CTNF 19/056,841 CTNF 91623 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/056,841 filled on 02/19/2025. Claims 1-6 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 3 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the phrase “the arbitration result” on line 4, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis because there is no previous citation of any arbitration result in the claim. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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 : “first system”, “second system” and “control device” in Claim 5; have has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the 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. 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,258,022 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the issued patent. The instant application are claiming common subject matter as issued patent, as shown in Table 1 below . Table 1: Comparison of claims in Instant Application No. 19/056,841 vs. U.S. Patent No. US 12,258,022 B2. Claims of Instant Application: 19/056,841 (Difference Emphasis Added) Claims of U.S. Patent: US 12,258,022 B2 ( Difference Emphasis Added ) Claim 1. A vehicle control device comprising a processor configured to: receive a first requested value of acceleration acting on a vehicle from a first system configured to request holding a stopped state of the vehicle; receive a second requested value of the acceleration from a second system; and preferentially select the second requested value over the first requested value when the processor acquires predetermined information from one of the first system and the second system while the vehicle is stopped. Claim 1. A vehicle control device comprising a processor configured to: receive a first requested value of acceleration acting on a vehicle from a first system configured to request holding a stopped state of the vehicle; receive a second requested value of the acceleration from a second system; select one of the first requested value and the second requested value as an arbitration result; and set a priority for selecting the first requested value lower than a priority for selecting the second requested value when the processor acquires predetermined information from one of the first system and the second system while the vehicle is stopped. Claim 2. The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to exclude the first requested value from a selection target when the processor acquires the predetermined information from one of the first system and the second system while the vehicle is stopped. Claim 2. The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to exclude the first requested value from a selection target when the processor acquires the predetermined information from one of the first system and the second system while the vehicle is stopped. Claim 3. The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: calculate a holding force for holding the stopped state of the vehicle, using a requested value selected as the arbitration result; and acquire a requested acceleration calculated using the holding force as the first requested value when the first requested value is not input from the first system to the processor. Claim 3. The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: calculate a holding force for holding the stopped state of the vehicle, using a requested value selected as the arbitration result; and acquire a requested acceleration calculated using the holding force as the first requested value when the first requested value is not input from the first system to the processor. Claim 4. The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to set an upper limit value of an amount of change in a holding force for holding the stopped state of the vehicle when the processor acquires the predetermined information. Claim 4. The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to set an upper limit value of an amount of change in a holding force for holding the stopped state of the vehicle when the processor acquires the predetermined information. Claim 5. A vehicle comprising: a first system configured to output a first requested value of acceleration acting on the vehicle and request holding a stopped state of the vehicle; a second system configured to output a second requested value of the acceleration acting on the vehicle; and a control device configured to control the vehicle using at least one of the first requested value and the second requested value, receive the first requested value, receive the second requested value, and preferentially select the second requested value over the first requested value when the control device acquires predetermined information from one of the first system and the second system while the vehicle is stopped. Claim 5. A vehicle comprising: a first system configured to output a first requested value of acceleration acting on the vehicle and request holding a stopped state of the vehicle; a second system configured to output a second requested value of the acceleration acting on the vehicle; and a control device configured to control the vehicle using at least one of the first requested value and the second requested value, receive the first requested value, receive the second requested value, select one of the first requested value and the second requested value as an arbitration result , and set a priority for selecting the first requested value lower than a priority for selecting the second requested value when the control device acquires predetermined information from one of the first system and the second system while the vehicle is stopped . Double Patenting 08-30 AIA A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. 08-31 AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 6 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 12, 258,022 B2 (Application No. 18/183,391) . This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Table 2: Comparison of claims in Instant Application No. 19/056,841 vs. U.S. Patent No. US 12,258,022 B2. Claims of Instant Application: 19/056,841 (Difference Emphasis Added) Claims of U.S. Patent: US 12,258,022 B2 ( Difference Emphasis Added ) Claim 6. A vehicle control method comprising: receiving a first requested value of acceleration acting on a vehicle from a first system configured to request holding a stopped state of the vehicle; receiving a second requested value of the acceleration from a second system; selecting one of the first requested value and the second requested value as an arbitration result; and setting a priority for selecting the first requested value lower than a priority for selecting the second requested value when predetermined information from one of the first system and the second system is acquired while the vehicle is stopped. Claim 6. A vehicle control method comprising: receiving a first requested value of acceleration acting on a vehicle from a first system configured to request holding a stopped state of the vehicle; receiving a second requested value of the acceleration from a second system; selecting one of the first requested value and the second requested value as an arbitration result; and setting a priority for selecting the first requested value lower than a priority for selecting the second requested value when predetermined information from one of the first system and the second system is acquired while the vehicle is stopped. Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter) Claims 1-5 would be allowed if the claims are re-written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action, and upon file a Terminal Disclaimer. Reasons for Allowance: The instant application having similar allowable subject matter as the issued patent US 12,258,022 B2. Claim 6 would be allowable if the claims are re-written to overcome the statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection, and upon file a Terminal Disclaimer, and having the same allowable subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM. 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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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. /B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 2 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 3 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 4 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 5 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 6 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 7 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 8 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 9 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 10 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 11 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 12 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 13 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 14 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 15 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 16 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/056,841 Page 17 Art Unit: 3657
Prosecution Insights