DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 11/11/2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 6-8 have been amended. Claims 1 and 6-9 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “The specific entity/process of fault diagnosis in the present application is to calculate and compare the average of two voltage values. Applicants submit that since the specific process is reflected by the subject of the action through correction, the relevant processes are not mental processes or abstract ideas” in page 4 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Calculating and comparing values is a process that can be carried out by the human mind. No correction is recited in the claims. The claimed calculations and comparisons result in a mere display or output of a warning which has been cited as insignificant extra-solution activity. Because the calculations and comparisons do not result in a change in the vehicle or an actual automated correction following a diagnostic, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, the claims fail to recite additional elements to integrate this abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC §101 has been maintained as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objection. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §101, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejection. The rejections under 35 USC §101 are maintained as outlined below.
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, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Revised Guidance, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method and recites at least one step. Therefore, claims 1-9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories (process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below). Claim 1 recites:
A method of diagnosing a malfunction of an on-board diagnostic (OBD) controller system of a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), the method comprising:
diagnosing, by an OBD controller, whether a system voltage of an input part of the OBD controller is normal, by comparing the system voltage of the input part of the OBD controller with a voltage of a battery,
wherein the OBD controller is connected to the battery through a communication line in the HEV;
further comprising:
calculating, by the OBD controller, an average value of the system voltage of the input part for a predetermined time; and
calculating an average value of the voltage of the battery for the predetermined time;
wherein whether the system voltage of an input part of the OBD controller is normal is diagnosed by comparing the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery;
further comprising:
outputting, by the OBD controller, a malfunction signal of the OBD controller system when a difference between the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery exceeds a predetermined reference value; and
terminating, by the OBD controller, the diagnosing of the malfunction of the OBD controller system when the difference between the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery is equal to or smaller than the predetermined reference value;
when the OBD controller system is determined to be malfunctioning, displaying a warning on a display of the vehicle;
wherein the predetermined reference value is set according to a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the HEV;
further comprising receiving, by the OBD controller, the SOC of the battery before comparing the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery;
wherein the predetermined reference value is set to 2V when the SOC of the battery is 80% or more and 4V when the SOC of the battery is 30% or less.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations above constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use data/information of the voltages to compare data and determine whether there is an abnormality or not. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able calculate average voltages over a predetermined time with the data provided and with the aid of pen and paper. Then, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to compare the two averages to determine a difference in average value and compare the difference to a predetermined value and stop determining a diagnosis when the average is equal to or smaller than the predetermined value.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim, beyond the abstract idea, integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (mental process). The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of diagnosing a malfunction of an on-board diagnostic (OBD) controller system of a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), the method comprising:
diagnosing, by an OBD controller, whether a system voltage of an input part of the OBD controller is normal, by comparing the system voltage of the input part of the OBD controller with a voltage of a battery,
wherein the OBD controller is connected to the battery through a communication line in the HEV;
further comprising:
calculating, by the OBD controller, an average value of the system voltage of the input part for a predetermined time; and
calculating an average value of the voltage of the battery for the predetermined time;
wherein whether the system voltage of an input part of the OBD controller is normal is diagnosed by comparing the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery;
further comprising:
outputting, by the OBD controller, a malfunction signal of the OBD controller system when a difference between the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery exceeds a predetermined reference value; and
terminating, by the OBD controller, the diagnosing of the malfunction of the OBD controller system when the difference between the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery is equal to or smaller than the predetermined reference value;
when the OBD controller system is determined to be malfunctioning, displaying a warning on a display of the vehicle;
wherein the predetermined reference value is set according to a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the HEV;
further comprising receiving, by the OBD controller, the SOC of the battery before comparing the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery;
wherein the predetermined reference value is set to 2V when the SOC of the battery is 80% or more and 4V when the SOC of the battery is 30% or less.
The recitation of “on-board diagnostic (OBD) controller,” “a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV),” “communication line,” and “display” are provided at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements recited fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim. The limitations “outputting… a malfunction signal of the OBD controller system” and “displaying a warning on a display of the vehicle” is considered insignificant post-solution activity. Outputting a signal and displaying a warning is merely outputting a result without controlling or causing a control of the vehicle to change. These additional elements and limitations merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim must be further examined under Step 2B.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of diagnosing a malfunction of an on-board diagnostic (OBD) controller system of a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), the method comprising:
diagnosing, by an OBD controller, whether a system voltage of an input part of the OBD controller is normal, by comparing the system voltage of the input part of the OBD controller with a voltage of a battery,
wherein the OBD controller is connected to the battery through a communication line in the HEV;
further comprising:
calculating, by the OBD controller, an average value of the system voltage of the input part for a predetermined time; and
calculating an average value of the voltage of the battery for the predetermined time;
wherein whether the system voltage of an input part of the OBD controller is normal is diagnosed by comparing the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery;
further comprising:
outputting, by the OBD controller, a malfunction signal of the OBD controller system when a difference between the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery exceeds a predetermined reference value; and
terminating, by the OBD controller, the diagnosing of the malfunction of the OBD controller system when the difference between the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery is equal to or smaller than the predetermined reference value;
when the OBD controller system is determined to be malfunctioning, displaying a warning on a display of the vehicle;
wherein the predetermined reference value is set according to a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the HEV;
further comprising receiving, by the OBD controller, the SOC of the battery before comparing the average value of the system voltage of the input part and the average value of the voltage of the battery;
wherein the predetermined reference value is set to 2V when the SOC of the battery is 80% or more and 4V when the SOC of the battery is 30% or less.
The newly underlined limitation “receiving the SOC of the battery” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, as stated by the Attorney, the limitation of “displaying a warning on a display of the vehicle” is also considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity furthering the conclusion that the limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “receiving, by the OBD controller, a vehicle speed” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity rendering the claim not patent eligible.
Claim 7 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “receiving, by the OBD controller, an operating state” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity rendering the claim not patent eligible.
Claim 8 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “receiving, by the OBD controller, a communication state” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity rendering the claim not patent eligible.
Claim 9 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “receives the voltage of the battery via CAN communication” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity rendering the claim not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 would be allowable for reciting “the reference value is set 2 V when the SOC of the battery is 80% or more and 4 V when the SOC of the battery is 30% or less” in combination with the other elements of claim 1.
Moon discloses diagnosing batteries of green vehicles by comparing voltages. However, Moon does not disclose comparing the difference between the voltages to a reference value and setting a reference value based on the state of charge.
Seibert teaches a portable device to plug into an OBD-II port of a vehicle. However, Seibert does not teach comparing a difference between voltages to a reference value and setting a reference value based on a state of charge.
Krauer teaches determining an average battery voltage. However, Krauer does not teach comparing a difference between voltages to a reference value and setting a reference value based on a state of charge.
Nagayama teaches determining a difference between voltages and comparing the difference to a predetermined value. However, Nagayama does not teach determining the predetermined value based on a state of charge.
Kumar teaches a threshold value depends on a state of charge. However, Kumar does not teach “the reference value is set 2 V when the SOC of the battery is 80% or more and 4 V when the SOC of the battery is 30% or less.”
Yumoto teaches terminating a routine when the vehicle speed is below a speed threshold. However, Yumoto does not teach “the reference value is set 2 V when the SOC of the battery is 80% or more and 4 V when the SOC of the battery is 30% or less.”
Ono teaches causing a process to end when an abnormality flag in communication exists. However, Ono does not teach “the reference value is set 2 V when the SOC of the battery is 80% or more and 4 V when the SOC of the battery is 30% or less.”
The combination of Moon, Seibert, Krauer, Nagayama, Kumar, Yumoto, and Ono fail to teach, in combination and as a whole, the limitation of “the reference value is set 2 V when the SOC of the battery is 80% or more and 4 V when the SOC of the battery is 30% or less” in combination with the other elements of claim 1.
Conclusion
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662