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 03/04/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 and 03/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
the difference between the solid-, dashed-, and dotted lines in Fig. 5 is not defined in the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Robot 600 (pg. 6 line 21 and pg. 32 line 21)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At pg. 16 lines 8-10 the feedback control signal is described as based on the straight-ahead steering angle whereas at pg. 20 lines 1-4 and 13-14 the feedback control signal is described as based on the deviation between the target route and the position information, specifically multiplying the feedback gain by the deviation. It is unclear how both descriptions can be true.
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 unit” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “acquiring a set value of a straight-ahead steering angle in a manufacturing process or a transporting process” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a detection unit” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “detecting position information on a position of the vehicle in a transverse direction or an orientation of the vehicle” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“an update unit” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “updating the set value of the straight-ahead steering angle in accordance with a result of traveling in the first period to obtain an update value” without reciting the structure of the unit 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:
a subcomponent (1173) of an electronic control unit (pg. 12 lines 15-17, pg. 13 lines 1-2 and 23-24)
a subcomponent of a server, vehicle, or sensor (pg. 9 lines 30-33)
a subcomponent (1174) of an electronic control unit (pg. 12 lines 15-17, pg. 13 lines 1-2 and 23-24)
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(a)
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 1-12 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.
MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I. states in computer-implemented functional claims the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. The algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a feedback component and a feedforward component…in the control in the first control unit” at pg. 1 lines 16-17 whereas Applicant has only disclosed an algorithm (S13, Fig. 4; pg. 14 lines 7-34, pg. 17 line 30 - pg. 18 line 6, pg. 19 lines 2-7) for feedback control of the first control unit. As Applicant has not disclosed an algorithm for feedforward control in the first control unit the disclosure fails to meet the written description requirement of 112(a).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a feedback component and a feedforward component…in the control in the first control step” at pg. 2 lines 27-28 whereas Applicant has only disclosed an algorithm (S13, Fig. 4; pg. 14 lines 7-34, pg. 17 line 30 - pg. 18 line 6, pg. 19 lines 2-7) for feedback control of the first control step. As Applicant has not disclosed an algorithm for feedforward control in the first control step the disclosure fails to meet the written description requirement of 112(a).
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 are rejected for depending upon rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 “the vehicle” at pg. 1 lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “a straight-ahead steering angle” at pg. 1 lines 4-5 has been considered as --a straight-ahead steering angle of a vehicle--.
Claim 1 recites “detecting position information on a position of the vehicle in a transverse direction or an orientation of the vehicle” (emphasis added) at pg. 1 lines 6-7. It is unclear whether the position information is generated when the orientation of the vehicle is alternatively detected. Furthermore, if the position information is not generated when the orientation of the vehicle is alternatively detected, the limitation “the position information” at pg. 1 line 9 which lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes the limitation at pg. 1 lines 6-7 has been considered as --a detection unit for detecting position information on a position of the vehicle in a transverse direction or orientation information on an orientation of the vehicle;-- and the limitation “the position information at pg. 1 line 9 has been considered as --the position information or the orientation information--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a feedback component and a feedforward component…those in the control in the first control unit” at pg. 1 lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as best understood by the Examiner.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “distribution” in claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 is used by the claims to mean “value or contribution,” while the accepted meaning is “the condition of being dispersed all over an area” (OED definition 2.a). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the vehicle” at pg. 2 lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “a straight-ahead steering angle” at pg. 2 lines 15-16 has been considered as --a straight-ahead steering angle of a vehicle--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a feedback component and a feedforward component…those in the control in the first control step” at pg. 2 lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as best understood by the Examiner.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Analysis - 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 eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the second control step recited in the independent claims integrates the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Closest Prior Art
Regarding claim 1, HARA (JP 2006-082797) is the closest prior art of record. HARA discloses a vehicle manufacturing system comprising:
an acquisition unit for acquiring a set value of a straight-ahead steering angle (i.e., existing neutral steering angle that is corrected, i.a. 0005 lines 3-5) in a transporting process (implied as vehicles are typically used in transportation);
a detection unit (straight-line determination means, 0006 lines 4-5) for detecting orientation information on an orientation of the vehicle (i.e., orientation can include moving straight, i.a. 0006 lines 5-6; see interpretation of claim under 112(b) above);
a first control unit for controlling a steering angle of the vehicle in accordance with a straight route and the orientation information (determines straight travel based on straight-line determination means, 0006 lines 4-6) in such a way that the vehicle moves along the straight route in a first period (0006 lines 10-12) in which the vehicle moves straight ahead to a first point (first point implied) using the set value (i.e., before neutral angle is corrected);
an update unit (neutral angle correction means, 0006 line 7) for updating the set value of the straight-ahead steering angle in accordance with a result of traveling in the first period to obtain an update value (0006 lines 7-12).
The limitation “in a manufacturing process or a transporting process” is considered as functional language. HARA discloses all the structural components of the system, which are read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the system of HARA is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention having been claimed.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “a second control unit for controlling the steering angle by making distributions of a feedback component and a feedforward component change from those in the control in the first control unit in a second period in which the vehicle moves to a second point using the update value after the vehicle reaches the first point” in the manner defined in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EL AILE (US 2018/0141584) discloses an acquisition unit acquires a set value based on an intermediate value when lock-to- lock steering of a steering angle is performed from one end to another end of the steering (S402, Fig. 4).
YASUYAMA (US 2024/0329649, provided by Applicant on 04/29/2025 IDS) discloses a vehicle manufacturing system for a manufacturing process and a transporting process (Figs. 5B and 6).
PEAKE (US 2013/0304300) discloses a feedforward and feedback steering controller (Fig. 6) but does not disclose a straight route in the manner claimed.
MIYAKE (US 11,801,895) discloses an apparatus configured to determine whether or not the vehicle is traveling straight ahead, wherein the update value of the straight-ahead steering angle is obtained in accordance with a distribution of a steering angle sensor in a period in which the apparatus determines that the vehicle is traveling straight ahead (abstract).
TAKANO (JP 7,616,286) discloses a system to set a straight-ahead steering angle related to Applicant’s invention but is unavailable as prior art.
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
Prosecution Insights