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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/22/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to claims and drawings are persuasive to overcome all objections as set forth in the most recent office action mailed 02/25/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. See new ground(s) of rejection below.
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, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, and fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
As to claims 9 and 12:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 9 and 12 are directed to a device.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 9 recites: a device for detecting an imbalance of a wheel of a vehicle, the device designed to:
identify a motor torque of a motor of a steering system of the vehicle (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations);
identify a rotor position of a rotor of the motor (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations); and
detect an imbalance of a first wheel as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position (which is directed to math).
Thus, claim 9 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept of abstract ideas. Mathematical algorithms are not eligible for patent protection. Mathematical algorithms are found by courts to be abstract (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981)). Claim 12 depends on claim 9. Claim 12 recites at least all of the judicial exceptions of claim 9, and therefore also recite limitations that fall into the mathematical concept of abstract ideas. Additionally, claim 12 recites nothing more than additional abstract ideas of field of use to implement the abstract ideas.
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding the data recited in claim 9, that because the device merely recites abstract ideas of data gathering/identifying and mathematical concepts, and not any particular structure or steps for gathering data, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of routine data generating and routine data collecting.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 9 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mathematical algorithms/formula/concept something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claims 9 and 12, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities of data generating and/or gathering and/or collecting and field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claims 9 and 12 do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claims.
Note that: as for claim 9, limitations of “identify a motor torque of a motor of a steering system of the vehicle; identify a rotor position of a rotor of the motor” are routine and conventional in power steering apparatus (as seen in para. 0179 of US 20210091700).
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 9 and 12, and claims 9 and 12 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
As to claims 1 and 5:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1 and 5 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 1 recites: a method for detecting imbalance of a wheel of a vehicle, comprising:
providing a motor torque of a motor of a steering system of the vehicle (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations);
providing a position of a rotor of the motor (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations); and
detecting the imbalance of a first wheel as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position (this is directed to math).
Thus, claim 1 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept of abstract ideas. Mathematical algorithms are not eligible for patent protection. Mathematical algorithms are found by courts to be abstract (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981)). Claim 5 depends on claim 1. Claim 5 recites at least all of the judicial exceptions of claim 1, and therefore also recite limitations that fall into the mathematical concept of abstract ideas. Additionally, claim 5 recites nothing more than additional abstract ideas of mental step (limitations of “a spectrum of the motor torque and/or the rotor position is determined using a Fast Fourier Transformation, or using a trained artificial intelligence; and the imbalance is detected when the spectrum deviates from a nominal spectrum” which is directed to mental step which can be done in human mind) to implement the abstract ideas.
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding the data recited in claim 1, that because the device merely recites abstract ideas of data gathering/identifying and mathematical concepts, and not any particular structure or steps for gathering data, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of routine data generating and routine data collecting.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mathematical algorithms/formula/concept something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claims 1 and 5, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities of data generating and/or gathering and/or collecting and field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claims 1 and 5 do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claims.
Note that: as for claim 1, limitations of “providing a motor torque of a motor of a steering system of the vehicle; providing a position of a rotor of the motor” are routine and conventional in power steering apparatus (as seen in para. 0179 of US 20210091700).
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 1 and 5, and claims 1 and 5 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
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, 5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 1 and 9 recites limitation "detecting the imbalance of a first wheel as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position", which render the claim indefinite because there is a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP 2173.03.
For example, while the claims directed to "detecting the imbalance of a first wheel as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position", para. 0034 of the instant specification states detecting the imbalance of a first wheel as a function of rotational speeds of the wheel and the rotor position. Hence, it is unclear.
As to claims 5 and 12, claims 5 and 12 are also rejected as they are dependent on claims 1 and 9 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “detecting the imbalance of a first wheel as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position”. Para. 0034 of the instant specification states detecting the imbalance of a first wheel as a function of rotational speeds of the wheel and the rotor position. The instant specification does not disclose how imbalance of a first wheel is detected as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position.
There is no disclosure as to how other factors are excluded i.e. when wheel travelling through potholes that can cause a difference in time. There is also no disclosure how the difference in time when wheel travelling through potholes can be attributed only to a wheel imbalance. Furthermore, wheel imbalance is due to asymmetrical mass distribution in the wheel. There is no disclosure as to how an asymmetrical mass distribution causes changes in motor torque and the rotor position.
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 12 dependent upon a rejected claims 1 and 9 are therefore rejected as well.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “detecting the imbalance of a first wheel as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position”. Para. 0034 of the instant specification states detecting the imbalance of a first wheel as a function of rotational speeds of the wheel and the rotor position. The instant specification does not disclose how imbalance of a first wheel is detected as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position.
There is no disclosure as to how other factors are excluded i.e. when wheel travelling through potholes that can cause a difference in time. There is also no disclosure how the difference in time when wheel travelling through potholes can be attributed only to a wheel imbalance. Furthermore, wheel imbalance is due to asymmetrical mass distribution in the wheel. There is no disclosure as to how an asymmetrical mass distribution causes changes in motor torque and the rotor position.
An adequate disclosure may require details of mathematical equations/formulas to determine the imbalance of a first wheel as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position. An adequate disclosure may also require details of how other factors are excluded i.e. when wheel travelling through potholes that can cause a difference in time. An adequate disclosure may also require details of how an asymmetrical mass distribution of wheel causes changes in motor torque and the rotor position.
The Examiner concluded that there was not an enabling disclosure because the specification did not describe how imbalance of a first wheel is detected as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position, with only a reasonable amount of experimentation" and that "an unreasonable amount of work would be required to arrive at the detailed relationships applicant says that he has solved." See also MPEP 2164.06 and 2164.06(a). The instant disclosure fails to provide a sufficient amount of direction provided to make and/or use the instant invention (Wands factor (F)), as well as providing any specific working examples employing all the method steps to have “imbalance of a first wheel is detected as a function of the motor torque and the rotor position” as recited in instant independent claims 1 and 9 (Wands factor (G)).
Thus, the instant specification fails to fully enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the instant claimed invention.
Note that: while the analysis and conclusion of a lack of enablement are based on the factors discussed in MPEP § 2164.01(a) and the evidence as a whole, it is not necessary to discuss each factor in the enablement rejection (see MPEP 2164.04).
Claims 5 and 12 dependent upon a rejected claims 1 and 9 are therefore rejected as well.
Conclusion
A proper comparison of the claimed invention to the prior art i.e. search and understanding of the claimed invention was not possible due to the numerous 112 Rejections as outlined above. Upon applicant' s amendment to overcome the rejections raised by the Examiner and upon the Examiner's better understanding of the invention a comparison of the prior art to the claims will again be made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights