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 .
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.
Introduction
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims recite correcting a control instruction and then outputting the control instruction. It could be interpreted that the original control instruction is output; however, this does not appear to be what is intended, as best understood. Therefore, changing “output the control instruction”, for example in line 11 of claim 1, to “output the corrected control instruction” is recommended for clarity. 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: “control portion” in claim 1 and “control unit” in claim 13. These limitations are being interpreted as physical computing devices running software, or structural equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim Rejections - 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is taken as the representative claim. Claim 1 is directed to acquiring a physical quantity, correcting a control instruction, and outputting the control instruction. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is directed to acquiring data, correcting data, and outputting data, which can be performed within the human mind or with pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remainder of the claim provides an intended field of use, i.e., an intended place where the abstract in intended to be performed, but does not provide an concrete ties or practical applications of the abstract idea to the intended field. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a control portion is merely a generic computer component recited at a high level, which does not provide significantly more beyond the abstract idea. Even if “output the control instruction” is interpreted as beyond a mental process, this limitation broadly recites outputting a result or, at most, transmitting a signal, which is old and well-known and does not amount to a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d).II.
Claim(s) 2-12 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. These claims define details about how the correcting is carried out and are thus directed to the abstract idea. These claims do not add any additional elements that amount to a practical application or significantly more.
Similar to claim 1, claims 13 and 14 are directed to the abstract idea of acquiring, correcting, and outputting data. Claim 14 recites the additional elements of a frictional braking apparatus and a driving apparatus; however, these elements are extra-solution activities and do not provide a practical application or significantly more. The abstract idea is merely related to or intended for these elements, but there is inadequate tie to the elements to result in a practical application or significantly more then the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0187320 to Antanaitis et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0116874 to Ichinose et al.
As per claim 1, Antanaitis discloses a vehicle control apparatus mounted on a vehicle, the vehicle including a frictional braking apparatus configured to generate a frictional braking force on the vehicle and a driving apparatus configured to generate a driving force on the vehicle (Antanaitis; At least paragraph(s) 21, 22, and 24), the vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a control portion configured to output a result calculated based on input information (Antanaitis; At least paragraph(s) 24), the control portion being configured to
acquire a physical quantity relating to a total braking force for decelerating the vehicle (Antanaitis; At least paragraph(s) 23), and
by the driving apparatus according to a degree of reliability of a calculation result attributed to a state of the vehicle and output the control instruction, in a state that the frictional braking force is generated at the time of deceleration of the vehicle based on the physical quantity relating to the total braking force (Antanaitis; At least paragraph(s) 29, 34-36, and 42).
Antanaitis discloses a vehicle control apparatus that determines the state of the vehicle and the brakes to determine the amount of brake force being applied based on the reliability of the calculation (i.e., within the allowable range or not), but does not explicitly disclose correct a control instruction for generating the driving force
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Ichinose (Ichinose; At least paragraph(s) 29-36). Ichinose teaches adjusting the driving force to compensate for the pitching motion of the vehicle. In combination with Antanaitis, this adjustment would be based on the state and reliability of the state of the vehicle. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Ichinose into the invention of Antanaitis with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Preventing pitch of the vehicle enhancing steering stability and rider comfort, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 22 of Ichinose.
As per claim 2, Antanaitis discloses wherein the control portion corrects the control instruction according to the degree of reliability of the calculation result attributed to the state of the vehicle that includes at least a physical quantity relating to a speed of the vehicle, a physical quantity relating to a target frictional braking force of the vehicle, and a physical quantity relating to a temperature of the frictional braking apparatus (Antanaitis; At least paragraph(s) 30).
As per claims 13 and 14, Antanaitis discloses the method (Antanaitis; At least paragraph(s) 5) and system (Antanaitis; At least paragraph(s) 13) associated with the control apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claims 13 and 14 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:30pm 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights