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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on -03/21/2024- is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1 and 11 recite “A method/system …. to enhance security of odometer”. It is not clear what an enhance security of odometer exactly mean. Examiner considers securely calculating and storing the odometer data. Applicant is suggested to remove the unclear highlighted term.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 are rejected under 112(b) due to dependency of their respective independent claims 1 and 11.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A method, performed by at least one processor of a system implemented in a vehicle to enhance security of odometer information, comprising:
obtaining, from an odometer electronic controller unit (ECU), one or more odometer information;
storing the one or more odometer information into an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) ECU;
obtaining a usage table;
determining whether or not a boundary condition defined in the usage table is met; and based on determining that the boundary condition is met, storing the one or more odometer information into an e-Fuse based on the usage table.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (process).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of “determining whether or not a boundary condition defined in the usage table is met” is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process.
These mental steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claim 11.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional elements/steps processor, odometer, ECU, e-Fuse and (program/software – method) are recited in generality and represent extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A method, performed by…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “obtaining from an odometer…, storing the one or more…., obtaining a usage table, and based on determining…, storing the one or more odometer …” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering and storing data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 11, the additional elements/steps are same as claim 1, processor, ECU, e-Fuse (memory) and odometer - generic computer components recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A system implemented…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “obtaining from an odometer…, storing the one or more…., obtaining a usage table, and based on determining…, storing the one or more odometer …” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering and storing data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2-10, 12-20 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1, 11 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to claim 1 and 11.
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) 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor et al US 20080294312 A1 herein after “O’Connor” in view of Camisa US 20160341559 A.
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor teaches a method, performed by at least one processor of a system implemented in a vehicle to enhance security of odometer information (Abstract: Aspects of the present invention are directed at securely calculating and storing odometer data associated with a vehicle), comprising: obtaining, from an odometer electronic controller unit (ECU), one or more odometer information (Fig. 1, 2. para [0017] With regard to the present invention, the electronic control unit 102 regularly calculates a set of odometer data during operation of the truck 100. In this regard, the electronic control unit 102 may be configured to obtain input from sensors when calculating the engine odometer data);
From above paragraph examiner views the odometer values or information is obtained from engine electronic control module 102.
storing the one or more odometer information into an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) ECU (para [0042] At decision block 330, a determination is made regarding whether a triggering event occurred that will cause a set of odometer data updated by the calculation method 300 to be saved back to non-volatile memory. In one embodiment, the calculation method 300 periodically saves a set of odometer data back to non-volatile memory (e.g., the EEPROM 116) each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 kilometers);
Examiner views the odometer values or information is stored in a cab mounted electronic control unit (i.e., in vehicle infotainment (IVI) ECU)
obtaining a usage table (para [0042] In one embodiment, the calculation method 300 periodically saves a set of odometer data back to non-volatile memory (e.g., the EEPROM 116) each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 kilometers));
Examiner views the predetermined distance (i.e., usage distance) are periodically (i.e., with time) stored in the memory. The applicant stores the usage time and distance in a table.
determining whether or not a boundary condition defined in the usage table is met (para [0042] If the vehicle has not traveled the predetermined distance and the threshold has not been satisfied,); and
Examiner views the distance travelled by the vehicle is checked to determine if the distance meets the stored predetermined/threshold condition (i.e., boundary condition is met that defined in the usage table stored in a memory).
O’Connor does not clearly teach based on determining that the boundary condition is met, storing the one or more odometer information into an e-Fuse based on the usage table.
Camisa teaches based on determining that the boundary condition is met, storing the one or more odometer information into an e-Fuse based on the usage table (para [0053] In several embodiments, once the vehicle ignition status is determined to be active, the distance the vehicle moves can be accumulated. If the vehicle moves over a threshold distance within a threshold time, the start of a trip can be registered based on the motion of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is in motion, a variety of vehicle status data can be obtained and/or stored.)
From above paragraph Examiner views the distance travelled by the vehicle is checked to determine if the distance meets the stored predetermined/threshold condition (i.e., boundary condition that defined in the usage table). If the vehicle moves the required threshold distance within a threshold time. The distance, time or odometer information is stored in a memory (i.e., comprises e-Fuse) based on the usage table.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated camisa into O’Connor for the purpose of confirming if the vehicle has travelled a required distance so that the accurate odometer reading can be securely stored in a memory.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of O’Connor and Camisa teach the method according to claim 1, O’Connor teaches wherein the storing the one or more odometer information into the IVI ECU comprises: periodically storing the one or more odometer information into the IVI ECU according to a predefined cycle (Fig. 1. para [0020] Accordingly, odometer data calculated by the odometer management system 120 is committed for storage on the EEPROM 116 at regularly occurring intervals or when operation of the vehicle terminates.
Para [0024] In this regard, odometer data as updated by the odometer management system 120 is periodically saved to non-volatile memory.).
From above paragraphs examiner views the vehicle odometer information is periodically stored in memory of Cab-mounted electronic control unit (IVI ECU) according to the regular occurring intervals (i.e., predefined cycle).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of O’Connor and Camisa teach the method according to claim 1, O’Connor teaches further comprising: determining whether or not the vehicle has entered an ignition ON (IG-ON) state ([0031] Now with reference to FIG. 3, a calculation method 300 that updates a vehicle's odometer on behalf of a run-mode component of the odometer management 120 will be described);
Here examiner views the run-mode as the vehicle is operating mode (i.e., ignition on state).
based on determining that the vehicle has entered the IG-ON state, comparing the one or more odometer information stored in the IVI ECU with the one or more odometer information stored in the e-Fuse (Fig. 1A para [0035] More specifically, an official engine odometer value was that was retrieved from non-volatile memory in a cab-mounted electronic control unit 106 may be compared with an engine odometer value that originated from the vehicle's engine.)
Examiner views the odometer data in memory of ECU 102 (i.e., effuse) is compared with odometer data from memory of the cab-mounted electronic control unit (i.e., IVI ECU); and
based on determining that the one or more odometer information stored in the IVI ECU is different from the one or more odometer information stored in the e-Fuse (para [0031] When received, a comparison is performed to determine whether the received odometer data that originated from the vehicle's engine is inconsistent with previously received odometer data. In this regard, the calculation method 300 performs processing to account for any attempted tampering of the received odometer data. Also, instances when a different engine has been installed in the vehicle are identified and accounted for in managing a vehicle's odometer.),
From above paragraphs examiner views different odometer is determined from the comparison of odometer data from memory of ECU 102 (i.e., effuse) and cab-mounted electronic control unit (i.e., IVI ECU);
initiating one or more vehicle operations (para [0031] Then, the calculation method 300 updates the vehicle's official odometer value to reflect ongoing operation of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of O’Connor and Camisa teach the method according to claim 7, O’Connor teaches wherein the one or more vehicle operations comprise: displaying a message to notify a driver of the vehicle (para [0018] Data collected from the various components may be processed by and presented to a vehicle operator. For example, data received from various electronic components associated with vehicle subsystems (collision detection, engine operation, cruise control, and the like) may be received and processed by the cab-mounted electronic control unit 106 so that data that describes the operation of the truck 100 may be presented on the dashboard display 108).
Examiner views the display include the vehicle or engine odometer information presented to a driver.
Claim 11, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected as claim 1, 2, 7 and 8 respectively having same claim limitation.
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of O’Connor and Camisa in view of Biondo et al US 20110077816 A1 herein after “Biondo”
Regarding claim 3, the combination of O’Connor and Camisa teach the method according to claim 1, O’Connor teaches wherein the boundary condition comprises a minimum traveling distance and wherein the determining whether or not the boundary condition is met comprises (para [0042] If the vehicle has not traveled the predetermined distance and the threshold has not been satisfied,):
based on determining that the distance traveled by the vehicle is shorter than the minimum traveling distance, determining that the boundary condition is not met (para [0042] If the vehicle has not traveled the predetermined distance and the threshold has not been satisfied).
Here Examiner views if the vehicle has not traveled a threshold distance (i.e., minimum distance), the boundary condition is not met.
Camisa teaches based on determining that the distance traveled by the vehicle is equal to or longer than the minimum traveling distance, determining that the boundary condition is met (para [0053] In several embodiments, once the vehicle ignition status is determined to be active, the distance the vehicle moves can be accumulated. If the vehicle moves over a threshold distance within a threshold time, the start of a trip can be registered based on the motion of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is in motion, a variety of vehicle status data can be obtained and/or stored.)
From above paragraph Examiner views the distance travelled by the vehicle is checked to determine if the distance meets the stored predetermined/threshold condition (i.e., boundary condition is met that defined in the usage table). If the vehicle distance moves the required threshold distance. The distance or odometer information is stored in a memory (i.e., e-Fuse) based on the usage table.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated camisa into O’Connor for the purpose of confirming if the vehicle has travelled a required distance so that the accurate odometer reading can be securely stored in a memory.
Biondo teaches determining whether or not the vehicle has entered an ignition off (IG-OFF) state ( para [0043] When the ignition off is the trigger, the still active telematics unit 13 will retrieve the desired odometer and position information off of the still active vehicle bus 34.)
based on determining that the vehicle has entered the IG-OFF state, determining whether or not a distance traveled by the vehicle has met the minimum traveling distance (para [0043] When the ignition off is the trigger, the still active telematics unit 13 will retrieve the desired odometer and position information off of the still active vehicle bus 34.
Para [0059] When odometer tampering has not occurred, this difference (i.e., the odometer value change) should equal (or be within a predetermined threshold of) a distance corresponding with a vehicle position change, as shown at reference numeral 220);
Examiner views at the ignition off state, the odometer information is retrieved of determine the travel distance by the vehicle is equal or within a predetermined threshold distance (i.e., the vehicle has met the minimum travel distance).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Biondo into O’Connor for the purpose of confirming if the vehicle has travelled a required distance so that the accurate odometer reading can be determined.
Claim 13 is rejected as claim 3 having same claim limitation.
Claim(s) 4-6, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of O’Connor and Camisa in view of Beyer et al US 20050177337 A1 herein after “Beyer”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of O’Connor and Camisa teach the method according to claim 1, the combination does not clearly teach wherein the usage table is an exponential growth-based usage table comprising a plurality of mappings based on an exponential growth rate, and wherein each of the mappings comprises a distance traveled by the vehicle and an associated timing to store the one or more odometer information into the e-Fuse.
Beyer teaches wherein the usage table is an exponential growth-based usage table comprising a plurality of mappings based on an exponential growth rate (para [0011] The method may be implemented using any suitable statistical methods or techniques, or other algorithms for forecasting vehicle usage and/or for assessing data quality. Statistical techniques that have been found to be suitable for use with the invention include, for example, linear and non-linear regressions. For example, the use of non-linear regression may be preferable where vehicle usage fluctuates considerably over a period of time)
Examiner views the non-linear regression (i.e., exponential growth) maps for distance and time for table shown in Fig. 9. and wherein each of the mappings comprises a distance traveled by the vehicle and an associated timing to store the one or more odometer information into the e-Fuse (para [0008] In one embodiment, the invention provides a method, performed by a computer, for estimating a distance a vehicle will be driven during a designated period of time. The method comprises the computer verifying that stored data representing historical mileage information for a vehicle is accurate; mathematically determining a forecast of mileage the vehicle will be driven during a designated time period, using the stored historical information; assessing a probable error associated with the mileage forecast; and storing the forecast usage in permanent or temporary memory.)
Fig. 9 shows the distance traveled by vehicle and the associated timing for odometer reading. The odometer reading is recorded in memory (i.e., e-Fuse).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Beyer into O’Connor for the purpose of analyzing the vehicle usage distance and time using a non-linear regression/exponential curve so that the current and future usage of the vehicle can be predicted and stored in memory.
Claim 14 is rejected as claim 4 for having same claim limitations.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of O’Connor and Camisa teach the method according to claim 4, O’Connor teaches wherein the storing the one or more odometer information into the e-Fuse comprises:
selecting, based on the distance traveled by the vehicle, a mapping from among the plurality of mappings (para [0042] In one embodiment, the calculation method 300 periodically saves a set of odometer data back to non-volatile memory (e.g., the EEPROM 116) each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 kilometers));
Examiner views once the vehicle moves a selected predetermined threshold distance is mapped with timings.
determining, based on the selected providing mapping, a timing to store the one or more odometer information into the e-Fuse (para [0042])
from above paragraph examiner views the time to store the odometer information into memory (i.e., e-Fuse) is determined once the vehicle travels the predetermined distance. and storing the one or more odometer information into the e-Fuse according to the determined timing (para [0042] )
Examiner views the predetermined distance (i.e., usage distance) are periodically (i.e., with time) stored in the memory (i.e., e-Fuse).
Claim 15 is rejected as claim 5 for having same claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of O’Connor and Camisa teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising: the combination does not clearly teach determining whether or not the usage of the vehicle has exceeded a predefined period; based on determining that the usage of the vehicle has exceeded the predefined period, performing a slope line analysis to determine a current usage trend of the vehicle; and updating the usage table based on the current usage trend.
determining whether or not the usage of the vehicle has exceeded a predefined period (para [0059] At 502, it is determined whether the most recent historical data point is older than a defined threshold, for example, 120, 90, 60, or 30 days. If the relevant data is older than the defined threshold, an alternative method 514 may be used.);
Here examiner views the vehicle usage days were compared with the threshold usage (i.e., periods)
based on determining that the usage of the vehicle has exceeded the predefined period ([0090] At 715, the customer may access the forecast, for example, via the Internet, review the forecast and, if necessary, modify it, when the customer believes, for example, that the historical usage has been lower or higher than the anticipated usage of the vehicle and is authorized to modify the data and/or the analysis. ), performing a slope line analysis to determine a current usage trend of the vehicle ([0090] In addition to a numerical mileage estimate, the customer may be provided with a visual representation of the forecast process, for example, a regression analysis graph showing an R.sup.2 value, in order to illustrate to the customer how the forecast was obtained and to allow the customer to evaluate the accuracy of the forecast.);
when the usage (i.e., period) is determined to be higher than the anticipated usage (i.e., exceed the predefined period), a regression analysis is performed (i.e., slope line anlaysis) to forecast or predict the current or future usage.
and updating the usage table based on the current usage trend (para [0090] The updated forecast is then stored at 720).
Then the updated vehicle usage forecast (i.e., present or future) trend is updated.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Beyer into O’Connor for the purpose of confirming if the vehicle has travelled a required distance so that the accurate odometer reading can be determined for present or future use.
Claim 16 is rejected as claim 6 having same claim limitation.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of O’Connor and Camisa in view of Lumley et al US 20100188192 A1 herein after “Lumley”
Regarding claim 9, the combination of O’Connor and Camisa teach the method according to claim 7, the combination does not clearly teach wherein the one or more vehicle operations comprise: instructing an engine immobilizer to disable one or more operations of the engine of the vehicle.
Lumley teaches wherein the one or more vehicle operations comprise: instructing an engine immobilizer to disable one or more operations of the engine of the vehicle (para [0014] When the ignition module 12 provides a disable signal to the engine immobilizer/starting circuitry 16, the vehicle engine 20 cannot be started. As a default condition, the ignition module 12 provides the disable signal to the engine immobilizer/starting circuitry 16.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Lumley into O’Connor for the purpose of confirming if the vehicle ignition has be turned off so the vehicle is immobilized.
Claim 19 is rejected as claim 9 having same claim limitation.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of O’Connor and Camisa in view of Saha US 20200317182 A1
Regarding claim 10, the combination of O’Connor and Camisa teach the method according to claim 1, the combination does not clearly teach wherein the e-fuse comprises one or more of: an e-Fuse associated with a powertrain ECU and an e-Fuse associated with an engine ECU.
Saha teaches wherein the e-fuse comprises one or more of: an e-Fuse associated with a powertrain ECU and an e-Fuse associated with an engine ECU (para [0024] The engine control circuit 116, the transmission control circuit 120, and the implement control circuit 124 may include one or more memory devices for storing instructions that are executable by the processor(s) of the engine control circuit 116, the transmission control circuit 120, and the implement control circuit 124. ).
Here Examiner views the e-Fuse as the memory. The transmission control circuit (i.e., powertrain ECU) has one memory and Engine control circuit (i.e., engine control module) has another memory.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Saha into O’Connor for the purpose of having separate memory for powertrain and engine ECUs so that the data related to powertrain and engine can be stored and processed individually.
Claim 20 is rejected as claim 10 having same claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carlson US 20090118899 A1 teaches securely storing and monitoring vehicle odometer.
Warner US 5541858 A1 teaches using vehicle odometer for trip recording and storing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights