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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. In particular, figures 2,3, have unlabeled rectangular boxes(200,210,220,310……etc). These boxes should be provided with descriptive text labels, corresponding with their description in the specification.
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.
Claims 1 recites “input means”, “output means”, “control means”.
Claims 2 and 4 recite “control means”.
Claim 8 recites “second input means”.
Claims 11 and 12 recites “output means”
Claim However, this limitations do not meet the three-prong test for the following reasons:
PRONG 1:
Is met, since the claims use the term “means” as a generic placeholder for performing a claimed function.
PRONG 2:
Is met, since the generic placeholder is modified by functional language by using the term “for”, followed by the recited function.
PRONG 3:
Fails, because the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
If application does not desire the claims to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the applicant may
(1) amend the claims to include the structure materials, or acts that perform the claimed function; or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) do recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/404,811(‘811) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following .
-- Claims 1 and 11 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 1 and 12, respectively, of 11,897,456(‘456)
Claim 1 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 1 of (‘811), except for the user behavior signal indicative of repeated user behavior for the location of one or more features; and the control means arranged to control the output means in dependence on the user behavior signal to override the environment signal when the repeated user behavior includes preventing the vehicle wheel from being angularly offset. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate these features into the present invention, because one of ordinary skill would have readily recognized the benefit overriding the environment signal, since this would have ensured safety when parking the vehicle.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
ART REJECTION:
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,9-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajkovic et al(USPat 6,683,539) in view of Hauber(USPGPUB 2011/0199236 A1).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by
1) input means for receiving an ambient condition signal indicative of an ambient condition in a vicinity of a vehicle is met by the sensing system(140), which receives signals from sensors(120), which provide information pertaining to an environment that a vehicle is in(see: Trajkovic, column 3, lines 58 et seq; column 4, lines 1-56);
2) output means for outputting a manoeuvre signal to cause the vehicle to perform a defined manoeuvre is met by the control system(110), to define the finer, real time motions of maneuver instructions received from path planning system(140)(see: Trajkovic, column 5, lines 20-26).
- Trajkovic does not teach:
3) control means arranged to control the output means to cause the vehicle to perform at least a portion of the defined manoeuvre in dependence on the ambient condition signal.
Use of systems which provide control means for causing a vehicle to perform at least a portion of a defined manoeuvre in dependence on ambient condition signals is well known. In related art, Hauber teaches a device for parking a motor vehicle, wherein a steering assistance system(13) is utilized to support a parking assistant and/or lane keeping assistant, and wherein the steering assistance system(13) has direct operation of steering device(11). And wherein the steering assistance system(13) acts in conjunction with surroundings recording device(20), using sensors(16) and surroundings evaluation device(19) to determine a curb(10), such that the steering assistance system will cause the steering angle to reset in such a way to prevent the motor vehicle from rolling away onto a roadway(3), when a curb is detected(see: Hauber, secs[0022-0023]).
Since the use of systems which include control means to cause a vehicle wheel in the completed position to be angularly offset with respect to a feature in the vicinity of the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the steering assistance system(13), and surroundings recording device, sensors(16) and surroundings evaluation device(19) of Hauber, into the path planning system(140) so as to control the control system(110) of Trajkovic, since this would have provided a means of protecting a vehicle from potential damage, by incorporating the ability to recognize curbs(10) and cause a steering of the wheels in a manner that would prevent damage of the vehicle, by ensuring that the vehicle would not roll away and into the roadway, when it would have been parked.
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the control means is arranged to control the output means to cause the vehicle to perform at least a portion of the defined manoeuvre in accordance with a vehicle movement control profile determined in dependence on the ambient condition signal would have been met upon incorporation of the devices of Hauber, into the system of Tajkoic as discussed in claim 1 above, since the system of Hauber included surroundings evaluation device, which determined the presence of curb(10), to thereby allow the steering assistance system to cause the wheel(8) of the motor vehicle to be angled, so as to avoid rolling onto the roadway after being parked(see: Hauber, secs[0023-0024]).
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) the defined manoeuvre is a parking manoeuvre is met by the wherein a steering assistance system(13) is utilized to support a parking assistant and/or lane keeping assistant by Hauber, as discussed in claim 1 above.
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) A vehicle comprising the controller according to claim 1 is met by the vehicle of Trajkovic(see: Trajkovic, column 3, lines 58 et seq; column 4, lines 1-56).
-- Claim 11 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- With regards to claim 14,
1) selecting the vehicle movement control profile in dependence on a presence of a user in the vehicle would have been required by the system of Hauber to initiate parking maneuver(see: Hauber, secs[0022-0023]).
-- With regards to claim 15,
1) A vehicle configured to perform the method according to claim 11 is met by the vehicle as discussed in Trajkovic(see: Trajkovic, column 3, lines 58 et seq; column 4, lines 1-56).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trajkovic et al(Trajkovic) in view of Klein et al(USPat 7,676,310 B2).
-- Claim 3 recites subject matter that is met as discussed in claim 1 above, except for:
1) the vehicle movement control profile comprises a speed parameter.
Although a control profile comprising a speed parameter is not specifically taught by Trajkovic, Trajkovic does teach that speed is taken into consideration for the parking assistance of the car, since the speed should be under 10 mph(see: Trajkovic, column 7, lines 19-21. Use of systems which include movement control profiles which comprise a speed parameter is well known. In related art, Klein et al(Klein) teaches a system for controlling steering of a vehicle, wherein a parking assist operational mode of a vehicle steering system receives vehicle speed signals to a controller, so as to provide operational assist mode based on speed(see: Klein, column 2, lines 1-11).
Claim(s) 7 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trajkovic et al(Trajkovic) in view of Hauber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al(USPGPUB 2019/0095227).
-- With regards to claim 7, Trajkovic and Hauber do not teach:
1) wherein the movement control profile is dependent upon a terrain in a vicinity of the vehicle.
Although not specifically taught by Trajkovic and Hauber, use of systems which include vehicle control devices that are dependent upon a terrain in the vicinity of a vehicle is well known. In related art, Hwang teaches a vehicle control device, wherein specific parking modes are selected based on surrounding information, including a type of a road surface on which a vehicle is running, and a terrain feature(see: Hwang, secs[0257-0259]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the terrain feature of Hwang, into the system of Trajkovic and Hauber, since this would have enhanced the ability of the system to perform more efficient parking and driving maneuvers, by taking into consideration road conditions and terrain, thereby adjusting the vehicle operating systems to accommodate for these type of factors.
-- With regards to claim 12,
1) upon incorporation of Hwang into Tajkovic and Hauber, the output means is controlled in dependence on the ambient condition signal such that at least a portion of the defined manoeuvre is performed in accordance with a vehicle movement control profile dependent on the ambient condition in the vicinity of the vehicle would have been met by the driving or parking mode being selected based on surrounding information, that would have been required for autonomous driving and parking modes(see: Hwang, sec[0259]).
-- With regards to claim 13,
1) selecting the vehicle movement control profile in dependence on a drive mode of the vehicle is met by the surrounding information being required for autonomous driving and parking modes to be selected(see: Hwang, sec[0259]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trajkovic et al(Tajkovic) in view of Hauber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gougeon et al(USPGPUB 2018/0345954 A1).
-- With regards to claim 8, Trajkovic and Hauber does not teach:
1) the controller comprises a second input means for receiving a request signal indicative of a received signal indicative of a user request.
Although not specifically taught by Trajkovic and Hauber, use of systems which teach user input means for receiving a request signal is well known. In related art, Gougeon teaches a method for autonomously parking a motor vehicle with driver assistance, wherein an autonomous parking procedure can be initiated by operating input of the driver, wherein a smart phone or the like can provide operating input to initiate the parking procedure(see: Gougeon, sec[0031]).
Since the use of second means for receiving a user request signal is well known, as taught by Gougeon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the operating device(13) of the driver(3) of Gougeon, into the system of Trajkovic and Hauber, since this would have provided versatility to the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights