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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 2/25/2025.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
3. Applicant claims an Japanese priority of 2/28/2024; this date is considered.
4. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim interpretations
5. 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.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 “...a memory is configured to store...” or “...the processor is configured to...”.
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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: “...the memory is configured to store.....” (see pending ”device” claim 1 line 5).
and “...the processor is configured to ...start control ......” (see pending claim 1 line 20); and “...the processor is configured to ...start control ......” (see pending claim 1 lines 30-32).
Similar situations are in independent claim 4 (note that claim 4 is directed to a vehicle).
Because these claim limitations 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.
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.
12. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
13. Structural claims 1, and 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Since claims 1, and 4 are directed to a device and a vehicle, their limitations are unclear. A. Per independent claim 1::
Line 22: “start control of the first period for the at least two operation devices ...”
And line 25:
“start control of the second period for the at least two operation devices ...”
The examiner suggests that these limitation should be;
For claim 1, line 22...”...start control the at least two operation devices of the first period...”.
And line 25:
“start control the at least two operation devices of the second period ...”
Per independent claim 4:
Line 19: “start control of the first period for the at least two operation devices that are targets”
And line 22
“start control of the second period for the at least two operation devices ...”
The examiner suggests that these limitation should be;
For claim 4, line 19...”...start control the at least two operation devices of the first period..”.
and for claim 4, line 22 ”start control the at least two operation devices of the second period...”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
14. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci (US Pub 20140310610A1) in view of Case et al (US 20220151450 A1 – hereafter Case’450).
A. Per independent claims 1, and 4: They are directed to structures (see Ricci, FIG. 1), as best reasonable interpretations; separate devices in a vehicle can be controlled together.
Ricci suggests about controlling different mode of a driver’s seat in a vehicle.
Pending claim 1. A control device that controls a plurality of operation devices mounted in a vehicle,
the control device comprising:
a memory (see Ricci, para. [0097]); and
a processor (e.g., a microprocessor, see Ricci, para. [0097]), wherein:
the memory is configured to store a mode setting value set that indicates,
corresponding to each of a first mode and a second mode for achieving a vehicle cabin
environment of the vehicle (e.g., capable to store different kinds of information, see Ricci, para. [0097]);
Ricci’s memory performs a claimed function of storing different information by a “Vehicle Control System 204” (see Ricci, Fig. 2 ref. 208, 252, 244), including:
information indicating a length of a first period,
information indicating at least two operation devices that are targets to be operated
during the first period among the operation devices,
information indicating an operation content of each operation device of the at least
two operation devices that is a target to be operated during the first period,
information indicating at least two operation devices that are targets to be operated
during a second period following the first period among the operation devices, and
information indicating an operation content of each operation device of the at least
two operation devices that is a target to be operated during the second period;
information corresponding to the first mode in the mode setting value set is at least
partially different from information corresponding to the second mode in the mode setting
value set.
Ricci suggests about controlling a driver/rear seat: moving forward/rearward, and changing inclinations/”mode settings” (e.g., seat sensor 677 see Ricci, Fig. 6B para. [0393], [0433])
Ricci does not suggest that during the first period with the operation content of each operation device of the at least two operation devices that is the target to be operated during the first period, and start control of the second period for the at least two operation devices that are
targets to be operated during the second period with the operation content of each operation
device of the at least two operation devices that is the target to be operated during the second
period when the length of the first period has elapsed from the start of the control of the first
period.
However, Case’450 teaches about scheduling setting (see Case’450, FIG. 6B) by sending control signals electronically to express when a function must be performed by a device has been taught by Case’450 FIG. 6F ref. 664 e.g., when is a “start time” on an object/target, how to perform that action: select “deep clean mode” or only “an edge cleaning mode” – see Case’450 para. [0149]). and the processor is configured to, when control is executed in the second mode, based on the information corresponding to the second mode in the mode setting value set, start control of the first period for the at least two operation devices that are targets to be operated during the first period with the operation content of each operation device of at least two operation devices (setting a seat, and a radio volume, or a cabin’s temperature) that is the target to be operated during the first period, and start control of the second period for the at least two operation devices that are targets to be operated during the second period (assuming two “reasonable” periods, suggested by Case’450).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Ricci with Case’450 to send different electronic commands to target(s) for performing different tasks at a certain desired timeline (see Case’450 FIG. 4B).
B. Per claim 2: According to a broad reasonable interpretation, a length of the first period
indicated by the information corresponding to the first mode in the mode setting value set is
the same as the length of the first period (e.g., a designer’s choice) indicated by the information corresponding to the second mode in the mode setting value set (see Ricci, para. [0659], [0717] and see Case’450 FIG. 4B).
C Per dependent claim 3: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Ricci suggests two operation devices that are targets to be operated during the first period (e.g., controlling a specific seat, and controlling a specific radio channel) indicated by the information corresponding to the first mode in the mode setting value set include a first operation device.
Ricci does not describe about the first period, and the second period to activate objects; however, Case’450 suggests different timing to activate different functions/target areas. (see Case’450 FIG. 6A); Case’450 suggest that two operation devices that are targets to be operated during the first period indicated by the information corresponding to the second mode in the mode setting value set include the first operation device (see Case’450 Fig. 6A); and
an operation content of the first operation device indicated by the information corresponding to the first mode in the mode setting value set is different from an operation content of the first operation device indicated by the information corresponding to the second mode in the mode setting value set (e.g., setting different “timing” values, or setting different “channels”/”radio frequencies”/different volume levels/values during the first mode, and the second mode). As broad reasonably interpretation, these settings are merely different intent of uses (e.g., controlling “Smart thermostat” and “Smart Lighting” in Case’450 FIG. 6A).
D. Per claim 5: Ricci also suggests about a mode setting value set, include a seat device (e.g., selecting a certain seat of a vehicle for a specific setting “.. profile identification module 848 determines a seating position of the selected vehicle occupant;” see Ricci, claim 2, para. [0669]).
E. Per dependent claim 6: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 4 are incorporated.
Ricci in view of Case’450 suggests that operation devices that are targets to be operated based on the mode setting value set, include an audio device (e.g., “increase a volume setting of the audio channel;” see Ricci, claim 2, para. [0183]-[0184]).
Conclusion
15. Pending claims 1-6 are rejected.
16. The attached prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights