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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 01/27/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium ; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of predicting vehicle maintenance by analyzing vehicle data and managing of maintenance service to a vehicle that is part of a fleet of vehicles.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 19, 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving vehicle data from a vehicle in a fleet of vehicles;
determining, based on the vehicle data, a health status of the vehicle, wherein the health status comprises an indication of a health status of one or more components of the vehicle;
generating a prediction of a maintenance servicing for the vehicle based on the health status of the vehicle, the prediction of the maintenance servicing for the vehicle corresponding to a predicted maintenance servicing for at least one of the one or more components of the vehicle; and
transmitting information to schedule an action addressing the maintenance servicing for the vehicle, wherein the schedule is determined based on the predicted maintenance servicing for the at least one of the one or more components of the vehicle
in response to the predicted maintenance servicing indicating that the at least one of the one or more components has exceeded a wear threshold, automatically adjust operation of the vehicle to adjust a rate of wear of the at least one of the one or more components
The above limitations are reciting a process where the condition of a vehicle in terms of its operating health status is used to predict and determine a maintenance servicing for the vehicle and so that it can be scheduled along with some kind of adjustment to the operation of the vehicle so as to reduce wear (driving slower, stopping the vehicle to prevent further wear, adding air to a tire that is deflated and being damaged, etc.). The concept of determining the health status of a vehicle and providing a maintenance servicing prediction based on obtained data for the vehicle that is part of a fleet of vehicles is something that is considered to be a commercial practice that is a certain method of organizing human activities. This concept is something that is known to be done for rental vehicles and is also something known for the aviation industry where aircraft are monitored and are provide with a maintenance schedule, especially in the case of a recently discovered defect that requires maintenance be scheduled. Using data about a vehicle to determine a maintenance servicing is considered to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea that is a commercial practice that is part of managing a fleet of vehicles for maintenance purposes. With respect to the adjusting of the operation of the vehicle, this element is considered to also be part of the abstract idea. This element is broadly recited and can arguably be any adjustment taken by a user to reduce wear on a component. The component being monitored for wear that has exceeded the wear threshold is not specified in the claims and the manner in which the adjustment of the operation of the vehicle occurs is not specified in the claims. The claimed adjustment of the operation of the vehicle can be a driver slowing down and not driving so fast so as to reduce wear on an engine component of some kind or on a tire that is severely worn. The claim merely recites the desired outcome that is to be achieved in terms of adjusting operation to reduce wear. The automatic adjustment of the operation of the vehicle to reduce wear on a component is so broadly recited that it can be practiced by a person who is manually making the adjustment. The applicant is reminded that the term “automatically” does not preclude human involvement in the process such that once a driver is notified of the threshold being exceeded, the driver can then automatically make an adjustment to the operation of the vehicle to reduce wear. Simply not driving a long distance but driving a shorter distance (less running time) serves to reduce wear on the components of a vehicle as just one example. Driving slower is another example. All of which are able to be performed by people. Therefore, for the above reasons the claims are found to be reciting the abstract idea noted by the examiner.
For claim 1, the additional elements are the one or more computing devices. The receiving of the data from a vehicle is interpreted to be reciting that the data is for the vehicle, but the scope is open to receiving it from any source. The act of receiving the data is not defined by identification of the source of the data. The only additional element claimed is the one or more computing devices.
For claim 19, the additional element is the recitation to one or more non-transitory computer readable medium and one or more processors configured to execute the recited steps.
For claim 20, the additional element is the recitation to the non-transitory computer readable medium that includes instructions to cause a processor to perform the recited steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This is the same as reciting “apply it” with a computer. A person can obtaining vehicle data as claimed by collecting it manually. A person can determine a health status of the vehicle from the obtained data and can generate the predicted maintenance servicing and to schedule the service. A person can also determine that a wear threshold is exceeded and can adjust the operation of a vehicle to reduce wear on a component, such as the tire. The extent of the use of the computer/processor is that it is being used as a tool to accomplish the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This is the same as reciting “apply it” with a computer. The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong is also applicable to step 2B as the issue at hand is just the use of a computer to perform the abstract idea. This does not amount to claiming significantly more.
The claims 1, 19, 20, do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 2, 3, the claim recites the step of receiving the data from one or more sensors of a vehicle that are built into specific locations on the vehicle. The sensors and the vehicle are considered to be additional elements. The use of the sensor is for sensing data that can be either high fidelity data or low fidelity data, both of which are merely describing data obtained from a sensor that is part of a vehicle (or attached to the vehicle). This is considered to be the use of a vehicle sensor to collect data where the use of the sensor is being used in its ordinary capacity to do what a sensor does. The claimed use of the sensor reads on any sensor for any component that one can envision that is included in a vehicle. The step at hand is just that of data collection so that the abstract idea can occur (you need vehicle data to be able to make the claimed prediction). The receiving of the data is considered to be part of the abstract idea, where the use of the sensor is considered to be akin to “apply it” with a sensor to collect the data because the sensor is being used to do what they are designed to do, which is to sense data. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) in this regard. This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 4, the computing of a temporal rainflow matrix and integration into an accrued rainflow matrix to compute wear for the component(s), and reciting what the health status comprises as far as being an indication of mechanical wear of a component of the vehicle, or a condition or a usage, is found to be further defining the abstract idea of claim 1. What the health status indicates is further defining the abstract idea in terms of claiming the data and what it represents. The data relating to the vehicle and using the data to determine the maintenance servicing is what defines the abstract idea. The temporal rainflow matrix is reciting ineligible subject matter that is also part of the abstract idea. The rainflow matrix is not technology or a device of some kind, it is a collection of data relating to fatigue/wear. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration other than that which has already been addressed for claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 5, reciting that the method includes applying a transfer function to vibration sensor signals (the vibration sensors are not being claimed, just the data from the sensors) to identify a frequency signature associated with a strain of a component and the recitation to the components (tire, battery) are claim elements that are further define the abstract idea. The applying of a transfer function to signal data is performing math and is part of the abstract idea. The claimed components are part of the abstract idea also because they are the components being monitored and are what the wear data is representative of. The components themselves are not doing anything in the claims. The sensor data is just representative of the components. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration other than that which has already been addressed for claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 6, similar to the transfer function of claim 5, the recitation to calculating a cepstrum of vibration data and the applying of a peak picking filter to the ceptstrum as claimed, is considered to be part of the abstract idea. This is broadly claiming the use of a Fourier transfer function for data and is reciting the performance of math. Analyzing signal data using a Fourier analysis (the ceptstrum) is part of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claimed peak picking filter is also considered to be part of the abstract idea. This is a data analysis technique that is being used to identify a frequency. What is claimed is reciting more about the abstract idea and does not introduce any further additional elements for consideration. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7, 8, the applicant is reciting more about the abstract idea. Claiming that the predicted maintenance is a prediction to inflate or deflate a tire based on the claimed data, and transmitting the information to schedule the service to be performed, are all elements that are part of the abstract idea. As stated previously, the data used to make the claimed prediction for a maintenance service is what defines the abstract idea. The fact that the data is representative of tire pressure is part of the abstract idea and the type of maintenance that is envisioned being performed. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration other than that which has already been addressed for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 9-13, similar to claims 6-8, the applicant is reciting more about the abstract idea. Claiming that the automatic adjustment is charging a low-voltage battery at a slower rate in response to determining that the state of health for the battery is low is a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that is recited in claim 1. A person can manually charge a battery at a slower rate than compared to a high rate of charge, as is claimed. Claiming that the predicted maintenance is a prediction to inspect or replace the battery (high or low voltage, both of which are relative terms that just claim a battery) based on the claimed data, and transmitting the information to schedule the service to be performed, are all elements that are part of the abstract idea. As stated previously, the data used to make the claimed prediction for a maintenance service is what defines the abstract idea and the type of maintenance that is envisioned. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration other than that which has already been addressed for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 14, the abstract idea is being further defined by the elements of:
determining an availability of an appointment, a personnel, or a specialized equipment at one or more servicing stations configured to service the vehicle;
automatically scheduling a maintenance appointment for the vehicle;
searching an inventory associated with the one or more servicing stations to determine an availability of a replacement for the at least one of the one or more components; or causing the one or more servicing stations to place an order for a replacement for the at least one of the one or more components
The above elements are part of the abstract idea because they are claiming the making of an appointment and the scheduling of the maintenance by searching for and obtaining parts that are need to perform the servicing, such as an oil filter for an oil change or a new battery to replace a defective one. This is claiming more about the certain method of organizing human activities that is predicting vehicle maintenance by analyzing vehicle data and providing a maintenance service to a vehicle that is part of a fleet of vehicles. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration other than that which has already been addressed for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 15, 16, the causing of an action to occur that addresses the maintenance servicing and receiving an indication that the servicing has been executed (the job has been performed) and updating the servicing are all elements that also are part of the abstract idea. This is just having the maintenance work be performed and updating a service log with the most recent service that was performed. This is the act of actually performing the maintenance and documenting it was performed. This is part of the abstract idea. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration other than that which has already been addressed for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 17, 18, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea as was found for claim 1. The transmitting of information to schedule maintenance such as by contacting a service station and claiming that the predicted maintenance is for a vehicle component are all further aspects of the abstract idea that are being claimed. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration other than that which has already been addressed for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 12-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shostak et al. (20060025897) in view of DeSanzo et all. (20150151769) in view of Poosa et al. (20230196851).
For claim 1, 15, 17-20, Shostak discloses a computerized system and method for monitoring data received from a vehicle and determining a health status of the vehicle so that predicted service needs can be determined and scheduled. This satisfies the claimed computer readable medium and processors, etc.. The claimed receiving of vehicle data from a vehicle of a fleet of vehicles is satisfied by the disclosure in paragraphs 003, 668, 669. Data is collected from sensors that are able to monitor vehicle components (see paragraph 671) and is used to perform prognostics, which is the process of determining when a vehicle or component will fail and will require servicing, see paragraphs 684, 685. Also see paragraph 144 for disclosure to a remote monitoring service that can receive the vehicle data. Disclosed is that components such as tires and batteries are monitored to determine their status (which satisfies the claimed health status), see paragraph 672. Shostak teaches that tire pressure and battery voltages are monitored. Also see paragraphs 674 where voltage and tire pressure is disclosed as being a variable that is monitored (satisfies the claimed determining of a health status). The claimed generating or a prediction for maintenance servicing for one of the vehicle components, and the transmitting of the information to schedule an action to address the servicing of the component, is disclosed in paragraph 1399. Disclosed is that vehicle sensor data relating to a vehicle component can be sent to a dealer or repair facility to correct the problem. Vehicle sensor data is collected, the data is analyzed to determine a prediction for maintenance servicing, such as detecting a problematic tire pressure or low voltage situation, and scheduling of the maintenance is disclosed.
Not disclosed by Shostak is that the system is able to determine that a wear threshold for a component of the vehicle has been exceeded and adjusting the operation of the vehicle to adjust a wear rate of the component.
DeSanzo teaches a vehicle health status monitoring system that can monitor vehicle sensors to determine the health status of various vehicle components. See paragraph 027. This is similar to Shostak as far as both references are from the field of vehicle data monitoring and both deal with monitoring vehicle components for failures and for servicing needs. DeSanzo teaches in paragraph 073 that the system controls the operation of the vehicle to achieve certain goals, one of which is to operate the vehicle to reduce wear on the vehicle. Paragraph 072 teaches that the system can control vehicle operations such as controlling throttle settings or controlling braking systems. This references teaches that it is known in the art to control the operation of a vehicle to reduce the wear on a vehicle component (or the overall vehicle itself).
Poosa teaches a system and method for monitoring an agricultural vehicle for component wear rates and to determine if the expected wear rate for a component is exceeded, see paragraph 016. Disclosed is that the system will adjust an operating parameter for a component of the vehicle so that the wear rate is reduced. Also see paragraph 024 that teaches the use of vehicle sensors to detect the wear rate of a vehicle component. This references teaches that the vehicle control operation of adjusting the operation of the vehicle will be done when a wear threshold is exceeded, which is a vehicle component exceeding a predetermined wear rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Shostak with the further ability to automatically control the operation of the vehicle to reduce wear on a given vehicle component, as is taught by DeSanzo. It would have further been obvious to have the control of the vehicle operation be in response to detecting that a wear rate for a vehicle component has exceeded a threshold rate as taught by Poosa, so that one could reduce the rate that the vehicle component was wearing down. The prior art for vehicles and health status monitoring recognizes that it is known in the art to control the operation of a vehicle to reduce wear on a vehicle component, and it is known to do that in response to a wear threshold being exceeded, which is defining a particular wear rate. This would yield predictable results when provide to Shostak as far as this would provide the system of Shostak with the ability to reduce the wear on a component that is wearing too fast according to a predetermined wear rate (a threshold) and that is in need of servicing by automatically adjusting the operation of the vehicle as claimed.
For claims 2, 3, Shostak teaches the use of sensors on the vehicle. The applicant is also reciting the vehicle data as being either low fidelity or high fidelity data. These terms are relative terminology that is reciting the collection of data from the sensors of the vehicle. This is disclosed by Shostak as was addressed for claim 1, to which the applicant is referred. The data collected from the vehicle sensors in Shostak satisfies the claimed high and low fidelity data.
For claims 7, 8, Shostak does not specifically teach that the prediction is for servicing a tire, where the prediction is to inflate or deflate the tire(s). Shostak teaches the monitoring of the tire pressure and recognizes in numerous places that improper tire pressure can lead to a fatality, see paragraphs 052. Paragraph 058 teaches how improper tire pressure affects fuel economy. While not expressly disclosed, in the event that the tire pressure is found to be low (current tire pressure), and it requires maintenance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the prediction be a recommendation to inflate the tire to a proper pressure, that is based on detecting that the tire pressure is low. This satisfies what is claimed because when one detects a low tire pressure in Shostak, knowing that tire pressure is important, one would find it obvious to have the prediction be instructing one to inflate the tire to a proper pressure.
For claims 14, 16, while not disclosed, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that when one is repairing a vehicle, an appointment is made and parts are ordered to fix whatever the problem is. This could be ordering a new mattery or a new valve stem for a tire, or a new tire itself. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Shostak with the ability to schedule an appointment, as is implied in paragraph 1399, and to order whatever parts are required to perform the maintenance (oil, oil filter, new mattery, new tire, new air filter, etc.). Claim 14 is reciting the act of making an appointment to get a vehicle repaired, with ordering of parts. This is something that is old and well known in the auto repair field and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. When a vehicle is in need of repair for a faulty component or regular service, an appointment is known to be made, parts are ordered for the vehicle at hand, and the maintenance is performed. This is something that is obvious to those of less than ordinary skill in the art as even a 12 year old knows that this is how vehicle repairs works.
For claims 12, 13, as has been addressed for claim 1, Shostak teaches that the battery of a vehicle is a monitored component of the vehicle. Shostak teaches the scheduling of an action to correct an issue when one is detected from the sensor data. In the event that the battery is found to have a problem, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maintenance prediction be a recommendation to inspect and possibly replace the battery as claimed. The reason one is monitoring a battery in Shostak is so that if there is a problem such as the end of life is nearing and the battery is not well, it can be addressed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to predict a battery replacement as claimed when the sensor data indicates a problem with the battery.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shostak et al. (20060025897) in view of DeSanzo et all. (20150151769) in view of Poosa et al. (20230196851), and further in view of Jarvis et al. (20160064780).
For claim 9, not disclosed is that the adjustment of the operation of the vehicle comprises charging a low voltage battery (a relative term) at a slower rate in response to determining that the state of health for the battery is low. With respect to the language reciting that the battery is low voltage or high voltage in claim 9, this term is a relative term and do not define anything more than a battery with a voltage.
As has been addressed for claim 1, Shostak teaches that the battery of a vehicle is a monitored component of the vehicle. Shostak teaches the scheduling of an action to correct an issue when one is detected from the sensor data. In the event that the battery is found to have a problem, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maintenance prediction be a recommendation to inspect and possibly replace the battery as claimed. The reason one is monitoring a battery in Shostak is so that if there is a problem it can be addressed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to predict a battery replacement as claimed when the sensor data indicates a problem with the battery.
With respect to charging at a slower rate, Jarvis disclose a battery monitoring system and method that can alter the charging rate of the battery upon determining that battery expansion has occurred. See paragraphs 044, 045, and 092. Jarvis teaches that battery expansion can affect the useful life of a battery and discloses how it is desirable to monitor the battery for expansion and to control the charging rate (slower rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Shostak with the further ability to monitor a battery for its health status and to control the charging rate to be slower so that its useful life is extended by reducing the wear on the battery. This would yield the predictable result of allowing the system of Shostak that has been modified to automatically control operation of the vehicle to reduce wear on a component to be used with batteries as claimed. The art of batteries understands that slow charging a battery at a slower rate is better for a battery that has health issues such as battery expansion.
Claim(s) 10, 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shostak et al. (20060025897) in view of DeSanzo et all. (20150151769) in view of Poosa et al. (20230196851), in view of Jarvis et al. (20160064780) and further in view of Verheijen et al. (20220026492).
For claim 10, not disclosed is that the prediction to inspect the battery is based on the number of cycles of charging or discharging as claimed.
Verheijen teaches a vehicle battery monitoring system that uses a state of health variable for a battery that is based on the age and number of driving cycles experienced by the battery, which is referring to cycles where the battery has been charged and discharged. See paragraph 067, 074 where the state of health for a battery is disclosed and it is disclosed that if the state of health is below a threshold, then the user is prompted to replace the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Shostak with the ability to monitor a battery for the number of cycles of charging and discharging as claimed so that the information can be used to predict battery maintenance and possible replacement. This would yield the predictable result of allowing one to monitor the charging and discharging cycles for the battery, as is known in the art.
For claim 11, as was addressed for claim 1, Shostak teaches that information is transmitted to schedule an action. When modified with Jarvis as set forth above, the transmission to address the maintenance servicing is based on the number of cycles for charging or discharging. This satisfies what is claimed.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 7 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims are tied to a concrete technical action in the physical vehicle, that is the automatic adjustment of operation of the vehicle (broadly claimed such that it can be any adjustment for any component or part of the vehicle). This is not persuasive because the automatic adjustment of the vehicle is a claim element that is part of the abstract idea. The automatic adjustment of operation of the vehicle is broadly recited and can arguably be any adjustment taken by a user to reduce wear on a component. The component being monitored for wear that has exceeded the wear threshold is not specified in the independent claims and the manner in which the adjustment of the operation of the vehicle occurs is not specified in the claims. The claimed automatic adjustment of the operation of the vehicle can be a driver slowing down and not driving so fast so as to reduce wear on an engine component of some kind or on a tire that is severely worn. The claim merely recites the desired outcome that is to be achieved in terms of adjusting operation to result in reduce wear as compared to operating in a different manner (faster, hotter, cooler, etc.). The automatic adjustment of the operation of the vehicle to reduce wear on a component is so broadly recited that it can be practiced by a person who is manually making the adjustment to the operation of the vehicle. The applicant is reminded that the term “automatically” does not preclude human involvement in the process such that once a driver is notified of the threshold being exceeded, the driver can then automatically make an adjustment to the operation of the vehicle to reduce wear. Simply not driving a long distance but driving a shorter distance (less running time) serves to reduce wear on the components of a vehicle as just one example. Driving slower is another example. All of which are able to be performed by people. The argument that the automatic adjustment of the vehicle operation renders the claim eligible is not persuasive.
The comments on page 8 are noted that relate to analyzing the claims as a whole and not oversimplifying a claimed invention in a high level of generality. In reply the examiner can state that the claims have been examined as a whole and the invention is not being oversimplified so as to dismiss the eligibility of the claims.
On page 8 of the reply the applicant argues that claim 1 is reciting the automatic adjustment of the vehicle operation to reduce wear to a component, and argues that this is a solution to a technological problem in the vehicle domain art. The claimed element is claiming the end result to be achieved, which is some kind of adjustment to the operation of a vehicle. Absent more being claimed about the manner in which the vehicle or the system in general results in the claimed adjustment to occur, all that is recited is the idea of a solution or an outcome where the claim does not recite details on how a solution to the problem is being accomplished. The argument is not persuasive.
The argument on page 8 that the automatic adjustment of the vehicle operation is not a human organization step but is an automatic vehicle control response to detected wear thresholds being exceeded. This is not persuasive because the scope of the automatic adjustment of the vehicle can be anything, such as adding more air to a tire. Claim 7 recites that the servicing prediction, that the wear is associated with, is for a tire and the pressure of the tire. The automatic adjustment can be a user simply adding more air to a tire so that the tire is properly inflated. As noted above, The claimed element is reciting the end result to be achieved, which is some kind of adjustment to the operation of a vehicle. Absent more being claimed about the manner in which the vehicle or the system in general results in the claimed adjustment to occur, all that is recited is the idea of a solution or an outcome where the claim does not recite details on how a solution to the problem is being accomplished. Nothing that is claimed rises to the level of being something that a human being cannot perform and that is limited to vehicle controls systems as the applicant argues. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 9 the applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. The applicant argues that the claims recite a specific way in which a problem is solved, which is the automatic adjustment of the operation of a vehicle to reduce wear on a component. The applicant argues that the claims result in a real world vehicle operation. As already addressed, this is not persuasive. The automatic adjustment of the vehicle limitation is considered to be part of the absent idea absent claiming something about a specific manner in which the vehicle is executing an automatic adjustment, and that would result in an improvement to technology or the functioning of the vehicle itself. Simply driving at a slower speed or adding air to a deflated tire does not rise to the level of being something that is an improvement to technology. The fact that the claims are prompting one to schedule servicing for the vehicle component is part of the abstract idea. Analyzing vehicle data and managing of maintenance service to a vehicle that is part of a fleet of vehicles that includes prompting one to schedule service for a vehicle component is what defines the abstract idea (the commercial practice of providing vehicle maintenance services to a customer). That is what in partly defines the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive.
The comments regarding the Desjardins decision are noted. The claims are not being overgeneralized as alleged and have been examined for what they recite as a whole. The applicant is reminded that the narrowness or specificity of a claimed judicial exception does not equate to being eligible. Just because the claims recite some specific steps does not mean they are not reciting an abstract idea at step 2A, which is what the argument is directed to, not integration into a practical application. The argued element of the broadly claimed automatic adjustment of operation of the vehicle does not render the claims eligible for reasons already addressed. This is part of the abstract idea and does not provide for integration into a practical application.
On page 10 of the reply the applicant argues that a human being cannot automatically adjust the operation of a vehicle to reduce wear on a component. This argument is not persuasive. The argument that the specification discloses an on-board module as being used to perform the adjustment to a vehicles drivetrain and how a human cannot do that is not persuasive. The independent claims being argued do not claim any specific component and do not claim that the adjustment is to the drivetrain of the vehicle. A human being can most certainly make automatic adjustments to the operation of a vehicle by driving slower, or turning the heat on to keep the engine cooler when it is running hot, or by adding air to a deflated tire (see claim 7 that recites such a situation). The claims are too broad with respect to the automatic adjustment of the vehicle operation to argue that it cannot be done by a person. All that is claimed is the end outcome to be achieved, not how any particular piece of technology or an on-board vehicle module is being used to adjust operation of the vehicle in a meaningful manner. The argument is not persuasive.
The comments about the mental process category for abstract ideas is noted. The rejection of record does not find the claims to be reciting a mental process so this argument is moot and not relevant to the rejection at hand. The claims are reciting a certain method of organizing human activities, not a mental process.
On pages 10-11 the applicant argues step 2B. The applicant repeats the same arguments already, namely that the claims recite a technological solution to a technological problem (providing servicing to a vehicle is not technological in nature) and cautions against oversimplifying the claimed invention. The argument is not persuasive for the same reasons already addressed by the examiner. The claims have been considered as a whole and have not been oversimplified. For the adjustment of the vehicle operation, all that is claimed is the end outcome to be achieved, not how any particular piece of technology is being used to adjust operation of the vehicle in a meaningful manner. The argument is not persuasive for reasons already addressed. The claims have not been integrated into a practical application and the claims are not found to be reciting significantly more. The 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
The traversal of the prior art rejection is considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection for the pending claims under 35 USC 103 and that is in response to the amendment to the claims. The argued feature of automatically adjusting operation of the vehicle to reduce wear on a component is something that is known in the art of vehicles and vehicle health status monitoring, and does not render the claims patentable over prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Batts et al. (20200238999) discloses the automatic control of the operation of a vehicle to reduce wear and tear on the vehicle, see paragraph 182 in this regard. This is relevant to the claimed invention.
Davis (2594739) discloses a speed controller for automobiles that can control the speed of a vehicle to control fuel economy and to reduce the wear and tear on the vehicle, see paragraph 023. This is relevant to the claimed invention.
Diamond et al. (20210284179) discloses a vehicle health monitoring system that can control the operation of a vehicle to reduce the wear and tear on vehicle components, see paragraph 028 and 050. This is relevant to the claimed invention.
Mian et al. (20160207552) discloses a cepstrum based analysis of vibration data collected from sensors on the side of a train track. The analysis is done for trains to detect issues that might be in need of maintenance. This is relevant for the subject matter of claim 6 but does not itself render the subject matter of claim 6 as obvious in the opinion of the examiner.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626