DETAILED ACTION
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 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 1-17 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-17 recites at least one step or instruction for determining a defect state which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The requirements of the claims are to read data and come to a conclusion as to what the data means which is simply observation and judgement. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-17recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 13 recites (I typically bolded additional elements and underlined abstract ideas) (additional element);
A method for a vehicle wherein the vehicle has a drive axle with a drive wheel and a reference axle with a reference wheel, wherein a drive torque generated by a drive motor is transferrable to an underlying surface by a drive train of the vehicle via the drive wheel and the drive torque of the drive motor cannot be transferred to the underlying surface via the reference wheel of the reference axle, the reference wheel rotating automatically as a result of movement of the vehicle, the monitoring unit comprising: a non-transitory storage medium having program code stored thereon; said program code being configured, when executed by a processor, to: read-in a drive variable, wherein the drive variable is dependent on a motor revolution rate of the drive motor of the vehicle; read-in a reference variable, wherein the reference variable is dependent on a reference wheel revolution rate of the reference wheel of the vehicle; determine whether there is a deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable in order to determine whether the reference wheel revolution rate of the reference wheel lies in a predetermined relationship to the motor revolution rate of the drive motor, wherein when there is a deviation from the predetermined relationship, the monitoring unit can conclude that there is a mechanical defect state of the drive train of the vehicle; and, output a state signal indicating the mechanical defect state.
This details observation, judgment and evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG). Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-12, 15-17 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, 13, 14 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-12, 15-17) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 13, 14), 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: Vehicle, motor, axles, wheels and monitoring unit as recited in independent Claim 1, 13, 14 and its dependent claims; are generically recited vehicle elements in independent Claims 1, 13, 14 (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, 13, 14 (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., _monitoring unit 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, 13, 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 13, 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-17 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: Vehicle, motor, axles, wheels and monitoring unit as recited in independent Claim 1, 13, 14 and its dependent claims.
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, ¶33 the monitoring unit is simply a processor that performs “processing”.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term monitoring unit 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 monitoring unit. 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 1-17 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 apparatuses, systems and methods of Claims 1-17 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 1-17 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 1-17 (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, Claims1-17 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 1-17 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-17 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) 1-8, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Okumura (U.S. Pat. No. 11,590,944).
Regarding claim 1 and 13, Okumura discloses a method for determining a mechanical defect state of a drive train of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle has a drive axle with a drive wheel and a reference axle separate from the drive axle with a reference wheel, wherein a drive torque generated by a drive motor is transferrable to an underlying surface by the drive train via the drive wheel and the drive torque of the drive motor is not transferrable to the underlying surface via the reference wheel of the reference axle, the reference wheel rotating automatically as a result of movement of the vehicle, the method comprising:
reading-in a drive variable, wherein the drive variable is dependent on a motor revolution rate of the drive motor (“motor rotational speed”);
reading-in a reference variable, wherein the reference variable is dependent on a reference wheel revolution rate of the reference wheel (“wheel speed” are determined by sensors 11l and 11r which are not the drive axle);
determining whether there is a deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable for determining whether the reference wheel revolution rate of the reference wheel lies in a predetermined relationship to the motor revolution rate of the drive motor, wherein when there is a deviation from the predetermined relationship a conclusion is drawn as to the presence of the mechanical defect state in the drive train; and
outputting a signal indicating the mechanical defect state (col. 8, line 67 – col. 9, line 10 The system compares the motor and wheel rotational speeds and outputs signals to have them match when there is a discrepancy these signals can be construed as meaning there is a defect).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Okumura discloses wherein if there is a deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable, the mechanical defect state of the drive train is concluded (in noticing the deviation the system sends signals to correct), taking into account a normal state of the drive train (fig. 6 is the system going back to normal).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 2, Okumura discloses wherein the mechanical defect state is not concluded if a deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable is caused only due to a normal state of the drive train (the system does this during transient states); and, the drive train in the normal state does not have a defect despite a detected deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable (“normal state” can be considered the stop state).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 3, Okumura discloses wherein the deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable that can be detected in a normal state is learned in advance (input as a “zero” state of rotation).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 2, Okumura discloses wherein a deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable in the normal state results from gearwheel play in a gearbox of the drive train (4 is a differential gear which is disclosed as determining the average speed of the wheels in col. 9, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Okumura discloses wherein the mechanical defect state is concluded from a deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable only if this deviation occurs in the event of and/or as a result of at least one of:
a change in the drive torque transferred to the underlying surface via the drive wheel (braking torque option addressed); and,
a change in a braking torque transferred to the underlying surface via the drive wheel (this analysis is being performed because of a desire for braking torque and it changes as torque is applied).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 6, Okumura discloses wherein the mechanical defect state is concluded from a deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable only if this deviation results from:
the change in the drive torque of the drive motor with a sign change (braking is applied when the accelerator is at zero with the start of regenerative braking); or
the change in at least one of the drive torque of the drive motor and the braking torque to zero (sign change option addressed); or
the change in at least one of the drive torque of the drive motor and the braking torque starting from zero (sign change option addressed).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 1, Okumura discloses wherein the drive variable and the reference variable each have an oscillating curve (shown in fig. 8); and, the drive variable and the reference variable are recorded by an incrementally measuring revolution rate sensor (10 are the wheel sensors and col. 6, lines 7-9 is the motor sensor).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 1, Okumura wherein the drive train is in the mechanical defect state when a wheel nut fastening the drive wheel to a drive wheel hub is so loose that a deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable occurs in the event of at least one of a change in the drive torque transferred to the underlying surface via the drive wheel and a change in a braking torque transferred to the underlying surface via the drive wheel, since the reference wheel revolution rate of the reference wheel is at least temporarily no longer related to the motor revolution rate of the drive motor (This claim is defining the situation that would be present in all vehicles under these conditions. Is this method claim limitation stating that the system will output this signal?).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 1, Okumura discloses wherein at least one of:
the motor revolution rate of the drive (col. 6, lines 7-9) and/or
a drive hub revolution rate of a drive wheel hub in a same drive train is read-in as a drive variable, wherein the drive wheel is arranged on the drive wheel hub and the drive hub revolution rate corresponds to the motor revolution rate of the drive motor at least during the transfer of the drive torque; and, a reference hub revolution rate of a reference wheel hub on a reference axle is read-in as a reference variable, wherein the reference wheel is arranged on the reference wheel hub (motor revolution option addressed).
Regarding claim 14, Okumura discloses vehicle comprising: a drive axle with a drive wheel; a reference axle with a reference wheel; a drive train; a drive configured to generate a drive torque, wherein said drive torque is transferable to an underlying surface by said drive train via said drive wheel and said drive torque is not transferrable to the underlying surface via said reference wheel; a drive revolution rate sensor being assigned to said drive axle and configured to determine a drive variable; a reference revolution rate sensor being assigned to the reference axle and configured to determine a reference variable; a monitoring unit including a non-transitory storage medium having program code stored thereon; said program code being configured, when executed by a processor, to: read-in the drive variable, wherein the drive variable is dependent on a motor revolution rate of the drive of the vehicle; read-in the reference variable, wherein the reference variable is dependent on a reference wheel revolution rate of the reference wheel of the vehicle; determine whether there is a deviation between the read-in drive variable and the read-in reference variable in order to determine whether the reference wheel revolution rate of the reference wheel is related to the motor revolution rate of the drive, wherein if there is a deviation, the monitoring unit can conclude that there is a defect state of the drive train of the vehicle; and, output a state signal if the drive train is in the defect state (The limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claims 1 and 8).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 14, Okumura discloses wherein said drive is an electric motor (2) for generating the drive torque and the drive revolution rate sensor is a motor revolution rate sensor (col. 6, lines 7-9 is the motor sensor) which directly detects the motor revolution rate as the drive variable.
Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 14, Okumura wherein the vehicle is a commercial vehicle (this disclosed vehicle can be used for commercial purposes).
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 1, Okumura further comprising searching for a mechanical defect in the drive train based on the mechanical defect state indicated by said signal (the feedback process in col. 9, line 10 can be construed as a search for the defect).
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) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura (U.S. Pat. No. 11,590,944) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and Feroz (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0364990.
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 8, Okumura disclose wherein the mechanical defect state of the drive train is concluded if the deviation is caused by a second offset in the drive variable; the second offset is caused by a changed period length of the oscillating curve of the drive variable; and, the second offset cannot be detected in the oscillating curve of the reference variable (fig. 7 shows a brief and not periodic change in oscillating curves that shows up in the motor but not the wheel speed).
Where it can be argued that the Okumura oscillation is not sufficient to address the limitations of claim 9 then Feroz, which deals in wheel and motor speeds, teaches wherein the defect state of the drive train is concluded if the deviation is caused by a second offset in the drive variable; the second offset is caused by a changed period length of the oscillating curve of the drive variable; and, the second offset cannot be detected in the oscillating curve of the reference variable (¶24 discloses an offset that is present in the wheel and different from the offset that is present in the motor which is indicative of the clutch not being engaged).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Okumura with the teachings of Feroz because this allows the clutch to engage so that the motor is able to provided power and braking.
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 9, Feroz discloses wherein the period length of the oscillating curve of the drive variable changes briefly and not periodically when the drive train is in the mechanical defect state (fig. 7 shows a brief and not periodic change in oscillating curves that shows up in the motor but not the wheel speed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 1-5 that the 101 rejection is not appropriate because the idea is tied to a real world machine to provide technological improvement. Where the system is a real world system it is claimed generally to allow a generic computer and a generic sensor and a generic vehicle to satisfy the physical structure. Then a computer receives information from those sensors in well known and generic ways to produce a determination. This determination changes nothing about the system except the signals inside of the processor and so does not escape the abstract realm. As a result this is a system that is capable, because of the physical structure, of doing many things that could even be new and innovative but it is currently not claimed to do it. If the output signal for the mechanical defect was shutting down the mechanical device that was defective, or changed operation to not cause further damage, this would allow for the idea to no longer be considered abstract, but the claims merely state a controller is able to produce a signal about the defect that may or may not be received by anyone or anything.
Applicant argues on pages 5-8 that the Okumura reference does not find a fault with a mechanical defect but a dynamic operating condition and that the response in the advisory action is insufficient because the courts have found that solving a new problem with the same data is new. The problem that is being solved is that the controller is thinking about the data with a different label than the citation. This is an abstract idea placing limitations on the signals inside of a processor which is a distinction in the abstract realm of unpatentable subject matter. One way to distinguish is to do something with this signal that is different than the citation. As to how this dynamic problem rises to the level of a “mechanical defect” one has to only consider that each wheel would have a different tendency to lock up. That variation can be labeled/considered a mechanical issue to be fixed.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 that the motor speed is correlated to the wheel speed. The motor speed is directly correlated to the wheel speed and is the reason for calculating an expected speed of the wheels because of what the motor is expected to have caused the wheels to do. This is made clear by the citation that was made to the reference in col. 8, line 67 – col. 9, line 1 “A motor rotational speed corresponding to the target wheel speed (target MG rotational speed) is calculated based on the wheel speed and a reduction ratio” having made this correlation between motor and wheel speed one can make the comparison of the claims by looking at sensed wheel speed and calculated wheel speed. This control calculation is construed as being a relationship determination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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