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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2025 complies 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:
“identifying, by a processor device ...” in claim 17,
“a processor device configured to ...” in claim 25,
“one or more control units configured to ...” in claim 28
Wherein control units are described as a processor device, which is further described as a general-purpose processor, an application specific processor, a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), a circuit containing processing components, a group of distributed processing components, a group of distributed computers configured for processing, or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof, in paragraph 48 of the Specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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 17-29 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.
Claim 17 recites the following limitations:
“A computer-implemented method for initiating a preconditioning of at least one vehicle system or component of a primary vehicle, comprising:
identifying, by a processor device of a computer system, that the primary vehicle is being transported by a secondary vehicle,
determining, by the processor device, a preconditioning starting time based on an expected arrival time of the secondary vehicle to a target location, the preconditioning starting time being prior to the expected arrival time, and
initiating, by the processor device, the preconditioning of the at least one vehicle system or component at the determined preconditioning starting time, the method further comprising:
identifying that the primary vehicle is being transported along a known transport route,
obtaining statistical and/or historical data associated with the known transport route, and
predicting the expected arrival time of the secondary vehicle to the target location based on the historical and/or statistical data associated with the known transport route.”
Wherein the bolded limitation is considered indefinite as it is unclear as to which vehicle “at least one vehicle system” refers to.
Claim 19 recites:
“The method according to claim 18, wherein determining the geographic position of the primary vehicle comprises receiving geographic position data indicative of the geographic position of the primary vehicle from a satellite navigation device of the primary vehicle, and wherein identifying that the primary vehicle is moving comprises detecting that the geographic position data are indicative of a movement.”
Wherein the phrase “wherein identifying that the primary vehicle is moving comprises detecting that the geographic position data are indicative of a movement” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation relies on itself, also known as a circular definition. The claimed limitation attempts to describe “identifying” movement of the primary vehicle by “detecting” movement of the primary vehicle, which may be interpreted as synonyms for each other, without further defining the steps as to how the detection is carried out. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 21 recites: “The method according to claim 17, wherein the statistical and/or historical data comprise data collected by at least one other vehicle in connection with transport along the known transport route.”
Wherein it is unclear as to what “at least one other vehicle ...” entails, as it may be interpreted as either the primary vehicle, secondary vehicle, or a potential third vehicle. Additionally, it is unclear as to what ”in connection with transport” refers to, such as if the “at least one other vehicle” is a vehicle that is transporting, being transported, or is merely a vehicle nearby to the primary and secondary vehicle. Therefore, claim 21 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 22, a portion of the claimed limitation recites: “... a known starting location of the known transport route (R), and based on the statistical and/or historical data associated with the known transport route (R) ...”
Wherein claim 17 has established “a known transport route” and it is unclear as to whether “the known transport route (R)” of claim 22 refers to the previously established known transport route or is establishing a new known transport route (R). Therefore, this limitation renders claim 22 indefinite.
Claim 23 recites: “The method according to claim 17, wherein the at least one vehicle system or component comprises at least one of: an engine, an electric motor, a fuel cell system or component, an exhaust system or component, an electric energy storage system or component, and a vehicle cabin.”
Similarly to previously rejected claim 17, it is unclear as to which vehicle “the at least one vehicle system or component” is referring to, and therefore renders claim 23 indefinite.
Claim 24 recites “The method according to claim 17, wherein initiating the preconditioning of the at least one vehicle system or component comprises initiating a preheating of at least one first vehicle system or component, and/or a precooling of at least one second vehicle system or component.”
Similarly to previously rejected claim 17 and 23, it is unclear as to which vehicle the “at least one vehicle system or component” is referring to. Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the “at least one second vehicle system or component” is attempting to establish a third vehicle separate from the primary and secondary vehicle, or if the limitation is attempting to establish another vehicle system within the primary or secondary vehicle. Therefore claim 24 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 17, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, 20, and 26-29, the claims are dependent on previously rejected independent claim 17 and are therefore rejected upon based on dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, Nilsson et al. (20220048472; hereinafter Nilsson) teaches a computer-implemented method for initiating a preconditioning of at least one vehicle system or component of a primary vehicle (Nilsson: Abstract), comprising:
identifying, by a processor device of a computer system, that the primary vehicle is being transported by a secondary vehicle (Nilsson: “operation of the combustion engine during vehicle parking is sometimes undesirable, for example when the vehicle 5 is transported in a parked state” ¶ 69),
...
initiating, by the processor device, the preconditioning of the at least one vehicle system or component at the determined preconditioning starting time (Nilsson: “remote or timer based start functionality of a vehicle combustion engine is for example provided for enabling heating of the combustion engine and/or passenger cabin before the user enters the vehicle 5, or for enabling cooling of the passenger cabin by means of a vehicle air conditioner before the user enters the vehicle 5” ¶ 68), the method further comprising:
...
Nilsson fails to teach determining, by the processor device, a preconditioning starting time based on an expected arrival time of the secondary vehicle to a target location, the preconditioning starting time being prior to the expected arrival time, and
...
identifying that the primary vehicle is being transported along a known transport route,
obtaining statistical and/or historical data associated with the known transport route, and
predicting the expected arrival time of the secondary vehicle to the target location based on the historical and/or statistical data associated with the known transport route.
The closest recitation of the claimed limitations are in paragraph 71 of Nilsson which discloses:
“This example corresponds to one embodiment of a system for controlling a vehicle feature, wherein the vehicle automatically behaves differently and smarter in various different circumstances, namely by blocking the combustion engine remote or time based start functionality when the vehicle is being transported. Thereby, the air quality at the parking deck 8 of the ferry 9 is not as much polluted as it possibly otherwise would have been in case the remote or timer based start functionality would have available for providing an already air-conditioned vehicle passenger cabin upon arrival at the harbor port.”
Wherein it can be seen that Nilsson discloses of a primary vehicle, with preconditioning capabilities, being transported by a secondary vehicle; however, the disclosure set by Nilsson is in regards to blocking (preventing) the preconditioning of the primary vehicle based on the location of the secondary vehicle. Additionally, Nilsson does not disclose of an expected arrival time of the secondary vehicle.
Whereas the claimed invention requires a preconditioning starting time based on an expected arrival time of the secondary vehicle to a target location, the preconditioning starting time being prior to the expected arrival time, identifying that the primary vehicle is being transported along a known transport route, obtaining statistical and/or historical data associated with the known transport route, and predicting the expected arrival time of the secondary vehicle to the target location based on the historical and/or statistical data associated with the known transport route.
Upon further search and consideration, Perkins et al. (20180136003; hereinafter Perkins) paragraphs 40 and 55 disclose of preconditioning a vehicle based on an expected departure time; however, Perkins fails to disclose of:
determining, by the processor device, a preconditioning starting time based on an expected arrival time of the secondary vehicle to a target location, the preconditioning starting time being prior to the expected arrival time, and
...
identifying that the primary vehicle is being transported along a known transport route,
obtaining statistical and/or historical data associated with the known transport route, and
predicting the expected arrival time of the secondary vehicle to the target location based on the historical and/or statistical data associated with the known transport route.
Specifically, there is no mention of a secondary vehicle transporting a primary vehicle, as Perkins only discloses of preconditioning a parked vehicle in preparation for a planned trip.
In regards to claim 25, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 17, and would be allowable under the same premise.
Regarding claims 18-24 and 16-29, the claims are dependent on independent claim 17 and would be allowable based on dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shaotran (20230001824) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of vehicle preconditioning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights