DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 requires “an active tank ventilation function” which has already been required by claim 1. This is indefinite as to whether this is a new function or a reference to this previous function.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-19 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-19 recites at least one step or instruction for performing a diagnosis, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Essentially the claims require the gathering of data and making a judgement call on the data. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-19 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites (I typically bolded additional elements and underlined abstract ideas) (additional element);
1. A method for diagnosing a purge line path of a tank ventilation system of a motor vehicle operated by an internal combustion engine, the method comprising: providing a purge line path extending between a fuel vapor retention filter and an intake manifold (IP) of the motor vehicle; providing a tank ventilation valve along the purge line path; providing a pressure sensor arranged between the fuel vapor retention filter and the tank ventilation valve; providing a purge line path region arranged upstream of the pressure sensor; providing a purge line path region arranged downstream of the pressure sensor; providing a full load purge path arranged between the tank ventilation valve and the intake manifold; providing a part load purge path arranged between the tank ventilation valve and the intake manifold; executing at least three part diagnoses temporally one after another for the diagnosis of the purge line path, the part diagnoses are executed during an active tank ventilation function, each part diagnoses configured to diagnose a portion of the purge line path different from another portion of the pure line path, one of the at least three part diagnoses includes identifying whether each diagnosed portion of the purge line path has a defective path, and another one of the at least part diagnoses includes identifying the tank ventilation valve stuck in an open or a closed state due to a jam; wherein each part diagnoses includes: measuring, at the pressure sensor arranged between the fuel vapor retention filter and the tank ventilation valve, pressure signals; and evaluating the measured pressure signals based on the part diagnoses.
The executing of the diagnoses is act of observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. This involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG); Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-18 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 19 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-18) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 19), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: The engine, vapor purge path, and a controller as recited in independent Claim 1, 19 and its dependent claims; and a server, a client device and a trackable sensor as recited in independent Claim 1, 19 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 19 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 19 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a controller as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 19 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 19 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-19 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: an engine, a vapor passage, a sensor and a controller as claimed in claims 1-19.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, ___[[identify where Applicant’s specification discusses the computer, processor, controller, computer device, server, etc. and how it is generically described without structure or detailed drawings, e.g., schematic drawing or described as an iphone or ipad or mobile device or personal computer or laptop. Basically, we are trying to show that Applicant didn’t describe the computer, processor, controller, computer device, server, etc. well enough to pass 112a and thus, admitted in their specification that such computer components are well understood, routine and conventional.]___________
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term controller found in ¶65 is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the controller. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-19 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method and apparatus of Claims 1-19 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-19 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 19 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-19 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-19 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-19 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sugiura (U.S. Pat. No. 11,047,343).
Regarding claim 1 and 19, Sugiura discloses 1. A method for diagnosing a purge line path of a tank ventilation system of a motor vehicle operated by an internal combustion engine, the method comprising:
providing a purge line path extending between a fuel vapor retention filter (14) and an intake manifold (IP) of the motor vehicle;
providing a tank ventilation valve (34) along the purge line path;
providing a pressure sensor (16) arranged between the fuel vapor retention filter and the tank ventilation valve;
providing a purge line path region (22) arranged upstream of the pressure sensor;
providing a purge line path region (22a) arranged downstream of the pressure sensor;
providing a full load purge path (26) arranged between the tank ventilation valve and the intake manifold;
providing a part load purge path (24) arranged between the tank ventilation valve and the intake manifold;
executing at least three part diagnoses temporally one after another for the diagnosis of the purge line path (fig. 2 and 4), the part diagnoses are executed during an active tank ventilation function, each part diagnoses configured to diagnose a portion of the purge line path different from another portion of the pure line path (fig. 2 diagnoses upstream and fig. 4 diagnoses downstream), one of the at least three part diagnoses includes identifying whether each diagnosed portion of the purge line path has a defective path, and another one of the at least part diagnoses includes identifying the tank ventilation valve stuck in an open or a closed state due to a jam (construed as a clog which can be considered a defective path or can cause a valve to be stuck open or closed);
wherein each part diagnoses includes: measuring, at the pressure sensor arranged between the fuel vapor retention filter and the tank ventilation valve, pressure signals; and
evaluating the measured pressure signals based on the part diagnoses.
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Sugiura discloses wherein the part diagnoses executed during an active tank ventilation function, without separate actuation operations of the tank ventilation valve taking place (col. 8, lines 65-67 and fig. 2 shows that the clogging is being determined during an active ventilation process s12).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Sugiura discloses further comprising: in a first part diagnosis, checking a presence of a blockage in the purge line path region arranged upstream of the pressure sensor (fig. 2 is determining an upstream clog).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 3, Sugiura discloses further comprising: ending the diagnosis of the purge line path when a presence of a blockage in the purge line path region arranged upstream of the pressure sensor is detected (after clog is determined, s22, the diagnosis ends).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 3, Sugiura discloses further comprising: changing over to a second part diagnosis when an absence of a blockage in the purge line path region arranged upstream of the pressure sensor is detected (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 5, Sugiura discloses wherein during the second part diagnosis, a check is carried out for the presence of the stuck tank ventilation valve which is jammed in an open state (s36).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 6, Sugiura discloses further comprising: ending the diagnosis of the purge line path when a presence of the stuck tank ventilation valve which is jammed in an open state is detected (when s36 is not in the right range the diagnosis ends).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 6, Sugiura discloses further comprising: when the absence of the stuck tank ventilation valve jammed in the open state is detected, checking whether activation conditions for a third part diagnosis or for a fourth part diagnosis are present (other values are checked that can be used as activation conditions).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 8, Sugiura discloses further comprising: changing over to a third part diagnosis when the presence of the activation conditions for the third part diagnosis is detected (col. 8, lines 65-67 discloses that the processes of fig. 2 and 4 are performed periodically. So after diagnosing the first time it will repeat this process which can be called a third part diagnosis since what is being diagnosed is not being claimed).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 9, Sugiura discloses further comprising: in the third part diagnosis, checking of the part load purge path arranged downstream of the tank ventilation valve and checking for the presence of the stuck tank ventilation valve jammed in a closed state (s14).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 10, Sugiura discloses wherein the diagnosis of the purge line path is ended (the diagnosis ends) or, as an alternative (ending option addressed), is continued with a fourth part diagnosis when the presence of a defective part load purge path and/or the stuck tank ventilation valve jammed in a closed state is detected.
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 10, Sugiura discloses wherein when the absence of
a defective part load purge path and
the stuck tank ventilation valve jammed in a closed state is detected,
a changeover is carried out to the fourth part diagnosis as soon as its activation conditions are present (when the process of fig. 2 ends it is able to start the check of the process of fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 12, Sugiura discloses further comprising: changing over to the fourth part diagnosis when the presence of the activation conditions for the fourth part diagnosis is detected (col. 10, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 12, Sugiura discloses wherein the fourth part diagnosis includes: checking the full load purge path arranged downstream of the tank ventilation valve (s44); and checking for the presence of the stuck tank ventilation valve jammed in a closed state (s36).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 1, Sugiura discloses wherein a pulse width actuation range of the tank ventilation valve is divided into a plurality of ranges, in which pressure signals measured by the pressure sensor are evaluated differently (there is a closed and an open valve range and the pressure values are expected to drop during a closed period leading to the analysis they are doing providing certain information).
Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 15, Sugiura discloses wherein an evaluation of the pressure signals measured by the pressure sensor is not carried out in a first range (s34).
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 15, Sugiura discloses wherein pressure peaks of the pressure signals measured by the pressure sensor are evaluated in a second range, in order to carry out a diagnosis of the full load purge path and the part load purge path (shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18 which depends from claim 15, Sugiura discloses wherein in a third range, the averaged pressure signals measured by the pressure sensor are evaluated for a diagnosis of the purge line path downstream of the tank ventilation valve in the case of a non-actuated tank ventilation valve and in the case of an actuated tank ventilation valve (col. 9, lines 49-55 discloses averaging the pressure signals).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/08/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 that the Segiura reference is not diagnosing all three paths that are claimed. The claims provide only one valve and one pressure sensor. Where the claims are performing three measurements and assigning each measurement to a particular path the claims are not actually isolating those paths and measuring a unique path. This is functionally equivalent to a system that controls the one claimed valve and takes multiple measurements by the pressure sensor. Segiura is performing an equivalent diagnosis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747