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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on March 18, 2025.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 03/18/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: “standard controllers each configured to”, “a central computer configured to”, “a gateway controller configured to”, “a transceiver configured to”, “a controller configured to” in claims 1-12.
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 (“standard controllers each configured to” in paragraphs …, “a central computer configured to” in paragraph 12”, “a gateway controller configured to” in paragraph 12, “a transceiver configured to” in paragraphs 13, “a controller configured to” in paragraphs 12-13) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 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 skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOTANI et al. (US Publication 2015/0113520) hereafter Kotani, in view of Prabhudeva et al. (US Publication 2019/0222984) hereafter Prabhudeva.
As per claim 1, Han discloses a control system of a device having mobility, the control system comprising: standard controllers, each configured to be installed in one of a plurality of areas of the device, detect an input for a function related to a component of the device having mobility connected thereto, generate or transmit an input control signal related to the detected input (paragraphs 49-59: in-vehicle equipment and input by user or component to update the server and manage configuration information of each ECU), detect an output control signal corresponding to an output for the function related to the component connected thereto, and control the component based on the output control signal (paragraphs 46-49, 53134: collect input data/instructions to collect configuration information to perform various output operations); a central computer configured to define the function and determine linkage between the input and the output (paragraphs 67-69, 146: exchanges of data with the in-vehicle equipment in accordance with the instruction); and a gateway controller configured to transfer the input control signal and the output control signal between each of the standard controllers and the central computer (paragraphs 146, 161-162). Although, Kotani discloses controlling equipment loaded onto an automobile, but he fails to expressly disclose define the function and determine linkage between the input and the output to generate the output control signal corresponding to the input control signal for the function.
However, in the same field endeavor, Prabhudeva discloses the claimed limitation of define the function and determine linkage between the input and the output to generate the output control signal corresponding to the input control signal for the function (paragraphs 28, 35-37).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Prabhudevas’ teaching with Kotani. One would to coordinate input functions related to the component controllers to better assign corresponding output response functions to perform the operation, thus enhancing system functionality and reliability.
As per claim 2, Kotani discloses the control system wherein the central computer comprises a function database defining the function and wherein the function is defined as a combination at least one input control signal and at least one output control signal corresponding to the input control signal (paragraphs 58, 67-69, 162). Although, Kotani discloses controlling equipment loaded onto an automobile, but he fails to expressly disclose wherein the function is defined as a combination or linkage between at least one input control signal and at least one output control signal corresponding to the input control signal.
However, in the same field endeavor, Prabhudeva discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the function is defined as a combination or linkage between the input and the output to generate the output control signal corresponding to the input control signal for the function (paragraphs 28, 35-37).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
As per claim 3, Kotani discloses the control system wherein the central computer is configured to recognize the function for the input control signal and generate an output control signal corresponding to the recognized function (paragraphs 46-47, 49-51).
As per claim 4, Kotani discloses the control system wherein each of the standard controllers comprises a memory configured to store a signal database consisting of signals for an individual function related to the component connected thereto (paragraphs 55-59, 67-69).
As per claim 5, Kotani discloses the control system wherein the signal is generated according to a standard signal structure, and wherein the standard signal structure comprises a signal identifier (ID), an indicator indicating whether a signal is an input signal or an output signal, activation state information of the signal represented as Active High or Low, standard controller information or area information in the device, information on a connected driver or switch detector, and pin information on the connected driver or switch detector (paragraphs 47-48: indicates state of operations at each ECU; Prabhudeva: paragraphs 47, 68).
As per claim 6, Kotani discloses the control system wherein each of the standard controllers detects an input for an individual function related to the component, and generates an input control signal corresponding to the detected input and transmits the generated input control signal to the gateway controller (paragraphs 55-59, 67-69).
As per claim 7, Kotani discloses the control system wherein each of the standard controllers is configured to detect an output control signal for an individual function related to the component and perform control for the component connected thereto according to the detected output control signal (paragraphs 58, 67-69, 162).
As per claim 8, Kotani discloses the control system wherein the input control signal and the output control signal comprises a signal identifier (ID) and information on a state value or a state value change related to the component (paragraphs 67-68, 80-81).
As per claim 9, Kotani discloses the control system wherein the gateway controller is configured to transmit the output control signal for the function received from the central computer to all of the standard controllers (paragraphs 62, 67-69).
As per claim 10, Kotani discloses the control system wherein the standard controllers are connected to each other to enable 1-to-1 communication in between, wherein each of the standard controllers is connected to the gateway controller communicatively, and wherein the gateway controller is connected to the central computer communicatively (paragraphs 55-59, 67-69).
Claim 11 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
As per claim 12, Kotani discloses the control system wherein the input control signal and the output control signal comprises a signal identifier (ID) and information on a state value or a state value change related to the component (paragraphs 67-68, 80-81).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US Publication 2018/0093664) discloses an automatic parking system is provided. The automatic parking system includes a camera processor that acquires images around a subject vehicle, converts the acquired images into external images and synthesizes the external images. A sensor processor measured spaced distances between the subject vehicle and surrounding vehicles. A parking space recognizing unit periodically receives the spaced distances and the external images and comparing the consecutive external images with the spaced distances using an image recognition technology to recognize parking areas. A controller calculates a moving path between a current position of the subject vehicle and an optimal parking area and operates the subject vehicle based on the moving path.
Shin et al. (US Publication 2020/0089519) discloses a system and a method for verifying a vehicle controller based on a virtual machine. A system for verifying a vehicle controller based on a virtual machine may include: a server configured to store software of upper-level controllers of a vehicle and to execute the software of the upper level controllers through the virtual machine; and a telematics terminal configured to collect input data of the upper level controllers and to transmit the input data to the server. The telematics terminal may be further configured to compare first output data collected from the upper level controllers with second output data received from the server corresponding to the input data, and to verify a validity of the first output data based on the comparison of first output data with the second output data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights