed setting is registration setting to enable an anti-theft function of the anti-theft device” (Fardoun col. 5, ll. 52-60) where the prescribed settings necessary for initialization enable the anti-theft function because if they are not present, the process does not proceed to the anti-theft process. Finally, Fardoun discloses “the abnormality monitoring function setting unit performs switching to the abnormality monitoring function enabled state when the specific electrical component state recognizing unit recognizes that the registration setting of the anti-theft device is completed in the abnormality monitoring function disabled state and when anti-theft authentication is established by an anti-theft function in accordance with the operation in the operation unit and the mobile body is switched from the standby state to the activated state” (Fardoun col. 5, l. 38-col. 6, l. 7) for the reasons discussed in regards to the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 6, it merely recites a method for implementing the device of claim 6. The method comprises performing the various functions. Fardoun comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 6 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, it merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium for embodying the device of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. Fardoun comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 7 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights