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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the replacement drawing sheet overcomes the drawing objections, which are withdrawn.
Second, the claim amendments overcome the claim objections, which are withdrawn.
Third, applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation are not convincing, since the claims (in this respect) apparently recite either no structure (e.g., for manual operating unit, including for example only in dependent claim 10 which indicates only that the unit may be integrated into other structure) or insufficient structure (for the control unit) to perform the functions as recited in the claims. Accordingly, the examiner maintains his interpretation. Moreover, the examiner does not understand the “manual operating unit” to be a name for structure (see MPEP 2181[1]). Regarding the “control unit”, see also Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The recitation of ‘control device’ provides no more structure than the term ‘control means' itself, rather it merely replaces the word ‘means’ with the generic term ‘device.”’) The Court’s reasoning would apparently apply equally to both “control device” (as held) and “control unit” (as here), where only the nonce term (i.e., the non-structural generic placeholder) is different.2 See MPEP 2181.
Fourth, applicant’s claim amendments overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), which are withdrawn. However, a new issue in this respect raised by the amendment is dealt with below.
Fifth, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the claim scope. Here, as an initial matter, the examiner notes that merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (e.g., replacing a human mind of a vehicle driver, which is a control unit, with another “control unit” that might be non-human - see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is not indicative of integration into a practical application, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a (conventional) trailer vehicle having an electric drive or a trailer brake control unit (as described in the specification at published paragraphs [0003] to [0008]), and a towing vehicle having a driver’s cab - see MPEP2106.05(h) - is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
In this respect, applicant argues first:
The human-braking hypothetical example (driver and his wife) in the OA1nf (bullet 30) is not commensurate with the noted claims and impermissibly substitutes manual human action for claimed electronic control logic.
Applicant apparently does not claim (or disclose) any “electronic control logic”, but even if he did, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (e.g., replacing a human mind of a vehicle driver, which is itself a control unit/processor, with another “control unit” that might be a non-human generic/general-purpose computer that can receive, generate, and output signals, is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Next, applicant argues:
When read as a whole, the noted claims are directed to a concrete vehicle-control architecture in which a manual operating unit located in a towing vehicle generates authenticated request signals that are processed by a control unit and result in output control signals that directly control the operation of a trailer electric drive and/or trailer brake control unit.
Applicant apparently claims no authenticated request signal in the independent claims, or any “direct[] control” of the/any particular “operation of a trailer electric drive and/or trailer brake control unit”. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive as to the independent claims, with the 101 rejections for claims 2 and 3 being withdrawn, e.g., for reflecting an improvement to the operation of the computer as described in the specification at published paragraphs [0014] to [0017] and [0060] to [0063], and reflected in the claims.3
Next, applicant argues:
The noted claims therefore do not merely use a computer as a tool, but instead recite a specific interaction among physical vehicle subsystems that produces real-world effects on propulsion, braking, regenerative operation, and traction behavior of a trailer vehicle.
While applicant claims “output[ting a] control signal”4 that by the words of the claim need do literally nothing, the claims are apparently devoid of reciting “real-world effects on propulsion, braking, regenerative operation, and traction behavior of a trailer vehicle”. Should the applicant choose to significantly claim “real-world effects on propulsion, braking, regenerative operation, and traction behavior of a trailer vehicle” in a manner that is supported by the specification, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 would likely be withdrawn, assuming the claimed effects are not recited at such a high level of generality so as to become insignificant. See MPEP 2106.05(d):
If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.
See also MPEP 2106.05(e).
Lastly, applicant argues:
When considered in an ordered combination, the claimed elements provide a non-conventional vehicle control solution in which authenticated driver input from a towing vehicle is used to generate control signals that affect propulsion and braking behavior of a trailer vehicle via coordinated control of an electric drive and a trailer brake control unit. The control unit, interfaces, and operating unit are not used in a generic manner for data processing or information display, but instead are used to control vehicle dynamics and driveline behavior, which is a technical function tied to physical operation.
Again, applicant does not claim authenticated driver input in the independent claims, any coordinated control of an electric drive and a trailer brake control unit, or any control or vehicle dynamics or driveline behavior. And no particular improvement described in the specification is alleged (by applicant) or seen (by the examiner) to be reflected in/by the current (e.g., independent) claims. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Here, the examiner merely notes that, if applicant were to add a final function/step (in claims 1 and/or 21) of “control[ling] the torque of the electric drive based on the control signal”, as supported by the specification at published paragraph [0062], this would apparently overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(c).
Sixth, applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1 (and 21) are i) not understood and ii) not convincing.
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that Witte does not clearly disclose the claimed generation of a request signal for the electric drive. Applicant recognizes that the pending claims are subject to broadest reasonable interpretation; however, even under such interpretation, the cited references do not clearly teach or suggest the claimed request-based control of the electric drive.
In Claim 1, the request signal is generated by a manual operating unit as a result of a user selection or input and is processed by a control unit as a request for operation of the electric drive. In contrast, Witte is primarily concerned with coordination of braking and recuperation during braking events, and the signals described therein are associated with braking control and brake blending rather than with a driver-initiated request directed to the electric drive itself of Claim 1.
This request-based control of Claim 1 differs from the braking coordination disclosed in Witte, where recuperation is triggered as part of braking behavior rather than in response to a discrete request for the electric drive. Applicant acknowledges that the OA1nf has interpreted Witte as broadly disclosing a signal influencing trailer recuperation; however, Applicant respectfully submits that this interpretation does not fully account for the functional distinction between braking coordination of Witte and the request-based electric drive control of Claim 1.
For at least the reasons advanced above, Claim 1 is patentable over Witte in view of Yokoo and should be allowable.
In the Office action, the examiner’s mapping for the manual operating unit and for its request signal in Witte (DE, ‘901) was previously made, respectively, e.g., to the input device(s) 16 and (when Witte (DE, ‘901) is interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art) to the signal output from the input device(s) 16 and received by the brake control device 15 as shown by the (dashed line) arrow in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901), as (for example only) was indicated below:
a manual operating unit [e.g., the input device(s) 16 arranged on the towing vehicle 10, for selection by the driver of the degree of recuperation (a.k.a. regeneration) on the trailer 20] configured to be arranged in a driver's cab of a towing vehicle [e.g., 10 in FIG. 1] and to generate and output a request signal [e.g., to the brake control device 15, as shown in FIG. 1; see also paragraphs [0041], etc.] for the electric drive in response to a manual selection using said manual operating unit or a manual input into said manual operating unit [e.g., the driver’s selection, by use of the input device(s) 16, of the degree of recuperation on the trailer 20];
receive said request signal [e.g., as obviously shown by the arrow between 16 and 15 in FIG. 1; see MPEP 2125]
. . . and to generate and output [e.g., as indicated by the arrow to the brake control device 15 in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901)] a request signal for the electric drive in response to a manual selection using said manual operating unit or a manual input into said manual operating unit [e.g., as described in both Witte (DE, ‘901) and Yokoo (‘038)];
generating and outputting a request signal for the electric drive using an operating unit in response to a selection using, or an input into, the operating unit [e.g., as described above regarding the input device 16 in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) and/or the user interface elements 44 in Yokoo (‘038) that are used to specify, to the control unit (15), the degree of recuperation and/or the level of regeneration desired by the driver];
receiving the request signal using a control unit [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) by the depicted arrow between the input device 16 and the brake control device 15];
For applicant’s benefit, the examiner now labels FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) to show how several depicted elements in Witte (DE, ‘901) obviously correspond to applicant’s claim language:
PNG
media_image1.png
590
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the examiner believes that Witte (DE, ‘901) reveals and/or renders obvious the request signal by the depicted arrow (between 16 and 15) and concomitant teachings regarding the driver selection and wishes for braking effect adjustment.
Additionally, Yokoo (‘038) reveals similar/analogous request signals from the user interface elements 44 for controlling a level of regenerative braking.
Regarding this claimed “request signal” which Witte (DE, ‘901) shows in FIG. 1 as an arrow between the depicted rectangles 16 and 15, see also paragraph [0043] of the machine translation of Witte (DE, ‘901) to elaborate on the examiner’s mapping, which indicates that this signal enables the (trailer recuperation degree) braking effect to be adjusted according to the driver’s wishes (a.k.a. requests):
[0043] . . . degree of recuperation on the trailer 20. The degree of recuperation can be selected by the driver via input device 16. This allows the braking effect of the trailer 20 to be adjusted according to the driver's wishes. This is particularly advantageous if it is to be towed by differently motorized towing vehicles. The driver can then use this setting to generate similar braking behavior for different trailer configurations. The input devices 16 can be arranged on the towing vehicle 10. Alternatively, these can be arranged on trailer 20.
See also paragraphs [0018], claim 7, etc. in Witte (DE, ‘901) which additionally describe the selection by the driver of the degree of recuperation using the input device(s) 16, for adjusting the braking effect/behavior (recuperation) of the trailer, to elaborate on the examiner’s mapping. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Applicant next makes this argument, to distinguish from Witte (DE, ‘901):
In Claim 1, the request signal is generated by a manual operating unit as a result of a user selection or input and is processed by a control unit as a request for operation of the electric drive.
However, Witte (DE, ‘901), almost identically to applicant’s argument language/reasoning, teaches that the request (dashed line arrow in FIG. 1) is generated by the input device(s) 16 as a result of the driver’s “select[ion]”5 or “input” and is received by the brake control device 15 (e.g., FIG. 1) as a driver’s “wish[]” (paragraph [0043]) for adjusting the braking effect (the degree of recuperation of the electric drive 21) of the trailer 20. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, applicant’s arguments are convincing (e.g., the device is capable of receiving the request signal including the torque request value for a requested positive or negative torque and e.g., signifying a conjunctive capability as argued by applicant at 4B e.g., page 10 of the Remarks filed 4 February 2026 and e.g., described at published paragraph [0018] of the specification). Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding claim 10, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The claim as amended allows the manual operation unit be integrated into another operating unit in the driver’s cab, and Yokoo (‘038) teaches integrating it into a dashboard 30 or instrument panel 28. The examiner believes this teaching fairly meets the claim language. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Regarding claim 11, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Witte (DE, ‘901) discloses the manual operating unit as his input device(s) 16, and clearly shows in FIG. 1 a direct connection between the input device(s) 16 and (a depicted edge of, representing an obvious interface of) the brake control device 15, which would have obviously been used by one of ordinary skill in the art to electrically connect an input device and a control device, even without further teaching. The examiner has annotated FIG. 1 from Witte (DE, ‘901) below:
PNG
media_image2.png
590
1008
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner believes applicant has misapprehended, in his arguments, the level of skill of one having ordinary skill in the art6 in 2021, and what would have been patently obvious to him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (e.g., vehicular microcontroller architecture was well-known and conventional since the 1970s/1980s, in the automotive braking art. See also the Parnell literature, “Putting the right us in your car”, cited herewith, with the first CAN bus being standardized in 1986 by SAE). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 13, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Obviously the brake control device of Witte (DE, ‘901) would have been used plural times, leading to plural (e.g., including “further”) request signals at those plural times, as shown by the dashed line arrow between 16 and 15 in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901).
Regarding claim 17, applicant’s arguments again apparently misapprehend the level of skill of one having ordinary skill in the art in 2021, with FIG. 2C in Yokoo (‘038) showing a 4-position switch and FIG. 2A showing a 3-posiition switch, wherein the middle positions of these switches would have obviously been detented (as was fully conventional) in order to maintain those positions, and with the examiner understanding the detented positions to be “latching positions”, e.g., latched in position by the conventional detect mechanisms of the switches to prevent unintended movement. Here the examiner further notes applicant has changed claim 17 to recite limitations disjunctively (“or”), and the examiner has additionally shown the other limitation.
Regarding amended claim 2 (and claim 3 depending therefrom), applicant’s arguments are convincing; accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding claim 5, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as they apparently ignore the examiner’s mapping to Witte (DE, ‘901) and mischaracterize the examiner’s mapping to DiGioacchino et al. (‘008) related to the tow vehicle speed and/or tow vehicle wheel rotation information.
Regarding claim 8, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as they apparently ignore the examiner’s mapping to Witte (DE, ‘901) and mischaracterize the examiner’s mapping to Boss (DE, ‘889).
Regarding claim 9, applicant’s arguments are persuasive, with the examiner understanding that applicant has not changed the grammar here to, “at least one of … or …” as the Remarks suggest may have been intended, and so the examiner interprets the list as a conjunctive list (Superguide). Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn. (Should applicant change the grammar in claim 9 to indicate a disjunctive list, the prior art rejection would be re-instituted, as the selection being logged by the tachograph would no longer be required.)
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4 February 2026. These drawings are accepted by the examiner.
Note on Claim Amendment Form
In the amendment of claim 5 dated 4 February 2026, the examiner understands that, in line 5, “[[and,]” is intended to be deleted even though it is not enclosed in double brackets (37 CFR 1.121), and so interprets the claim. Going forward, applicant should present the claim to reflect the interpreted deletion.
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 16 is 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.
In claim 16, line 1, due to the amendment of claim 13, “the further interface” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear.
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, 4 to 18, 21, and 22 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.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim(s) 1, 4 to 18, 21, and 22, while (each) reciting a statutory category of invention defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), is/are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, the recited abstract idea being that of generating a control signal (and then outputting it) on the basis of the request signal, e.g., by receiving a request signal from a manual operating unit configured to be arranged in a driver's cab of a towing vehicle and to generate and output the request signal for the electric drive in response to a manual selection using said manual operating unit or a manual input into said manual operating unit; generating a control signal on a basis of said request signal; and, output said control signal to the electric drive of the trailer vehicle or to a trailer brake control unit of the trailer vehicle; wherein said request signal includes a torque request value for a requested positive or negative torque, said torque request value being dependent on the selection or the input; and, said control unit is configured to take the torque request value and a vehicle state as a basis for outputting the control signal containing a setpoint torque value for the electric drive; wherein said control unit is configured to determine at least one of: (i) a vehicle state on a basis of a vehicle velocity received or detected via said control unit; (ii) a slippage of at least one wheel; or (iii) a detected activity of at least one driver assistance system; wherein the at least one driver assistance system is an ESP or an ABS; wherein said request signal includes a function request for the electric drive, the function request being dependent upon the selection or the input; and, said control unit is configured to take the function request and a vehicle state as a basis for outputting the control signal containing either (i) a setpoint torque value for the electric drive or (ii) a command to execute a requested operating mode of the electric drive; wherein a multiplicity of function requests containing different operating modes are selectable via said manual operating unit, the operating modes including at least one of: (i) activating, reducing, or deactivating an automatic regeneration mode of the electric drive; (ii) activating, reducing, or deactivating automatic driving for the electric drive; (iii) setting a torque distribution between retarders of the towing vehicle and the electric drive; or (iv) setting a level of traction assistance by the electric drive; wherein the device is configured to at least one of (i) output at least one selection or input via an interface and (ii) have the at least one selection logged by a tachograph; wherein said manual operating unit (i) corresponds to a retarder lever, (ii) is integrated into the retarder lever, or (iii) is integrated into another operating unit in the driver's cab of the towing vehicle; wherein said manual operating unit is connectable to a bus which is connectable to said control unit; or, said manual operating unit is connected directly to an interface of said control unit; wherein the bus is a vehicle bus; further comprising: an interface configured to interchange data with the trailer brake control unit; the device being configured to send further request signals directly to the trailer brake control unit; wherein the further request signals include further function requests for selecting first operating modes or second operating modes, and wherein said second operating modes include at least one of: (i) switching on or switching off electrical systems of the trailer vehicle; (ii) switching on or switching off auxiliary loads of the trailer vehicle; (iii) providing a control signal for controlling a power that can be drawn from a battery of the trailer vehicle by the auxiliary loads; or (iv) setting a desired state for the battery of the trailer vehicle; wherein the power is a maximum power that can be drawn from the battery of the trailer vehicle by the auxiliary loads; wherein the further interface is a radio interface; wherein at least one of: (i) said manual operating unit includes a lever having a multiplicity of predefined latching positions, each predefined latching position of said multiplicity of predefined latching positions being associated with a predefined torque request value; or (ii) said manual operating unit includes a multiplicity of function keys and each of said multiplicity of function key has at least one of an associated predefined torque request value and an associated predefined function request; wherein said control unit is a brake control unit; and a method for controlling an electric drive of a trailer vehicle via a device for controlling the electric drive of the trailer vehicle, the device including a manual operating unit configured to be arranged in a driver's cab of a towing vehicle and to generate and output a request signal for the electric drive in response to a manual selection using said manual operating unit or a manual input into said manual operating unit; the device further including a control unit of the towing vehicle configured to: receive said request signal, generate a control signal on a basis of said request signal, and, output said control signal to the electric drive of the trailer vehicle or to a trailer brake control unit of the trailer vehicle, the method comprising: generating and outputting the request signal for the electric drive using said manual operating unit in response to a selection using, or an input into, said manual operating unit; receiving the request signal using the control unit of the towing vehicle; generating a control signal on a basis of the request signal using the control unit of the towing vehicle; and, outputting the control signal to an electric drive control unit of an electric drive of the trailer vehicle or to a trailer brake control unit by way of the control unit of the towing vehicle; wherein the control unit is a brake control unit.
This abstract idea falls within the grouping(s) of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, distilled from case law, because the generating a control signal on the basis of the request signal (and even outputting the control signal by a driver moving his right foot) is a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind.
For example, a driver of a combination vehicle with a trailer having an electric drive could hear a request signal from his wife, who heard their baby crying as her input, saying, “Dear, could you please brake the trailer electric drive so that we can pull over to this rest area? I think I need to change her, again.” And her husband, hearing her generated and outputted request, could use synapses in his nervous system to generate a control signal that caused (as an output) his right leg/foot to move and step on the brake pedal, wherein movement of his leg/foot would cause the control signal (his leg/foot movement) to be outputted to the brake pedal (as part of the trailer brake control unit) and ultimately to the trailer electric drive to result in braking.
Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B:
Additionally, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the abstract idea is not integrated (e.g., at Step 2A, Prong II) by the recitation of additional elements/limitations into a practical application (using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)-(h)) because merely using a computer (a control unit such as a brake control unit) as a tool to perform an abstract idea or adding the words "apply it" is not integrating the idea into a practical application of the idea, and e.g., looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional elements/limitations individually and in combination, no (additional) particular machine, transformation7, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g., linking it to "implementation via computers", Alice; and/or the technological environment of a trailer vehicle having an electric drive and driver assistance system(s) that is/are not particularly utilized in the claim, a towing vehicle having a driver’s cab, etc.) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., receiving a request signal from a manual operating unit as a mere input device of/for a computer, outputting a control signal to an electric drive or to a trailer brake control unit that is not even claimed to do anything or apparently used in any way, etc.), is recited in or encompassed by the claims.
Moreover, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements/limitations/steps (e.g., at Step 2B) that are, individually or in ordered combination, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements/limitations/steps are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., generating a request signal using a manual operating unit, generating/outputting a control signal using a control unit containing a setpoint torque value that is not even claimed to do anything, providing access protection for the manual operating unit, etc.) so as to not favor eligibility (MPEP § 2106.05(d)) and/or are used e.g., for data/information gathering only or for other activities that were well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the industry, for example as indicated in applicant's specification at published paragraphs [0003] to [0008] of the specification, including the control signal being generated by a brake control unit of the towing vehicle and transmitted [outputted] to the control unit of the trailer vehicle to control the electric drive (whereby the electric drive can be operated in regenerative mode in order to convert kinetic or potential energy of the vehicle/trailer combination into electrical energy, as was conventional and as set forth by applicant) and moreover, the generically recited computer elements (e.g., a control unit such as a brake control unit, a bus, a vehicle bus, an interface, a further interface, a tachograph, etc.; see e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 USPQ2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”); Mobile Acuity, Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Case No. 22-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024); see also the 2019 PEG Advanced Module at pages 89, 145, etc.) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because their use would be routine (and conventional) in any computer implementation of the idea.
Moreover, limiting or linking the use of the idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., a trailer vehicle having an electric drive or a trailer brake control unit, a towing vehicle having a driver’s cab, etc.) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook[8]) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad.
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, 10 to 13, and 16 to 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witte (Germany, 102020201901; EPO machine translation provided previously) in view of Yokoo (2022/0289038).
Witte (DE, ‘901) reveals:
per claim 1, a device [e.g., FIG. 1] for controlling an electric drive [e.g., the electric drive 21, possibly including the corresponding control unit 23 in the trailer 20] of a trailer vehicle [e.g., 20], the device comprising:
a manual operating unit [e.g., the input device(s) 16 arranged on the towing vehicle 10, for selection by the driver of the degree of recuperation (a.k.a. regeneration) on the trailer 20] configured to be arranged in a driver's cab of a towing vehicle [e.g., 10 in FIG. 1] and to generate and output a request signal [e.g., to the brake control device 15, as shown by the dashed line arrow in FIG. 1[9]; see also paragraphs [0018], [0041], [0043], claim 7, FIG. 1, etc.] for the electric drive in response to a manual selection using said manual operating unit or a manual input into said manual operating unit [e.g., the driver’s selection, by use of the input device(s) 16, of the degree of recuperation on the trailer 20; see e.g., paragraphs [0041], [0043], etc.];
a control unit [e.g., the brake control device 15 in FIG. 1] of the towing vehicle configured to:
receive said request signal [e.g., as obviously shown by the arrow between 16 and 15 in FIG. 1; see MPEP 2125];
generate a control signal on a basis of said request signal [e.g., the obvious signal that is to be transmitted, wirelessly or via cable, by the brake control device 15 to the control unit 23 located on the trailer 20, as shown in FIG. 1, obviously to control the (degree of recuperation in the) electric drive 21]; and,
output said control signal to the electric drive of the trailer vehicle or to a trailer brake control unit of the trailer vehicle [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1[10], outputting the signal transmitted wirelessly or via cable (in paragraph [0055]) to the control unit 23 of the trailer 20, that controls the degree of recuperative (a.k.a. regenerative) braking of the electric drive 21];
It may be alleged that Witte (DE, ‘901) does not expressly reveal that the input device(s) 16 is/are in the driver’s cab.
However, in the context/field of an improved regenerative braking control signal, Yokoo (‘039) teaches that a vehicle may include a cargo compartment 16 that is a trailer 11 (paragraph [0016]), and that user interface elements 42, 44 located in a cabin of a vehicle (see FIGS. 2A to 2C) may correspond to a plurality of regenerative braking settings (e.g., HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW), wherein each of the plurality of regenerative braking setting corresponding to a different amount of regenerative braking torque to apply to one or more wheels of the (cargo compartment of the) vehicle, and wherein (as described at paragraph [0039]) the regenerative braking control module(s) 56, which is connected to the user interface elements 42, 44 by a network/bus (e.g., paragraphs [0021], [0022], etc.), can be configured to control the amount of energy supplied from the motor(s) 22 to the batteries in accordance with the respective regenerative braking setting(s). The user interface elements may be one or more buttons, one or more dials, one or more levers, one or more knobs, one or more keys, one or more selectors, one or more actuators, any other suitable user interface element(s), and/or any combination of the foregoing. Additionally or alternatively, the user interface element(s) 44 can be any suitable digital or graphical user interface element(s). For example, the user interface element(s) 44 can be one or more screens or one or more touch screens (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Witte (DE, ‘901) brake control device for a vehicle combination so that the input device 16, implemented as one or more levers, keys, digital or graphical user interface element(s), screens or touch screens, etc. in the dashboard or instrument panel, as taught by Yokoo (‘038), would have been located in a vehicle cabin, as taught by Yokoo (‘038) and as suggested by Witte (DE, ‘901) himself in conjunction with FIG. 1, and so that the control unit 23 would have controlled the amount of energy supplied from the electric drive 21 to the electrical energy storage device 22 in accordance with the respective regenerative braking setting(s) selected by the driver and inputted from the input device 16 to the brake control device 15 via the obvious (request) signal shown as the dashed line arrow in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901), in order that the driver could select from a plurality of regenerative braking settings, such as HIGH, MEDIUM, and LOW, to be utilized with the vehicle, as taught by Yokoo (‘038) and as desired by Witte (DE, ‘901) e.g., in claim 7 for selecting the degree of recuperation by the driver, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Witte (DE, ‘901) brake control device for a vehicle combination would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, . . . a manual operating unit [e.g., the input device(s) 16 in Witte (DE, ‘901) arranged on the towing vehicle 10, for selection by the driver of the degree of recuperation (a.k.a. regeneration) on the trailer 20] configured to be arranged in a driver's cab of a towing vehicle [e.g., as shown by the levers, etc. in the vehicle cabin in FIGS. 2A to 2C of Yokoo (‘038); and at 10 in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901)] and to generate and output a request signal [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), to the brake control device 15 from the input device(s) 16, as shown in FIG. 1 as a dashed line arrow; see also paragraphs [0018], [0041], [0043], claim 7, FIG. 1, etc.; and in Yokoo (‘038), the obvious signal(s) from the user interface elements 44 (FIG. 1) corresponding to the selectable regenerative braking setting(s)] for the electric drive in response to a manual selection using said manual operating unit or a manual input into said manual operating unit [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), the driver’s selection, by use of the input device(s) 16, of the degree of recuperation on the trailer 20; see e.g., paragraphs [0041], [0043], etc.];
a control unit [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), the brake control device 15 in FIG. 1] of the towing vehicle configured to:
receive said request signal [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), as obviously shown by the arrow between 16 and 15 in FIG. 1; see MPEP 2125];
generate a control signal on a basis of said request signal [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), the obvious signal that is to be transmitted, wirelessly or via cable, by the brake control device 15 to the control unit 23 located on the trailer 20, as shown in FIG. 1, obviously to control the (degree of recuperation in the) electric drive 21, in response to the selection of the input device 16; and in accordance with the degree of recuperation selected by the driver via the input device 16, at paragraph [0018] in Witte (DE, ‘901)]; and,
output said control signal to the electric drive of the trailer vehicle or to a trailer brake control unit of the trailer vehicle [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), as shown in FIG. 1[11], outputting the signal transmitted wirelessly or via cable (in paragraph [0055]) to the control unit 23 (as an obvious trailer brake control unit) of the trailer 20, that controls the degree of recuperative (a.k.a. regenerative) braking of the electric drive 21, in order to control the amount of energy supplied from the electric drive 21 to the electrical energy storage device 22 in accordance with the respective regenerative braking setting(s) of the input device 16, as taught by Yokoo (‘038) at paragraph [0039]];
per claim 10, depending from claim 1, wherein said manual operating unit (i), corresponds to a retarder lever or (ii) is integrated into the retarder lever, or (iii) is integrated into another operating unit in the driver's cab of the towing vehicle [e.g., integrated into the user interface 42, and/or the dashboard 28 or instrument panel 30, in FIGS. 2A to 2C of Yokoo (‘038)];
per claim 11, depending from claim 1, wherein said manual operating unit is connectable to a bus which is connectable to said control unit; or, said manual operating unit is connected directly to an interface of said control unit [e.g., as shown and described with respect to FIG. 1 in Witte (DE, ‘901), and with respect to FIG. 1 in Yokoo (‘038), with a vehicle bus also being obvious, well-known and conventional for connecting input devices with control unit(s), in the vehicle art];
per claim 12, depending from claim 11, wherein the bus is a vehicle bus [e.g., as shown and described with respect to FIG. 1 in Witte (DE, ‘901), and with respect to FIG. 1 in Yokoo (‘038), with a vehicle bus being obvious, well-known and conventional for connecting input devices with control unit(s), in the vehicle art];
per claim 13, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
an interface [e.g., the wireless or wired (“via cable”) connection at paragraph [0055] and FIG. 1 in Witte (DE, ‘901)] configured to interchange data with the trailer brake control unit [e.g., with the control unit 23 in Witte (DE, ‘901)];
the device being configured to send further request signals directly to the trailer brake control unit [e.g., obviously, on subsequent days, in Witte (DE, ‘901), when recuperative braking should be performed at the trailer];
per claim 16, depending from claim 13, wherein the further interface is a radio interface [e.g., the wireless or wired (“via cable”) connection at paragraph [0055] and FIG. 1 in Witte (DE, ‘901)];
per claim 17, depending from claim 1, wherein at least one of:
(i) said manual operating unit includes a lever having a multiplicity of predefined latching positions [e.g., the middle positions for the switches in FIGS. 2A and 2C of Yokoo (‘038) obviously being detented, as is well-known and conventional, e.g., to hold the switches in the middle positions], each predefined latching position of said multiplicity of predefined latching positions being associated with a predefined torque request value [e.g., as shown in (and/or obvious from) FIGS. 2A to 2C in Yokoo (‘038)]; or
said manual operating unit includes a multiplicity of function keys and each of said multiplicity of function key [e.g., the buttons or keys in paragraph [0025] in Yokoo (‘038)] has at least one of an associated predefined torque request value [e.g., for example, HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW, as shown and described with respect to FIGS. 2A to 2C in Yokoo (‘038)] and an associated predefined function request [e.g., to provide the increasing/decreasing torque (MB) in FIGS. 2 or 3, etc. in Witte (DE, ‘901)];
per claim 18, depending from claim 1, wherein said control unit is a brake control unit [e.g., the brake control device 15 in Witte (DE, ‘901)];
per claim 19, a system comprising the device of claim 1, the electric drive, and a trailer brake control unit [e.g., the brake control device 15 in Witte (DE, ‘901)];
per claim 20, a vehicle/trailer combination having a system as claimed in claim 19 [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901)];
per claim 21, a method for controlling an electric drive [e.g., 21 in Witte (DE, ‘901)] of a trailer vehicle [e.g., 20 in Witte (DE, ‘901)] via a device [e.g., FIG. 1 in Witte (DE, ‘901)] for controlling the electric drive of the trailer vehicle, the device including a manual operating unit [e.g., 16 in Witte (DE, ‘901); and FIGS. 2A to 2C and paragraphs [0025], etc. in Yokoo (‘038)] configured to be arranged in a driver's cab of a towing vehicle [e.g., FIGS. 2A to 2C and paragraphs [0025], etc. in Yokoo (‘038); and 10 in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901)] and to generate and output [e.g., as indicated by the arrow to the brake control device 15 in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901); see e.g., paragraphs [0041], [0043], etc.] a request signal for the electric drive in response to a manual selection using said manual operating unit or a manual input into said manual operating unit [e.g., as described in both Witte (DE, ‘901) and Yokoo (‘038), and as shown by the dashed line arrow in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) between 16 and 15; and in Yokoo (‘038), the obvious signal(s) from the user interface elements 44 (FIG. 1) corresponding to the selectable regenerative braking setting(s)]; the device further including a control unit [e.g., the brake control device 15 in Witte (DE, ‘901)] of the towing vehicle configured to: receive said request signal [e.g., as shown by the dashed line arrow in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) between 16 and 15], generate a control signal on a basis of said request signal [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), the obvious signal that is to be transmitted, wirelessly or via cable, by the brake control device 15 to the control unit 23 located on the trailer 20, as shown in FIG. 1, obviously to control the (degree of recuperation in the) electric drive 21, in response to the selection of the input device 16 (e.g., paragraphs [0018], [0041], [0043], claim 7, FIG. 1, etc.)], and, output said control signal to the electric drive of the trailer vehicle or to a trailer brake control unit of the trailer vehicle [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), as shown in FIG. 1[12], outputting the signal transmitted wirelessly or via cable (in paragraph [0055]) to the control unit 23 (as an obvious trailer brake control unit) of the trailer 20, that controls the degree of recuperative (a.k.a. regenerative) braking of the electric drive 21, in order to control the amount of energy supplied from the electric drive 21 to the electrical energy storage device 22 in accordance with the respective regenerative braking setting(s) of the input device 16, as taught by Yokoo (‘038) at paragraph [0039]], the method comprising:
generating and outputting the request signal for the electric drive using said manual operating unit in response to a selection using, or an input into, said manual operating unit [e.g., as described above regarding the input device 16 in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) and/or the user interface elements 44 in Yokoo (‘038) that are used to specify, to the control unit (15), the degree of recuperation and/or the level of regeneration desired by the driver; see also paragraphs [0018], [0041], [0043], claim 7, FIG. 1 (dashed line arrow), etc. in Witte (DE, ‘901)];
receiving the request signal using the control unit of the towing vehicle [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) by the depicted (dashed line) arrow between the input device 16 and the brake control device 15];
generating a control signal [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), the signal in FIG. 1 that is transmitted from the brake control device 15 to the corresponding trailer control unit 23] on a basis of the request signal using the control unit of the towing vehicle [e.g., in accordance with the degree of recuperation selected by the driver via the input device 16, at paragraph [0018] in Witte (DE, ‘901)]; and,
outputting the control signal to an electric drive control unit of an electric drive of the trailer vehicle or to a trailer brake control unit by way of the control unit of the towing vehicle [e.g., in Witte (DE, ‘901), as shown in FIG. 1[13], outputting the signal transmitted wirelessly or via cable (in paragraph [0055]) to the control unit 23 (as an obvious trailer brake control unit) of the trailer 20, that controls the degree of recuperative (a.k.a. regenerative) braking of the electric drive 21, in order to control the amount of energy supplied from the electric drive 21 to the electrical energy storage device 22 in accordance with the respective regenerative braking setting(s) of the input device 16, as taught by Yokoo (‘038) at paragraph [0039]];
per claim 22, depending from claim 21, wherein the control unit is a brake control unit [e.g., the brake control device 15 in Witte (DE, ‘901)];
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witte (Germany, 102020201901; EPO machine translation provided previously) in view of Yokoo (2022/0289038) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DiGioacchino et al. (2021/0139008).
Witte (DE, ‘901) as implemented or modified in view of Yokoo (‘038) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Witte (DE, ‘901) brake control device for a vehicle combination may not reveal the claimed determination of the vehicle state based on vehicle velocity.
However, in the context field of an improved trailer brake gain determination system, DiGioacchino et al. (‘008) teaches e.g., at paragraph [0038] that the trailer brake control module 202 (that is integrated with the brake controller 141 of the tow vehicle) is provided with tow vehicle speed determined e.g., from tow vehicle wheel rotation information from wheel speed sensors 171 at each corner of the tow vehicle, as an obvious vehicle state of the tow/towed vehicle that is determined on the basis of vehicle velocity, with the wheel rotation information being useful in anti-lock brake controls and vehicle stability controls, among others, and also being used to validate predetermined conditions (a predetermined speed of the tow vehicle) and determine the trailer brake gain, wherein the trailer brake gain may (also/either) be accepted (at 417 in FIG. 4) or adjusted (at 307D, 307U), by the driver, e.g., by manual controls 303 provided at a dash pad 305 on the depicted (in FIG. 3) dashboard of the tow vehicle.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Witte (DE, ‘901) brake control device for a vehicle combination so that tow vehicle speed and tow vehicle wheel rotation information would have been determined in the brake control device 15 of the tow vehicle for validating predetermined tow speed conditions, as taught by DiGioacchino et al. (‘008), and/or in order to determine a suggested trailer brake gain setting that could be accepted and/or adjusted by the driver, as taught by DiGioacchino et al. (‘008), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Witte (DE, ‘901) brake control device for a vehicle combination would have rendered obvious:
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, wherein said control unit is configured to determine at least one of:
(i) a vehicle state on a basis of a vehicle velocity received or detected via said control unit [e.g., the tow vehicle speed and/or tow vehicle wheel rotation information, determined and used in DiGioacchino et al. (‘008)];
(ii) a slippage of at least one wheel [e.g., claim 3 in Witte (DE, ‘901), “the pre-pressure of a slip control system of the service brake system (12) of the towing vehicle (10) is evaluated to detect the actuation of the service brake system (12)”]; or
(iii) a detected activity of at least one driver assistance system [e.g., paragraph [0016] in Witte (DE, ‘901), “Furthermore, externally induced, i.e. driver-independent, brake applications can also be used, which result, for example, from an adaptive cruise control system, an autonomous driving system or the like, by evaluating a deceleration request generated independently of the tractor unit to detect the application of the service brake system.”];
per claim 6, depending from claim 5, wherein the at least one driver assistance system is an ESP [e.g., paragraph [0038] in Witte (DE, ‘901), “Alternatively or additionally, the pre-printed data of an ESC[14] slip control system of the service brake system 12 of the towing vehicle 10 can be evaluated”] or an ABS [e.g., the anti-lock brake controls taught by DiGioacchino et al. (‘008)];
Claims 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witte (Germany, 102020201901; EPO machine translation provided previously) in view of Yokoo (2022/0289038) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boss (Germany, 102020200889; EPO machine translation provided previously).
Witte (DE, ‘901) as implemented or modified in view of Yokoo (‘038) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Witte (DE, ‘901) brake control device for a vehicle combination may not reveal the setting of the traction assistance level, the switching of auxiliary loads, etc.
However, in the context field of an improved remote control arrangement for a trailer driven and braked by its own electric motor, Boss (DE, 889) teaches that an input device 111 in the form of e.g., a mobile phone or other suitable input device equipped in the vehicle (e.g., paragraph [0016]), may be used not only to switch the drive system on and/or off (e.g., paragraph [0014]), but also to increase and/or reduce the drive power of the drive system (e.g., paragraph [0015]) and can also influence the trailer’s electrical consumers by switching the consumers on and/or off (e.g., paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Witte (DE, ‘901) brake control device for a vehicle combination so that the input device (16) would have additionally been able to switch the drive system (for both driving and braking) on and/or off, to increase and/or reduce the drive power of the drive system, and to also influence the trailer’s electrical consumers by switching the consumers on and/or off, as taught by Boss (DE, ‘889), in order to increase control flexibility, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Witte (DE, ‘901) brake control device for a vehicle combination would have rendered obvious:
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, wherein a multiplicity of function requests [e.g., for selected degrees of recuperation, in Witte (DE, ‘901)] containing different operating modes [e.g., which different modes of the electric drive obviously recuperate energy at different degrees of recuperation, in Witte (DE, ‘901) at paragraphs [0018], [0043], etc. and at the correct time based on e.g., detected actuations of the service brake system 12 (e.g., paragraphs [0038], etc.), as described in conjunction with FIGS. 2, 3, paragraphs [0021], [0043], [0051], etc.; and/or at different levels (HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW) of the regenerative braking setting, in Yokoo (‘038)] are selectable via said manual operating unit [e.g., 16 in FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901); and as shown in FIGS. 2A to 2C of Yokoo (‘038)], the operating modes including at least one of:
(i) activating, reducing, or deactivating an automatic regeneration mode of the electric drive [e.g., paragraphs [0021], [0043], [0051], FIGS. 2, 3, etc. in Witte (DE, ‘901)];
(ii) activating, reducing, or deactivating automatic driving for the electric drive [e.g., paragraphs [0028], [0030], etc. in Witte (DE, ‘901)];
(iii) setting a torque distribution between retarders of the towing vehicle and the electric drive [e.g., with the retarders in Witte (DE, ‘901) being friction brakes and the distribution between P and MB being shown in FIG. 2]; or
(iv) setting a level of traction assistance [e.g., the increase or reduction in drive power, by the input device in Boss (DE, ‘889)] by the electric drive;
per claim 14, depending from claim 13, wherein the further request signals include further function requests for selecting first operating modes or second operating modes [e.g., different degrees of recuperation for the electric drive, as operating modes for the electric drive selected by means of the input device(s) 16, in Witte (DE, ‘901), where the modes may obviously include e.g., LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, and OFF degrees of recuperation, as taught by Yokoo (‘038)], wherein said second operating modes include at least one of::
(i) switching on or switching off electrical systems of the trailer vehicle [e.g., as taught by Witte (DE, ‘901) at paragraphs [0021], [0051], etc.; and as taught by the “on”/“off” switching in Boss (DE, ‘889)];
(ii) switching on or switching off auxiliary loads of the trailer vehicle [e.g., as taught by the switching on/off of electrical consumers in Boss (DE, ‘889)];
(iii) providing a control signal for controlling a power that can be drawn from a battery of the trailer vehicle by the auxiliary loads [e.g., when the electrical consumer(s) in Boss (DE, ‘889) are turned off, no power can obviously be drawn from the battery/energy storage device by it/them]; or
(iv) setting a desired state for the battery of the electric drive [e.g., a recuperation/regeneration state, where energy is/can be recuperated/regenerated into the battery, as taught by Witte (DE, ‘901), Yokoo (‘038) with ON in FIGS. 2A and 2B, and Boss (DE, ‘889)];
per claim 15, depending from claim 14, wherein the power is a maximum power [e.g., when the electrical consumers in Boss (DE, ‘889) are switched off, the maximum power is obviously zero];
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
(The examiner notes that claims 4, 7, and 9 are not rejected on art. One potential remedy for the 101 issue for claims 4, 7, and 9 is provided in paragraph 16 above.)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 Quoting the MPEP:
“In Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) the court stated:
[t]he standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”
2 Quoting the MPEP: “The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998).”
3 Regarding improvements, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
4 The human brain also generates and outputs (chemical and) electrical control signals, to control muscles, etc.
5 See paragraphs [0018], [0043], and claim 7 in Witte (DE, ‘901).
6 See MPEP 2141.03.
7 In claims 8 and 14, applicant does not claim an act or function of e.g., “activating, reducing, or deactivating an automatic regeneration mode of the electric drive” or an act or function of e.g., “switching on or switching off the trailer vehicle”, but merely claims that modes for activating, reducing, or deactivating or the switching on or switching off are “selectable” by the (manual) operating unit” 74, as mere data input/gathering or pre-solution activity, with the claims not even requiring that the modes are in fact selected.
8 See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.")
9 The examiner annotates FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) below/on the next page to show the depicted request signal:
PNG
media_image1.png
590
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
10 The examiner annotates FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) below/on the next page to show the depicted signal that is shown as being transmitted/outputted wirelessly to the control unit 23 from the brake control device 15:
PNG
media_image3.png
516
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
11 The examiner annotates FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) below/on the next page to show the depicted signal that is shown as being transmitted/outputted wirelessly to the control unit 23 from the brake control device 15:
PNG
media_image3.png
516
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
12 The examiner annotates FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) below/on the next page to show the depicted signal that is shown as being transmitted/outputted wirelessly to the control unit 23 from the brake control device 15:
PNG
media_image3.png
516
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
13 The examiner annotates FIG. 1 of Witte (DE, ‘901) below/on the next page to show the depicted signal that is shown as being transmitted/outputted wirelessly to the control unit 23 from the brake control device 15:
PNG
media_image3.png
516
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
14 Electronic Stability Control, which would have obviously been implemented with a computer “Program”, as was well-known and conventional.