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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 03/27/2026, with a request for continued examination filed 03/27/2026.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-25 are pending.
Claims 1, 24, and 25 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 05/01/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Representative of record is welcome and encouraged to schedule an interview with the Examiner in order to discuss the instant application to further prosecution. As a reminder, any interview must be conducted directly with Applicant’s Representative, or in the presence of said representative of record in the call.
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/27/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the re-analysis of the subject matter eligibility analysis, but a short response to Applicants arguments will be provided here to supplement the rejection that follows.
Applicant’s arguments are primarily focused on that “a specific application has been recited in the claims as amended” (see pg. 7, Args.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is not seen to be integrated into a practical application because there are still no actual limitations that actually provide an application of the purported control. That is to say, as noted below, there are limitations that generally link the abstract idea by association to generic physical system as an intended use or field of use of control systems, or by providing insignificant extra-solution activity, but there is no specific application or active control (e.g. active vehicle control integrating the abstract ideal limitations, etc.), as noted in the rejection below. For example, while there is an intention of writing a control variable that would control an actuator, there is no explicit implementation and to a specific application, such as in actuation of a vehicle, hvac, etc. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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: “a temporal sequencer that executes a decided sequence….” and “an immediate redecider that, at a periodic timestep, redecides….” in claim 1.
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 § 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, 3-9, and 11-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 recites a control system, and therefore is a system, which is a statutory category. Meanwhile, claim 24 recites a method, and therefore is a process, which is also a statutory category. Claim 25 recites a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a product, is also a statutory category.
At Step 2A, prong one, claims 1, 24, and 25 recite a series of limitations that include a (mentally) decided sequence of steps defined for a control system to effect reasonable control of an actuator, and (mentally) redecides at periodic times whether the decided sequence of steps or an alternate sequence of steps is to be executed by the temporal sequencer, where the redeciding is based at least on (mentally) determining a tileset that has a number of dimensions that matches a number of sensor inputs, and associating (in the mind) each tile with a sequence of labels, (with the mental intent) such that that executing the label sequence of a matched tile at a current time is sufficient to provide reasonable control of the actuator at the current timer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are directed to the abstract ideas of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind, and thus directed to the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Specifically, the abstract idea include the limitations of:
“a decided sequence of steps selected from a set of sequences of steps defined for the control system to effect reasonable control of an actuator …; and an immediate redecider that, at a periodic timestep, redecides whether the decided sequence of steps or an alternate sequence of steps is to be executed by the temporal sequence, wherein the immediate redecider redecides based at least in part on determining a tileset, wherein the tileset has a number of dimensions matching a number of sensor inputs, and wherein each tile is associated with a label sequence such that executing the label sequence of a matched tile at a current time is sufficient to provide reasonable control of the actuator at the current timer.” Analogous claims are found in independent claims 24 and 25, and are analyzed the same. The limitations in question can essentially amount to a deciding, in the mind, a sequence of actions to be executed and periodically redeciding whether the decided sequence or alternate sequence should be executed. For example, this can include a programmer or human operator deciding a sequence of programmed steps to be executed for controlling a system of actuators, and evaluating to decide whether the program is to be modified or not, and based on mentally considering a tilset construct, such as by mapping out by a ranges corresponding sensor inputs.
At step 2A, prong 2, the respective claims 1, 24, and 25, recite a variation of: “a sensor input associated with a sensor in a physical system;” “a control output associated with an actuator in the physical system , comprising a control variable;” “a temporal sequencer that executes… steps defined for the control system to effect reasonable control of the actuator at least in part by writing the control variable;” “wherein writing the control variable changes movement of one or more components of the physical system;” “…wherein reasonable control of the actuator is a level of control that produces a response similar to that expected of a human operator for a similar scenario;”
At Step 2B, while the claims include additional elements as noted above in Step 2A prong 2, they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the recitation of “a sensor input associated with a sensor in a physical system” serves merely to incorporate input that amounts to receiving data via sensors, and thus amounts to necessary data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). The recitation of “a control output associated with an actuator in the physical system, comprising a control variable;” amounts to information output to an intended generic control environment, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution application activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). The recitations of executing “steps defined for the control system to effect reasonable control of the actuator at least in part by writing the control variable, wherein writing the control variable changes movement of one or more components of the physical system” are recited in such a manner to amount to no more than the mere intended instructions to apply the exception as insignificant extra solution activity that comprises the natural intended use of decided sequence of control steps whose administration step is not particular, and is instead merely instructions written to "apply" the exception in a generic way, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.04(d)(2)). Similarly, “wherein reasonable control of the actuator is a level of control that produces a response similar to that expected of a human operator for a similar scenario,” merely highlights an intended use of performing a computer function task in the manner of a human mind, which the courts have found to be insufficient to show improvement in computer functionality, such as mere automation of a manual process (see MPEP2106.05(a)I iii) Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 3-9 and 11-23, similarly recite an abstract idea, without significantly more. Claim 3 recites a mental limitation of considering input data. Claim 4 recites mental determination based on an objective. Claim 5 recites an intended use limitation of the type of control systems that are intended to be considered. Claim 6 recites mentally considering duration of time steps to be used. Claim 7 recites mentally predetermining a series of steps. Claim 8 recites mentally considering an engineering objective. Claim 9 recites mentally considering efficiency, liability, and stability in deciding a sequence of steps. Claim 11 recites mentally determining matches. Claim 12 recited mentally considering thresholds and associations. Claim 13 recites mentally redeciding based on a mental prediction. Claim 14 recites a prediction based on a mental simulation. Claim 15 recites mentally deciding based on a provided training set. Claims 16 and 17 recite extra solution activity of writing a determined variables, vectors, and maps that amount to mere information output and transmission, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution application activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Claim 18 recites mentally providing a range. Claim 19 recites mentally redefining a parameter value based on mental simulation. Claim 20 recites mentally redefining a parameter value based on a range. Claim 21 recites mentally deciding using an temporal sequence and applying the decided sequence. Claim 22 recites considering additional inputs. Claim 23 recites mentally predetermined sequence of steps and dynamically adapting the sequence.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holder et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2020/0380443 teaches a dynamic ordering of a sequence of tasks that includes a number of ordered flight crew tasks and analyze the retrieved current ordering and task context data, current flight data, and reordering the current order to reduce negative impact such as a crew saturation period, where re-evaluation is performed at scheduled intervals or predetermined events.
Wu et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2014/0301464 teaches a control data for motion-constrained tile set to “support signaling and use of control data to indicate that inter-picture prediction processes within one or more specified sets of tiles are constrained to reference only regions within each corresponding set of tiles in other pictures”, so at to “facilitate region-of-interest encoding, decoding and display, transcoding to limit encoded data to a selected set of tiles, loss robustness, and parallelism in encoding and/or decoding.”
Di Cairano et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2015/0259007 teaches semi-autonomous steer-by-wire driving of vehicles, wherein generally two actuators are controlled by an electronic control unit that uses torque sensors, angle sensors, and angular rate sensors located at the steering wheel and vehicle wheels, and possibly in intermediate positions for control of the steering wheel and the vehicle wheels, and consideration of acceptable regions for specific parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights