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 (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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “controller” of Claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“controller” in claim 10.
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):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In accordance with MPEP 2163, “when a means-plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.” (emphasis added)
In the instant case, the “controller” of Claims 10-15 is not properly described in the application as filed because no structure or material is described which is capable of performing the recited functions of the means-plus-function claim limitations. For instance, the figures do not show the corresponding “controller” and are otherwise devoid of detail regarding the structure. The Abstract and Specification are similarly devoid of structure, e.g. “[a]n intelligent driving control apparatus provided in an embodiment of this disclosure includes a controller” para. 99, and/or only disclose details regarding function, and/or merely restate the claimed limitations, e.g. para. 26. Therefore, the claim limitation regarding the “controller” lacks an adequate written description.
In the interest of compact prosecution, insomuch as the “controller” of Claims 10-15 requires controlling software, such software (i.e., “controller”) is only nominally disclosed and does not comply with the written description requirement in accordance with MPEP 2161.
MPEP 2161 states: “It is “not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” (emphasis added)
For example, the Specification is entirely devoid of any algorithm, steps, procedure, or flowchart which would detail the claimed computerized functions of claims 10-15, and is likewise absent any substantial discussion of the claimed computerized functions. Therefore, “the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function are not described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed” (MPEP 2161(I)).
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.
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 2, 4-6, and 8-15 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.
Claims 2, 4, 11, 13, and 14 respectively recite “intelligent driving function,” and claims 5 and 14 respectively recite “all-scene intelligent navigation assistant function or an intelligent cruise control function,” which are respectively generally unclear. For example, in the computer arts, “intelligent” is taken to mean “incorporating a microprocessor and having its own processing capability,” but, as rejected elsewhere above, the disclosure does not sufficiently describe structure capable of performing the claimed functional computer limitations; and it is unclear if the term “intelligent” is intended to describe a controller, software, “human intelligence”, or some other structure/meaning. Plainly, it is unclear how the term “intelligent” affects the metes and bounds of the claims, and therefore is unclear.
Further, claims 2, 4, 11, 13, and 14 respectively reference the term “level”, which is similarly not a term of the art as claimed and the metes and bounds are unclear.
Further, the limitations of Claims 4 and 13 are respectively unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is not clear whether Applicant is claiming a method of using the apparatus or merely reciting functional language.1
Claims 4 and 13 also recite “a user-defined driving function/the level-2 intelligent driving function” which is unclear because it cannot be ascertained which of the “user-defined driving function” or “the level-2 intelligent driving function” is being enabled, or if the “/” indicates that the terms are synonymous, or some other meaning.
Claims 6 and 15 recite “at least one paddle is disposed,” which first, is a double-inclusion that is unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(o), and second is unclear insomuch as the phrasing appears to be a sentence fragment. It is unclear if the “at least one paddle” of claims 6, 15 includes the respective “paddle” of claims 1, 10, or if the “at least one paddle” is a separate element. Regarding “is disposed,” it is unclear on what the “at least one paddle” is disposed, or if some other meaning is intended.
Claim 10 recites, “controller,” and the metes and bounds of the claim are indeterminate in accordance with MPEP 2163. There is neither corresponding structure, materials, or acts, nor an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for the means-plus-function claim limitation, and one of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Walter et al. (US 2012/0133501).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. A steering wheel, wherein a paddle (1r) and an indicator are disposed on the steering wheel (para. 25), and the indicator (7) comprises: a paddle indicator (fig. 4), wherein the paddle indicator (7) is disposed on the paddle (1r), and the paddle indicator (7) is configured to prompt a current state of a vehicle in cooperation with the paddle (para. 7, 14, 30).
2. The steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the paddle is configured to switch a level, a type, and/or a status of an intelligent driving function (para. 7, 14, 30); and the paddle indicator (7) is configured to indicate level information, type information, and/or status information of the corresponding intelligent driving function in cooperation with the paddle (para. 7, 14, 30).
3. The steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the paddle indicator (7) has a plurality of display states (para. 7, 14, 30); and the paddle indicator (7) is a color light variable indicator (para. 12-13, 30), a frequency variable indicator, a brightness variable indicator, or a progress bar indicator.
7. The steering wheel according to claim 1, wherein the paddle indicator (7) is disposed on a side surface that is of the paddle and that faces a driver (fig. 4 shows a display 7 that meets the claimed limitation, insomuch as the display 7 faces the driver and is on a front side of the paddle 1r), and/or is disposed in a circumferential direction of the paddle.
The limitations of claims 10-12 and 16 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
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.
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 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al. (US 2012/0133501), in view of Gadola (US 2018/0163852).
Regarding claim 4, Walter discloses the steering wheel according to claim 3, wherein different display states respectively correspond to different intelligent driving functions (para. 7, 14, 30; i.e., as best understood to include any of the disclosed status, driving condition parameter, gearshifting condition, or currently engaged transmission gear); but is otherwise silent regarding the limitations of claims 4-6 and 13-15.
Gadola teaches a steering wheel comprising a wheel hub, a spoke, and a wheel rim, the spoke is connected between the wheel hub and the wheel rim, and the wheel rim is located on an outer circumference of the wheel hub (figures clearly show the claimed structure); and at least one paddle is disposed, each paddle is mounted on the wheel hub, and the paddle is located on an inner side of the wheel rim, above a plane on which an axis of the spoke is located, or above a plane on which an axis of the wheel hub is located (figures clearly show the claimed structure); a level-1 intelligent driving function is enabled when the paddle is flicked once (as best understood, single tap of fig. 5); a level-2 intelligent driving function is enabled when the paddle is continuously flicked a plurality of times (as best understood, double tap of fig. 5); and a user-defined driving function/the level-2 intelligent driving function is enabled when the paddle is touched and held (as best understood touch and hold of fig. 5), wherein the touch and hold is to keep the paddle in a flicked state for 0.5s to 10s; wherein the level-1 intelligent driving function is an adaptive cruise control function (para. 63), and the level-2 intelligent driving function is an all-scene intelligent navigation assistance function or an intelligent cruise control function (para. 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the steering wheel and computer functionality as taught by Gadola in combination with the paddle structure disclosed by Walter, for the expected advantage of allowing a programmable and settable shift device that allows the driver to manage the vehicle operating modes (Gadola, para. 58), especially in an extremely intuitive and simple manner (Gadola, para. 57).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al. (US 2012/0133501) and Gadola (US 2018/0163852), in view of Lahiff (US 5,666,102).
Walter is silent regarding the limitations of claim 8.
Lahiff teaches a wheel rim indicator (62), the wheel rim indicator is disposed on the wheel rim and is located on a side surface that is of the wheel rim and that faces a driver (fig. 3-4), and the wheel rim indicator is configured to prompt the current state of the vehicle; the wheel rim indicator has a plurality of display states (fig. 3-4), and the wheel rim indicator is capable of being turned on or off synchronously with the paddle indicator (i.e., the combination is capable of the claimed limitation insomuch as the indicators will turn off synchronously when the vehicle battery is disconnected); when the wheel rim indicator is turned on synchronously with the paddle indicator, a display state of the wheel rim indicator is the same as that of the paddle indicator (conditional limitation); and the wheel rim indicator is a color light variable indicator, a frequency variable indicator, a brightness variable indicator, or a progress bar indicator (figs. 3-4), at least one wheel rim indicator is disposed, and each wheel rim indicator extends in a circumferential direction of the wheel rim (figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the wheel rim indicator system of Lahiff in combination with the paddle structure of Walter, for the expected advantage of providing more information to a user to enable more informed driving decisions. The remaining limitations of the claim flow naturally from the explanations of the combination above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al. (US 2012/0133501) and Gadola (US 2018/0163852), in view of Pomytkin et al. (US 2021/0252979).
Walter is silent regarding the limitations of claim 9.
Pomytkin teaches a spoke indicator (display screen may be provided in a steering wheel spoke, para. 31), the spoke indicator is disposed on the spoke and is located on a side surface that is of the spoke and that faces a driver, and the spoke indicator is configured to prompt the current state of the vehicle in cooperation with the paddle; the spoke indicator has a plurality of display states (para. 31), and the spoke indicator is capable of being turned on or off synchronously with the paddle indicator (i.e., as explained above); when the spoke indicator is turned on synchronously with the paddle indicator, a display state of the spoke indicator is the same as that of the paddle indicator (conditional limitation); and the spoke indicator is a color light variable indicator (para. 34), a frequency variable indicator, a brightness variable indicator, or a progress bar indicator, and at least one spoke indicator is disposed (para. 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the spoke indicator system of Pomytkin in combination with the paddle structure of Walter, for the expected advantage of providing more information to a user to enable more informed driving decisions. The remaining limitations of the claim flow naturally from the explanations of the combination above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See Ex parte Johnston, Appeal No. 2009-004993, 2010 WL 3948080 (B.P.A.I., Sept. 30, 2010).