DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 8/12/2025 and 4/3/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Under 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6),
Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the paragraphs of the specification, other than in the claims or abstract, may be numbered at the time the application is filed, and should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number. Nontext elements (e.g., tables, mathematical or chemical formulae, chemical structures, and sequence data) are considered part of the numbered paragraph around or above the elements, and should not be independently numbered. If a nontext element extends to the left margin, it should not be numbered as a separate and independent paragraph. A list is also treated as part of the paragraph around or above the list, and should not be independently numbered.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the paragraphs are not numbered as requested by 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6). Examiner notes that numbering the paragraphs in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6) assists with interviews and citations to the instant specification. Examiner kindly requests Applicant submit a new specification which follows the guidance under 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6).
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains a heading, the title of the invention, uses of the word “means” throughout, is a verbatim recitation of claim 1, and references a figure.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for controlling said motor by a driver…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found on page 5, lines 24-29);
“first electronic means…receiving a signal (PP)…” (claim 1; no support found in the specification); and
“second electronic means…for controlling the first electronic means…” (claim 1; no supporting found in the specification).
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (3) recited above use the word “means” for performing a claimed function. Accordingly, recitations of “means” in (1)-(3) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(3) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “means” in (1)-(3) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application also 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:
“a component for controlling a vehicle…” (claim 4; no support found in the specification).
(A) The limitation recited above use the word “component” for performing a claimed function. Accordingly, recitation of “component” above pass prong A.
(B) The phrases following the bolded portion in the limitation above constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) The terms preceding “component” above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claims 1 and 2 recite the limitation “the torque control instructions” in line 24 and line 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “optionally adapting the torque demand” in lines 12-13. It is unclear whether the language following this limitation is required to satisfy this claim. For example, the use of the word “optionally” could be interpreted as being an optional limitation that is not required, which means that the torque demand is not required to adapted or modified in any way. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reason.
Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that the torque demand is being modified so that the torque control signal output aligns with the torque supplied by the motor.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “first electronic means” and “second electronic means” that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and claim 4 recites the limitation “a component for controlling a vehicle” that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
While the terms “first electronic means” and “second electronic means” are recited throughout the specification, it is only done so in the form of a nearly verbatim recitation of claim 1. The only additional description provided for the electronic means is referring to them as modules (Page 5, lines 24-29), which is a nonce word that would also be interpreted under § 112(f) and lack sufficient structure also. Furthermore, the word “component” is recited a single time in the specification in a verbatim recitation of the claims, providing no description of what the term is intended to include. Therefore, claims 1 and 4 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as well as claims 2-3 and 5-8 that depend from claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 5 is rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite only software per se without any physical or tangible form. Specifically, claim 5 is directed toward a computer program that is not expressly in a non-tangible form. Page 4, ll. 1 – 4 of the present specification states that “a computer program is proposed comprising instructions for implementing a method as described above when this program is executed by a processor, notably an electronic control unit of an internal combustion engine… a computer-readable non-volatile storage medium is proposed on which such a program is stored” (emphasis added). This language does not limit the computer program to non-transitory mediums, and could, therefore, include other forms of medium, such as signals.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, transitory-computer readable medium, or signal, is referred to as signal per se. Signal per se is not patentable under § 101; therefore, the claimed inventions do not fall within a statutory class of patentable subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.03(II) (“[T]he BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate.”).
Claim 7 depends from claim 5 and does not limit the computer program to a non-transitory form. Therefore, claim 7 also does no fall within a statutory class of patentable subject matter.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to state that the computer program is non-transitory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 9,096,135 to Simonini.
Regarding claim 1, Simonini discloses:
A method for managing a motor of a vehicle, the vehicle comprising:
- means for controlling the motor by a driver (Figure 2, Ref. No. 34 accelerator pedal),
- first electronic means (Figure 2, Ref. No. 50 control unit; Figure 3, Ref. No. 52 torque request function) receiving as input a signal (PP) representing an action on the control means and/or signals (SC) received from sensors (Col. 4, ll. 12 - 14 describing that an input to the control unit may include a signal indicative of the position of the accelerator pedal (accelerator) of the bus), determining from these signals a request for torque to be supplied by the motor and outputting a torque control signal to the motor (Col. 4, ll. 15 – 20 describing that a position sensor (not shown) coupled to the accelerator may convert the accelerator position to a voltage signal, this voltage signal may be directed into the control unit, and the voltage signal from the accelerator may be indicative of a torque request (or desired acceleration) of the bus), and
- second electronic means (Figure 3, Ref. No. 54 acceleration limit function) for controlling the first electronic means (Figure 3, Ref. No. 52 torque request function)
- - receiving as input the aforementioned signals received as input by the first electronic means as well as data determined by the first electronic means (Figure 3; Col. 4, ll. 54 – 59 describing that the control unit may include a torque request function and an acceleration limit function, the torque request and acceleration limit functions may include electronic components (or systems) and/or algorithms configured to produce a signal that may be directed to the inverter),
- - calculating the torque to be provided by the motor, with a torque limited to a value TQ_lim during operation of the motor in degraded mode (Col. 5, ll. 3 – 4 describing that the acceleration limit function may output an acceleration limit for the torque request), and
- - transmitting instructions to the first electronic means in order to optionally adapt the torque request determined by the first electronic means such that the torque control signal at the output of the first electronic means corresponds to the torque to be provided by the motor, the method comprising the following steps (Col. 5, ll. 24 – 27 describing that the acceleration limit function may determine the required acceleration rate of the bus for every torque request output by the torque request function):
- computing a first over-acceleration corresponding to a variation over time of the torque request determined by the first electronic means (Col. 5, ll. 3 – 6 describing that the acceleration limit function may output an acceleration limit for the torque request, and the acceleration limit may indicate the maximum acceleration rate that may applied by the electric motor for a given torque request),
- computing a second over-acceleration corresponding to a variation over time of the torque to be provided by the motor calculated by the second electronic means (Col. 5, ll. 24 – 27 describing that the acceleration limit function may determine the required acceleration rate of the bus for every torque request output by the torque request function),
- determining the difference between the value of the first over-acceleration and the value of the second over-acceleration (Col. 6, ll. 3 – describing that the acceleration limit function may determine the acceleration limit based on the natural acceleration curve and the maximum acceleration limit, and that the acceleration limit is the lower of the acceleration rate value that produces the desired torque output and the preset maximum acceleration limit),
- comparing the difference with a predetermined limit value and if this difference in absolute value is less than the limit value, the instructions for controlling the torque of the second electronic means to the first electronic means are preserved and, if not, they are modified in such a way that the calculated difference becomes lower in absolute value than the limit value (Figure 4; Col. 6, ll. 17 – 24 describing that the hatched region of chart (marked zone A of Figure 4) indicates the values of allowable acceleration limits that may be applied by the acceleration limit function to the inverter, the inverter may vary the parameters of the current directed to the motor to produce the desired torque without exceeding the allowable acceleration limit, and the inverter may control the motor to meet the above described goal by any method).
Regarding claim 2, Simonini discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Simonini further discloses:
characterized in that when the torque control instructions are modified, they are modified such that the torque control (TQ_spt) comprises a linear torque variation range that is less than a maximum variation (Figure 4 depicting that linear torque variation range less than a maximum variation; Col. 5, ll. 3-31 describing modifying the torque control in a linear variation that is less than a maximum variation).
Regarding claim 3, Simonini discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Simonini further discloses:
characterized in that it is implemented during a transition from operating in normal mode to operating in limp-home mode, and/or vice versa (Col. 5, l. 51 – Col. 6, l. 2 describing implementing the torque limitation when transitioning to a speed reduction mode, which aligns with Applicant’s definition of limp-home mode on page 1, lines 23-25 of the present specification, which states “the limp-home operating mode involves limiting the speed of the vehicle and/or limiting the torque supplied by the motor”).
Regarding claim 4, Simonini discloses:
An electronic system for managing a motor, configured to implement all the steps of a method as claimed in claim 1, and comprising:
- a position sensor for a component for controlling a vehicle (Col. 5, ll. 1-9 describing a crankshaft position sensor used to control a vehicle);
- a computer (ECU) provided with an electronic memory (Col. 22, ll. 25-34 describing the computer used for the process and system), configured for:
- receiving data (PP) as input that is supplied by the position sensor and/or data that is supplied by other sensors (Col. 5, ll. 1-9 describing a crankshaft position sensor used to control a vehicle and receiving, by a computer, the position data regarding the position of the crankshaft);
- supplying instructions for implementing the steps of a method as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above); and
- sending instructions corresponding to a torque value (TQ_spt) to be supplied by a motor (Col. 4, ll. 18 – 22 describing sending instructions corresponding to the torque value to be supplied).
Regarding claim 5, Simonini discloses:
A computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to implement all the steps of a method as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above; see also Col. 3, l. 62 – Col. 4, l. 22 describing the computer used to control the operation of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Simonini discloses:
A vehicle (Figure 1, Ref. No. 10 bus), characterized in that it comprises an electronic system as claimed in claim 5 (see claim 5 above).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonini in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,080,515 to Kar et al.
Regarding claim 6, Simonini discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Simonini does not expressly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Kar et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions to perform torque limiting operation of a vehicle thereon (Col. 22, ll. 25-34 describing the computer used for the process and system, as well as the non-transitory computer-readable medium the instruction are stored on; see also claim 5 above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Simonini’s invention to incorporate non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform the method, as taught by Kar et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one known storage means (Simonini Col. 3, l. 67 – Col. 4, l. 5 describing use of memory) with another non-transitory storage means (Col. 22, ll. 25-34 non-transitory storage) to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Simonini and Kar et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 6. Simonini further discloses:
at least one electric motor (Figure 2, Ref. No. 387 electric motor).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0181896 to Zebiak et al. teaches limiting torque output based on operational status of the vehicle (¶¶ [0096] – [0103]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOHN D HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights