Detailed Action
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/31/2025 for application 17/499,546, in which:
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent claims.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are currently amended.
Claims 2, and 5-8 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 9-12 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant traverses the rejections of the claims (Pages 10-11) because the claims are not directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Applicant further asserts that the amended independent claims integrate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections for the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The claims recites abstract ideas a-h; where the abstract ideas are evaluations/judgements that can be performed in the human mind (or by a human using pen and paper) or mathematical relationships between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations. The independent claims are no more detailed than to control based on calculations with no steps on how to achieve the improvement by utilizing/applying the determined input variable; thus, the Claims are not a technical solution to a technical problem. The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically) as they are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, restricting the abstract idea to a specific technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application as they fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the reasons given above and in the rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 1, similar independent claims, and all dependent Claims) are maintained. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
Applicant further asserts (Pages 10-11), that the limitation … control the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine based on the calculated value of the input variable v… has specific aspects of the vehicle which are controlled to increase correlation from the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine to a target value. Thus, this is a practical application because it applies any alleged abstract idea to a specific real-world use case as the configuration leads to control. The particular machine is integral to claim 1. According to MPEP 2106, "Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include ... Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims. In terms of independent claim limitations which provides an alleged improvement via increased correlation between an engine and a target value, is evaluated as an abstract idea (e).
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification
…
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.
The applicant fails to show how any alleged technical improvement would be provided by anything more than the judicial exception on its own. Additionally, applicant fails to show how the claim includes components or steps that would provide the alleged improvement described in the specification. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to an abstract idea. The additional elements do not reflect any improvement in the functioning of a computer or hardware processor rather the claims merely restrict the types of data for machine learning, use generic computer component(s) to perform the abstract ideas, and insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Moreover, the examiner maintains that the Claim does not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As noted in the rejection, the Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to an integration of the identified abstract idea into a practical application, thus the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant asserts (Pages 11-12), for at least these two reasons (specific vehicle control, and integration of a particular machine) claim 1 amounts to a practical application under Step 2A, prong two Independent claims 11 and 12 recite similar features and likewise amount to a practical application. The dependent claims 3-10 are similar in this regard due to their dependency. Thus, all § 101 rejections should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In terms the two reasons (as also explained in more detail above), the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). Applicant’s arguments regarding the other independent and dependent claims rely upon the same assertions as with respect to Claim 1, and are thus likewise unpersuasive. Therefore, for the reasons given above and in the rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 1, similar independent claims, and all dependent Claims) are maintained. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 1 further recites the machine comprising of:
… learn a model that shows a relationship between an input variable v input into a system and an output variable y output from the system … (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
… learn a nonlinear equation of state for predicting the output variable y by using the input variable v … (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
… learn the equation of state by using the model and an input-output data set including multiple sets of input variable data and output variable data with respect to the model, wherein the model is an equation of state including a bijective mapping Ψ that uses the input variable v as an input thereof and a bijective mapping Φ that uses the output variable y as an input (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
the model is defined by an expression (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
37
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where a left side of an equal sign is a time derivative of an n-dimensional vector that indicates the output variable y, where n denotes an integer number; and in a right side of the equal sign, the input variable v is an m-dimensional vector, where m denotes an integer number, an exogenous input d is a p-dimensional vector that indicates an uncontrollable input affecting a variation of the output variable y, where p denotes an integer number, the mapping Ψ is a function that gives an m-dimensional vector by using the input variable v and the exogenous variable d as inputs thereof, the mapping is a function that gives an n-dimensional vector by using the output variable y and the exogenous variable d as inputs thereof, and a function A', a function B' and a function c' are respectively functions that give an nxn matrix, an nxm matrix, and an n-dimensional vector by using the exogenous input d as an input (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
… calculate a value of the input variable v, and control the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine based on the calculated value of the input variable v, so as to improve correlation of an output from the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine to a target value (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
… estimate an output (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to estimate an output)
evaluate a matching degree of an estimated output with a set of the output variable data in the input-output data set (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate a matching degree between specific variables)
calculate an input variable v for controlling a future output, based on an output variable y of the system at a present time by using the learned equation of state (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mathematical concepts” and “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consists of:
A control apparatus that is an in-vehicle electronic control unit configured to control a system including an internal combustion engine or a hybrid engine in a vehicle, the control apparatus comprising: (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
a model learning apparatus configured to … the model learning apparatus comprising: (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
a storage that stores a model used to … (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
a processor programmed to … (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
the storage stores in advance an input-output data set including multiple sets of input variable data and output variable data with respect to the model expressed by the expression (1) (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
give a set of the input variable data in the input-output data set to the model and … (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
the control apparatus outputs the calculated input variable v to the system and controls the system (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
update a learning parameter of the model according to a result of the evaluation, so as to learn the equation of state (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
the input variable v is at least one of an accelerator position, a speed of the vehicle, and an acceleration of the vehicle as the input variable in the case of the internal combustion engine (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the input variable v is at least one of an accelerator position, an operation amount of a brake and an acceleration of the vehicle the case of the hybrid engine (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the output variable y is at least one of an internal combustion engine speed, an emission amount of carbon dioxide, and an emission amount of hydrocarbons in the case of the internal combustion engine (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the output variable y is at least one of an output torque, an output value of a motor, a power storage amount of a battery, and a limiting value of the power storage amount in the case of the hybrid engine (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the control apparatus configured to … (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional elements a-e, h, and m are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional element f-g falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional elements i-l are only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 3 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 3 further recites the machine comprising of wherein in the expression (1), the mapping Ψ is defined as an internal variable u and the mapping Φ is defined as an internal variable x, and the processor learns the equation of state defined by an expression (2) to an expression (4):
PNG
media_image2.png
93
285
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations). Claim 3 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 4 recites the apparatus of Claim 3. Claim 3 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 4 further recites the machine comprising of wherein the mapping Ψ is defined by an expression (5) to an expression (8):
PNG
media_image3.png
126
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the mapping Φ is defined by an expression (9) to an expression (12):
PNG
media_image4.png
134
311
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where i denotes a layer number in a multilayer neural network; each of LΨ and LΦ denotes number of layers in the multilayer neural network; each of WΨ and WΦ denotes a weight, each of bΨ and bΦ denotes a bias; and each of ΨΨ and ΦΦ is an activation function and denotes an arbitrary bijective mapping that gives an output of an identical dimension with a dimension of an input thereof (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations). Claim 4 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 10 recites the apparatus of Claim 9. Claim 9 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 10 further recites the machine comprising of determine a target value of the input variable v corresponding to a target value of the output variable y (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine a target value of an input variable corresponding to another target variable of an output variable). Claim 10 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the new sole additional element recited consists of the processor solves an optimal control problem using the equation of state learned by the processor, and the processor solves an optimal control problem using the equation of state expressed by the expression (13) to the expression (15) and learned by the processor (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 incorporates substantively all the limitations of Claim 1 in a model learning method of learning a model (thus, a method) and further recites implemented with an in-vehicle electronic control unit that shows a relationship between an input variable v input into a system and an output variable y output from the system, the system including an internal combustion engine or a hybrid engine, in a vehicle, the model learning method comprising: … a process of … obtaining… using an optimum value of the input variable v to improve followability of an output from the system to a target value, while stably controlling the system … outputting the calculated input variable v to the system … (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)), and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, Claim 11 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 incorporates substantively all the limitations of Claim 1 in a non-transitory computer -readable storage medium (thus, a manufacture) and further recites that comprises and stores a program that causes an information processing apparatus to … including an internal combustion engine, a hybrid engine, or a powertrain in a vehicle … the program causing the information processing apparatus to perform … a function of… obtaining … using an optimum value of the input variable v to improve followability of an output from the system to a target value, while stably controlling the system … outputting the calculated input variable v to the system … (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)), and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, Claim 12 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM RAHMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/I.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights