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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth previously. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth. Claims 11, 13, 16, and 19 have been canceled.
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 1-8, 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 includes the limitation of, “performing diagnosis on whether a failure occurs with respect to at least one of the peripheral machines at a time of the monitoring mode.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, performs diagnosing, which as generally recited is an act which can reasonably be performed using the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional limitations of, “a plurality of peripheral machines, each performing outputting in response to a signal that is input;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes the act of sending data in response to an input which adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 1 also includes the limitation of, “a controller, set to a normal operation mode or a monitoring mode, controlling the peripheral machines at a time of the normal operation mode,” and “a sequencer, wherein the sequencer periodically switches the controller between the normal operation mode and the monitoring mode in accordance with timing signals supplied from a timer coupled to the sequencer.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply describes a controller and sequencer’s functionality within the system which just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitation of, “a controller”, as generally recited represents merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering output data from a plurality of peripheral machines and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Review of the dependent claims did not reveal any other claims that contained any further abstract ideas.
However, each dependent claim was reviewed below to determine if any limitations resulted in significantly more than the abstract idea.
Review of claim 6 disclosed sending various data signals based on a determined mode, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, as generally recited provided limitations which just generally apply the use of the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 2 and 3, each include limitations which gather/capture various output signals, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, claims 5, 7-8, and 14-15, 17-18, and 20, each describe various physical aspects of the apparatus itself including various components that come together to achieve the desired apparatus, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just simply links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Finally, claims 4 and 12, each generally recite various computer components which are reasonably interpreted as generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 9-10 have each been amended to include the new structural features as detailed below:
“An electronic control apparatus, comprising: a plurality of peripheral functions, each performing outputting in response to a signal that is input;
a control function, set to a normal operation mode or a monitoring mode, controlling the peripheral machines at a time of the normal operation mode, and performing diagnosis on whether a failure occurs with respect to at least one of the peripheral machines at a time of the monitoring mode,
wherein in the control function, a control signal for normal operation is output and the control signal is input to the peripheral machines at the time of the normal operation mode, and, at the time of the monitoring mode, a pseudo signal for failure checking is output, the pseudo signal is input to the at least one peripheral machine, and an output signal output by the at least one peripheral machine in response to the pseudo signal is captured, and a failure diagnosis result is obtained according to whether the output signal that is captured is consistent with a predetermined expected value; and
a sequence function, periodically switching the control function between the normal operation mode and the monitoring mode in accordance with timing signals supplied from a timer.”
The closest prior art of record is Terae (JP20116964) in view of Lieder (US PGPUB 20190342115). The two closest prior art of record disclose ECU control systems which provide functionality for supplying pseudo signals to diagnose errors in a system. However, both references are silent on utilizing a sequencer in conjunction with a timer to swap between a control and monitoring mode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-10, 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
The present application does not recite a mental process as the newly amended claims recite a sequence control of setting the operation mode using timing signals.
The present invention provides for diagnosing a failure within the controller rather than the traditional remote controller, thus reducing scale of the system, and thus providing a practical application.
Regarding the first argument, the office agrees that the new limitation of, “a sequencer, wherein the sequencer periodically switches the controller between the normal operation mode and the monitoring mode in accordance with timing signals supplied from a timer coupled to the sequencer.”, is not a limitation that can reasonably be performed in the human mind, however, the limitation is not exclusively tied to the abstract idea in question, and instead provides additional structural limitations and the corresponding functionality it provides in general of switching between the normal/monitoring mode. There is no exclusive nexus how the timer/sequencer is impacted by when a diagnosis needs to be performed that would trigger the sequencer to swap modes in response, but merely acts on its own based on a separate timer. As such, this merely provides a description of more functional features without affecting the abstract idea, and as such, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to the a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regards to the second argument, the office understands the inherent benefits provided by the invention which reduces scale of the product, this does not represent an improvement that would improve the functioning of a computer or technological area such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand. This is reinforced in the MPEP under 2106.04(d)(1), which is reproduced below:
A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. [AltContent: rect]
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").[AltContent: rect]
While the courts usually evaluate "improvements" as part of the "directed to" inquiry in part one of the Alice/Mayo test (equivalent to Step 2A), they have also performed this evaluation in part two of the Alice/Mayo test (equivalent to Step 2B). See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349-50, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, the improvement analysis at Step 2A Prong Two differs in some respects from the improvements analysis at Step 2B. Specifically, the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. It should be noted that while this consideration is often referred to in an abbreviated manner as the "improvements consideration," the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.[AltContent: rect]
Examples of claims that improve technology and are not directed to a judicial exception include: Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1691-92 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to a self-referential table for a computer database were directed to an improvement in computer capabilities and not directed to an abstract idea); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology and not directed to an abstract idea); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253,1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims to an enhanced computer memory system were directed to an improvement in computer capabilities and not an abstract idea); Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 125 USPQ2d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims to virus scanning were found to be an improvement in computer technology and not directed to an abstract idea); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets were found to be an improvement in computer network technology and not directed to an abstract idea). Additional examples are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a).[AltContent: rect]
As such, in light of the applicant’s arguments, the claims identified above remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as addressed above.
In order to further prosecution, the office recommends adding the additional limitations as presented in now allowable claims 9-10, which demonstrate the novelty in a meaningful way which would represent more than the abstract idea. That is, amending independent claim 1 to further recite, “wherein in the control function, a control signal for normal operation is output and the control signal is input to the peripheral machines at the time of the normal operation mode, and, at the time of the monitoring mode, a pseudo signal for failure checking is output, the pseudo signal is input to the at least one peripheral machine, and an output signal output by the at least one peripheral machine in response to the pseudo signal is captured, and a failure diagnosis result is obtained according to whether the output signal that is captured is consistent with a predetermined expected value;”, would help overcome the current 101 rejection and bring the entire case to allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Itou et al. (US PGPUB 20160098071): disclose an ECU control system and method which includes a mode selector circuit switch for swapping between multiple modes in an ECU system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117