DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office 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 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 20: Applicant claims: extracting, by the controller, deceleration data through preprocessing the driving data;
One of ordinary skill may understand preprocessing to be a processing step that happens prior to another processing step. However, it is unclear exactly what Applicant considers to be the “processing” step that the preprocessing step is prior too, as no other “processing” steps are claimed. Further, Applicant disclosure does not provide any description as to what “preprocessing” is that differentiates this step from processing from known data processing steps, and therefore the metes and bounds of this term are unclear. Corrective action or clarification are required.
In regards to claim 3: Applicant claims 3. The method of claim 2, further comprising determining whether a number of data sets is equal to or greater than the number of a predetermined set after removing the deceleration data furthest away in orthogonal distance from the quadratic equation.
This claim in indefinite at least because the number of a predetermined set lacks antecedent basis. Further, it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill what the “set” is, as claimed. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claim 9: Applicant claims 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the filtering of the extracted driver's braking characteristic data comprises excluding the driver's braking characteristic data where lateral acceleration increases excessively during vehicle turning.
However, “excessively” is subjective and indefinite as claimed. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claim 18: Applicant claims 18. The method of claim 17, wherein the reflecting of the quadratic equation to a smart regenerative braking system for control comprises:
applying the driver's braking characteristic data obtained through clustering to the smart regenerative braking system; and implementing a braking start point and braking intensity to match the driver's braking pattern.
This claim is indefinite at least because the reflecting of the quadratic equation lacks antecedent basis. Further, a smart regenerative braking system is indefinite because Applicant claims a “smart” system without explicitly disclosing what differences make a system “smart” vs. “not smart”. The term is therefore subjective and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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 1-17 and 20 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.
Claim 1 is directed to:
1. A driving pattern regenerative braking method of a vehicle, the method comprising:
collecting and inputting, by a controller, driving data; (generic data collection that is considered insignificant pre-solution activity that is not considered to be a meaningful application.)
extracting, by the controller, deceleration data through preprocessing the driving data; (considered to be data sorting, and therefore an abstract mental process performable mentally or by hand.)
clustering, by the controller, the deceleration data and removing outliers; (considered to be data sorting and processing, and therefore an abstract mental process performable mentally or by hand.)
calculating, by the controller, a deceleration rate change and an inter-vehicle distance to a vehicle in front from clustered data; (considered to be a data processing and manipulation step, an abstract mental process performable mentally or by hand.)
deriving, by the controller, a quadratic equation of the deceleration rate change and the distance to the vehicle in front through polynomial regression; (polynomial regression is a known mathematical type of regression analysis, and therefore this limitation is considered to be mere application of known mathematical means and steps, and therefore an abstract mathematical process.)
determining, by the controller, whether the derived quadratic equation satisfies a predetermined condition; (considered to be a data comparison step, and therefore an abstract mental process performable mentally or by hand.)
and modifying by the controller, a regenerative braking system of the vehicle based on the quadratic equation being satisfied. (the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a controller modifying a regenerative braking system includes merely outputting a result of the above abstract data analysis into a database or updating data tables in a database that are not considered practical applications of the abstract ideas outlined above.)
The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: [l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Inti, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In issues involving subject matter eligibility, our inquiry focuses on whether the claims satisfy the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 216—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). This framework considers, in the first step, whether the claim at issue is “directed to” one of those ineligible concepts. Id. If not, the claim satisfies § 101. Id. If the claim is “directed to” one of those ineligible concepts, we proceed to the second step, where we “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). The Supreme Court characterizes the second step as “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72—73) (alteration in original). “[Merely requiring] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 221.
On January 7, 2019, the PTO issued revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (hereinafter “2019 Guidance”). The 2019 Guidance includes steps 2A and 2B. Under Step 2A, Prong One, of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). If a claim recites a judicial exception, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two, in which we determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)—(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, do we proceed to Step 2B of the guidance. At Step 2B, we determine if the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or simply appends well understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See 2019 Guidance.
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mental processes). Claim 1 is directed to a generic controller (that includes a BRI of a mere computer processor) that receives/collects driving data, performs abstract data analysis on said driving data, and modifies a vehicle brake system based on the result that includes a BRI of data output steps into a database, or perhaps updating data tables in a database. Claim 1 contains a plurality of steps that can be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art and/or are purely mathematical in nature, but are merely performed on a generic computer, and therefore falls within the “mental processes” grouping as well as “mathematical concepts” grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the data analysis steps of the abstract idea above, the only additional elements recited in claim 1 are collecting and inputting driving data, and modifying a braking system of the vehicle, both considered to be is data manipulation steps performable by any generic computer processor. Claim 1 does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 1 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 1 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements 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. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Independent claim 20 is the non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by the processor/controller of claim 1, performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Dependent claims 2-17 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. Therefore dependent claims 2-17 are rejected in the same or a similar manner as claims 1 and 20, above.
Examiner Note: As best understood in view of 35 USC § 112(b) issues outlined above, claim 18 appears to implement a braking start point and braking intensity to the braking system in order to match a (calculated, abstract) driver’s braking pattern. This is considered a meaningful application of the abstract ideas of claims 1-4 and 6-17 of which claim 18 depends. Claim 19 is not rejected at least due to dependency upon claim 18.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adiprasito et al. (US 20230373487 A1) herein Adiprasito, in view of Filev et al. (US 20120203399 A1) herein Filev and Olney et al. (US 20050080565 A1) herein Olney.
In regards to Claim 1, as best understood, Adiprasito discloses the following:
1. A driving pattern regenerative braking method of a vehicle, (see at least Abstract “automated longitudinal control of a vehicle”) the method comprising:
collecting and inputting, by a controller, driving data; (see at least [0139]-[0140] “capture driver data”)
extracting, by the controller, deceleration data through preprocessing the driving data; (see at least [0141] “identified that the driving function (for example on account of the late detection of a traffic light, on account of late switching of the traffic light to amber, on account of a concealed camera 103, etc.) can no longer react in good time to the traffic light”)
Adiprasito is silent, but Filev teaches the following:
clustering, by the controller, the deceleration data and removing outliers; (see at least Fig. 17 and [0020] “FIG. 17 is a plot of an example relative range, range-error and longitudinal acceleration between a leading and following car for aggressive driving”, see also Fig. 19, “cautious driving”, and [0090] “low-pass filtered .DELTA.s and .DELTA.v to replace the gap offset reference x.sub.g and its derivative {dot over (x)}.sub.g, and considering the time delays” and “conditional least square identification algorithm”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Filev with the invention of Adiprasito, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing or suppressing the unnecessary output of information to the driver of the vehicle on the basis of the driver data (Adiprasito, [0138]-[0139]) and/or with the motivation of preventing forward collisions (Filev, [0001]-[0002]) while also preventing unnecessary warnings for expert drivers (Filev, [0073]).
Adiprasito is silent, but Olney teaches the following:
calculating, by the controller, a deceleration rate change and an inter-vehicle distance to a vehicle in front from clustered data; (see at least [0047] “The T.sub.ares PM is used to determine how much time the driver is allowed to react to an extreme stop condition without colliding with the lead vehicle. The driver, who usually follows the lead vehicle with short T.sub.ares, is likely to be an aggressive driver since he/she has less time to deal with such situation. This T.sub.ares, estimated from host vehicle velocity, lead vehicle velocity, and range, can be obtained by solving a second order polynomial equation (1)” and [0048] “where a.sub.max is the maximum acceleration, d.sub.max is the maximum deceleration, J.sub.max is the maximum allowed jerk, and sum.sub.ad is the summation of a.sub.max and d.sub.max.”)
deriving, by the controller, a quadratic equation of the deceleration rate change and the distance to the vehicle in front through polynomial regression; (see at least [0047] “second order polynomial equation”)
determining, by the controller, whether the derived quadratic equation satisfies a predetermined condition; (see at least [0070] “an individual driver for any warning system to appropriately adjust the warning timing to suit his/her driving style. As previously described, the timing for forewarning may be adjusted to the driver's attitude in different driving conditions”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Olney with the invention of Adiprasito, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing or suppressing the unnecessary output of information to the driver of the vehicle on the basis of the driver data (Adiprasito, [0138]-[0139]) and/or with the motivation of preventing false alarm interventions for a driver who is aggressive in driving behavior, who tends to drive fast and keeps a short distance from the leading vehicle, and/or prevent a collision a driver who is conservative in driving behavior where the intervention may be too late. (Olney, [0004]-[0006])
Adiprasito, as modified, discloses the following:
and modifying by the controller, a regenerative braking system of the vehicle based on the quadratic equation being satisfied. (see at least [0021] “The vehicle guidance system may also be configured to cause the vehicle to be stopped in an automated manner at the detected signaling unit if it is determined that the vehicle must stop at the signaling unit…. During the automated deceleration process, the vehicle guidance system can control one or more wheel brakes (for example one or more friction brakes or one or more regenerative brakes) in an automated manner”)
Independent claim 20 is the non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by the processor/controller of claim 1, performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood, claims 2-19 are further objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As best understood, the available prior art does not appear to teach or suggest 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: calculating orthogonal distances and removing deceleration data furthest away in orthogonal distance from the quadratic equation based on the predetermined condition not being satisfied. Claims 3-19 depend on claim 2, and are therefore also considered allowable at least in view of dependency to claim 2.
Applicant should note that this is in view of the prior art only, as best understood. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 outlined above must be addressed before an allowance is made.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
S. Yang and H. Peng, “Development of an Errorable Car-Following Driver Model,” Vehicle System Dynamics, Volume 48, Issue 6, October 2009, pp.751-773. Yang et al. teaches an “errorable” stochastic car-following driver model to capture driver errors caused by perceptual limitations and distraction. They model the driver’s acceleration with a deterministic mean response, and develop a driver “gain” parameterized with polynomials of following range/distance.
Loria et al. (US 20150203108 A1) - Loria et al. teaches adaptive cruise control with stop and go, and forward collision warning, including collect specific vehicle data and then calculate values that populate a histogram representing driver habits and tendencies regarding following and stopping distances in relation to objects ahead of the vehicle. (Abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
December 26, 2025
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669