CTNF 18/608,588 CTNF 91504 NON-FINAL REJECTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 3, replace “determing” with -- determining --. In claim 10, line 4, replace “determing” with -- determining --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 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. As to Step-1 test: result- YES (a method or an apparatus). Claims 1-18 are related to a process or method and thus, the claims pass Step-1 test. As to Step-2A test: result- NO (Abstract idea of itself). Claims 1-18 are rejected as not being directed to patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, specifically the recitations of “ determining a first speed value taking into account an instantaneous wheel speed ….;” “determining a second speed value taking into account a compensated longitudinal acceleration ….;” “determining a third speed value taking into account received GPS data;” and “determining a fourth speed value taking into account camera data …;” and “ estimating the true speed taking into account the first, second, third and fourth speed values” are directed to a mathematical procedure for converting one form of mathematical representation to another and therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite the steps of “ determining” different values and “ estimating” the true speed based on the different values is an abstract idea similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as – Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results on the collection and analysis ( Electric power Group ); Collecting and comparing known information ( Classen ); Organizing information through mathematical correlations ( Digitech ); Data recognition and storage ( Content Extraction ); Comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options ( SmartGene ); An algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition ( Grams ) - that are directed to mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations (or Mathematical Relationships/Formulas or Mathematical procedures for converting one form of mathematical representation to another) which the court has found as an abstract idea. As to Step-2B test: result- NO (Well known in the Art). The remainder of the claim limitations, e.g. “ evaluation electronics ”, is not an abstract idea, however, the structure is not found to be significantly more since the structure is routine and conventional as the structure is well known in the art, as disclosed in the Fairgrieve art for example, and the functions of the known structures are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering or data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea). Therefore, the claims are not directed to additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception. It is noted that Alice made it clear that different statutory categories should not be treated differently with regard to analysis of eligible subject matter. Conclusion 07-96 The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: FAIRGRIEVE et al. (US 2016/0244060 A1) teaches a vehicle speed control system is configured to automatically control the speed of the vehicle in dependence on an input set-speed [Abstract]. FAIRGRIEVE further teaches – “using sensor data indicative of the vehicle's speed over ground. Such a speed over ground determination may be made via global positioning (GPS) data , or via a vehicle mounted radar or laser-based system arranged to determine the relative movement of the vehicle and the ground over which it is travelling. A camera system may be employed for determining speed over ground in some embodiments [0063]. At step S103 the control system determines the actual vehicle speed, for example by reference to wheel speed sensors , GPS data or the like, and determines if the vehicle speed is below the LSP_control_speed” [0081]. Burford et al. (US 2018/0126987 Al) teaches A speed control system for a vehicle. The speed control system has a torque control for automatically causing application of positive and negative torque to one or more wheels of a vehicle to cause a vehicle to travel in accordance with a target speed value. The system receives information indicative of a gradient of a driving surface over which the vehicle is driving, with the torque control being configured to control the rate of change of the amount of torque applied to the one or more wheels, in order to attempt to maintain the vehicle traveling in accordance with the target speed value, in dependence at least in part on the gradient of the driving surface [Abstract]. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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. /SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/608,588 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/608,588 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/608,588 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/608,588 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855
Prosecution Insights