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 .
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.
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: “first control module” and “controlled device” in claims 1-16; “second control module” in claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-13; “drive unit” and “control device” in claims 9-12 and 14.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (US2016/0096518A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a control device (Figures 1+), comprising: a first control module (30), which is configured for being operatively connected with a controlled device (e.g., engine and transmission 24 and 26), the first control module being configured for: checking, in response to a safety signal (which may be merely the collective operating data indicating a "predetermined safety state"), whether the controlled device is in a predetermined safety state (e.g., neutral mode and stationary); and taking at least one safety measure (e.g. stop engine operation) so as to bring the controlled device into the predetermined safety state if the checking shows that the controlled device is not in the predetermined safety state (Paragraphs 0007, and 0026-0037 for further detail).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Li teaches that the first control module is configured for being operatively connected with a second control module of the controlled device (See transmission control module, which may be integral or separate from the engine control module [both of which may be integral to control module 30]).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the invention of claim 2 as discussed above, and Li teaches that the first control module is configured for checking whether the second control module is in the predetermined safety state (if both transmission and engine control modules are integral to control module 30, then the data on transmission and engine operating parameters are shared between the transmission and engine control modules).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the invention of claim 2 as discussed above, and Li teaches that the at least one safety measure is selected from a group consisting of: shutting down the controlled device; switching off the second control module; or a combination thereof ("shutting off the engine).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the invention of claim 2 as discussed above, and Li teaches that the at least one safety measure is selected from a group consisting of: shutting down the controlled device by switching off the electrical power supply of the controlled device; switching off the second control module by switching off an electrical power supply of the second control module; or a combination thereof (shutting off the engine which is electrically controlled [by shutting off electrical power supply of components which keep the engine operating]).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches a drive train for a motor vehicle (Figures 1+), the drive train comprising: a drive unit; and a control device, which is operatively connected with the drive unit as a controlled device (e.g., engine and transmission 24 and 26), the control device including: a first control module (30), which is operatively connected with the controlled device, the first control module being configured for: checking, in response to a safety signal (which may be merely the collective operating data indicating a "predetermined safety state"), whether the controlled device is in a predetermined safety state (e.g., neutral mode and stationary); and taking at least one safety measure (e.g. stop engine operation) so as to bring the controlled device into the predetermined safety state if the checking shows that the controlled device is not in the predetermined safety state (Paragraphs 0007, and 0026-0037 for further detail).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the invention of claim 9 as discussed above, and Li teaches that the drive unit includes a drive component (previously cited, including transmission) and second control module configured for controlling the drive component (See transmission control unit).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the invention of claim 9 as discussed above, and Li teaches that the drive train is part of a motor vehicle, which is a locomotive, a railcar, a multiple unit train, or a railcar train (Li broadly teaches vehicles in general, which include locomotives).
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches a method for operating a control device, the method comprising the steps of: checking, in response to a safety signal, whether a controlled device that is operatively connected with the control device is in the predetermined safety state (See cited sections in rejections of claims 1 and 9 above).
The additional step "taking at least one safety measure so as to bring the controlled device into the predetermined safety state" is contingent upon the condition "if the checking shows that the controlled device is not in the predetermined safety state", and is therefore not included in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP 211.04 II: "The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met."
Nevertheless, Li teaches the step as noted in the rejections of claims 1 and 9 above.
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses the invention of claim 15 as discussed above, and teaches that the control device includes a first control module (30), which is configured for being operatively connected with a controlled device (24 and 26), the first control module being configured for performing the steps of checking and taking (See previously cited sections).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Li does not teach “the first control module is configured for detecting at least one supply parameter of an electrical power supply of the controlled device and for checking, based on the at least one supply parameter, whether the controlled device is in the predetermined safety state” and does not teach “the second control module and the drive component have a common electrical supply line, wherein the first control module is configured for interrupting or de-energizing the common electrical supply line”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R STECKBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-0433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30-7:30 PST.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/KEVIN R STECKBAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights