Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application DE10 2022 131 854.0 filed on 12/01/2022.
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, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
Yes claims 1, 5 are directed towards an apparatus and a method, respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The process in claims 1, 5 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper and as such is directed toward and abstract idea. The claim consists of ascertaining a scope of functions of the vehicle, this is similar to a human determining what functions are available and unavailable in the vehicle such as a windshield wiper, a radio control, or even a cruise control is known to not be available under a certain speed limit. Ascertaining parameters of the vehicle that can influence availability of the function is similar to a human determining at a low speed, the adaptive cruise cannot be activated. Ascertaining a current functional state is similar to reading the speed and determining that the ACC will not be operable at the speed. Note: so as to distinguish is considered intended use and does not hold patentable weight. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual determination of the attitude of the vehicle.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 5 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. the operator electronic control unit that includes operating elements is cited with high level of generality and is considered a generic linking for displaying the available functions. control the operator electronic control unit in sch a way that the ascertain function is outputted, this is considered apply it level such as displaying an output, which is considered mere data gathering. The control unit and vehicle are cited with high level of generality and are considered apply it level to apply the abstract idea via a control unit of the vehicle.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 5 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. the additional limitations include control the operator electronic control unit, this is considered sending a signal such as displaying an output, which is considered mere data gathering. the operator electronic control unit that includes operating elements is cited with high level of generality and is considered a generic linking for displaying the available functions. The control unit and vehicle and operator control unit are considered apply it level. for the control of display step, See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1,5: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7 only define the ascertaining which are part of the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 5.
The vehicle in claim 4 is apply it level.
The readable medium, and computer of claim 8 are considered apply it level. the execution of instructions are mere data gathering.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kohlbecker (DE102004009793) in view of Strandberg (US20200254875).
Regarding claim 1, Kohlbecker teaches an apparatus comprising:
An operator electronic control unit of a vehicle, wherein the operator electronic control unit includes operating elements corresponding to enabled vehicle functions and wherein the available vehicle functions are controllable via user interaction with the corresponding operating elements ([15]-[15] disclosing displaying on the screen “operator electronic unit” the functions available for operation by a user); and
an electronic control unit configured to ([24] disclosing the ECU performing the evaluation and displaying of the functions).
ascertain a scope of vehicle functions, wherein the scope of functions includes available vehicle functions and unavailable vehicle functions ([14]-[17], [29]-[34] disclosing displaying on a screen based functions available in the vehicle, based on ascertaining the scope of available and unavailable functions);
ascertain operating parameters of the vehicle, wherein the operating parameters influence whether vehicle functions are available or unavailable ([14]-[16] disclosing ascertaining the current driving situation that affects availability of the functions of the vehicle, such as the evaluating information of actuating means, sensor systems, communication systems);
ascertain a current functional state of the operator electronic control unit from the ascertained scope of functions and the operating parameters, wherein the current functional state indicates the available vehicle functions ([14]-[17] disclosing determining which functions are available “state” and displaying the available functions for the driver to change based on the available functions from the scope of functions that are determined available from the operating parameters of vehicle such as route of vehicle, see also [29]-[33], [34]);
and control the operator electronic control unit in accordance with the functional state ([29]-[34] disclosing the control unit controls the display in such a way that the state is ascertained and can be controlled by a driver on the screen, the screen is interpreted as the operator control unit where the functions can be adjusted).
Strandberg teaches the operating elements corresponding to unenabled vehicle functions, and control the operator electronic control unit in accordance with the functional state so as to distinguish the operating elements corresponding to the available functions over the operating elements corresponding to the unavailable functions ([0070] disclosing the operating elements on the display are controlled to be greyed out when they are disabled/unavailable whereas the other available operating elements are not greyed out to visually distinguish the available functions).
Kohlbecker solves the problem of displaying the available functions for the user to easily be able to distinguish available functions, Strandberg solves the same problem by displaying the available functions in a different color such as greying out the unavailable function, thus it is obvious to substitute the method of Strandberg with the method of Kohlbecker yielding predictable results in order to distinguish the available functions as taught by Strandberg [0070].
Regarding claim 2, Kohlbecker as modified by Strandberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the ascertainment of the scope of vehicle functions of the vehicle comprises: ascertaining vehicle functions that are available in the vehicle and can be operated by way of the operator electronic control unit (Kohlbecker [14]-[17], [29]-[34] disclosing the functions are available and can be operated on the screen).
Regarding claim 3, Kohlbecker as modified by Strandberg teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the ascertainment of the operating parameters that can influence an availability of at least one vehicle function comprises: ascertaining a current geographical position of the vehicle; ascertaining a currently used route section; ascertaining a current speed of the vehicle; ascertaining a currently activated vehicle function; and/or
ascertaining any operating parameter of the vehicle that is suitable for influencing an availability of at least one vehicle function (Kohlbecker [14]-[17], [29]-[34] disclosing the operating parameters being a location, a route or a street where the vehicle is located).
Regarding claim 4, Kohlbecker as modified by Strandberg teaches a vehicle comprising the apparatus according to claim 1 ([14]-[17], [29] disclosing the vehicle comprising the device and control unit).
Claims 5-7 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-3, see above rejection.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by unpatentable by Kohlbecker (US102004009793) in view of Strandberg (US20200254875).
Regarding claim 8, Kohlbecker as modified by Strandberg teaches when executed by one or more computing system to perform the method according to claim 5 (Kohlbecker [14]-19], [29]-[37]).
Kohlbecker as modified by Strandberg further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions operable.
Specifically, Strandberg teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions operable ([0031] disclosing the non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions to execute the program).
Kohlberg discloses the computer performing a method, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified to the teaching of Kohlbecker as modified by Strandberg to incorporate a storage medium as taught by Strandberg for storing the instructions of the method performed by the ECU with reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, the rejections remains, please see rejection above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the amendment of the independent claims, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20220332308 disclosing displaying available functions with different colors.
US11338820 discloses determining available driving assistance packages based on the environment, the driver information and proposing the package to driver.
DE102019207750 teaches displaying available functions in the vehicle.
US20210309245 discloses based on a change of environment, different vehicle functions are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B