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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 06/05/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/05/2026 have been fully considered.
Per 101 abstract idea rejection, applicant argued that the amended claims 1, 11 and 20 (also the dependent claims) are not directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. 101, without significantly more, and are, indeed, directed to patent eligible subject matter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims do not overcome the 101 abstract idea rejection, see the updated 101 rejection below.
Per 103 rejection, the claims are rejected under new grounds of rejection with a new reference (Moors) applied.
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Claim 1 recites a method comprising: receiving at least one software component model; receiving at least one integration requirement; receiving at least one partition block; receiving at least one model reference block; generating a system model based on the at least one software component model, the at least one integration requirement, the at least one partition block, and the at least one model reference block; and converting the system model to at least one software model that represents the system model, configuring at least one software component of a vehicle system using the at least one software model, and controlling the vehicle system using the at least one software component.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: generating a system model based on the at least one software component model, the at least one integration requirement, the at least one partition block, and the at least one model reference block (a user can manually generate a system model based on received information); converting the system model to at least one software model that represents the system model (a user can manually convert from a model to another model). That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “receiving at least one software component model; receiving at least one integration requirement; receiving at least one partition block; receiving at least one model reference block”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data gathering for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “configuring at least one software component of a vehicle system using the at least one software model, and controlling the vehicle system using the at least one software component”, which are post solution activities of software configuration and executing software to control a device, that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Moors (paragraphs [0003][0006][0013]-[0016][0063]; a software model comprises one or more blocks which specify a desired behavior of a control program, generate production code from the software model; the generated production code is used in the ECU (software component), the production code is linked in a technical system, for example an ECU, with external software and hardware components). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Prong II step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the dependent claims 2-11 recites more description of the model and the requirement, or extra-solution activities (propagate parameters between blocks) that are conventional, routine in the field of the art (see 103 rejection of claim 9 below), which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 (a system with memory to perform the method of claim 1) and dependent claims 13-19 are rejected under the similar rational as claims 1-11. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic software/hardware components with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 20 (a computer system to perform the method of claim 1) is rejected under the similar rational as claim 1. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic software/hardware components with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
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, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0291945) hereinafter Joshi, in view of Freitas (US PGPUB 2006/0064667), in view of Moors et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0124563) hereinafter Moors.
Per claim 1, Joshi discloses a method comprising: receiving at least one software component model; receiving at least one integration requirement; receiving at least one partition block; receiving at least one model reference block (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0065]-[0067][0079]; receiving one or more models and one or more software components; receiving contract may describe one or more functional or non-functional requirements for a software component; receiving different sub-models (partition blocks); receiving a supplier model (reference block)); generating a system model based on the at least one software component model, the at least one integration requirement, the at least one partition block, and the at least one model reference block (claim 1; integrating all the models and contracts to generate an integrated model).
Joshi does not explicitly teach converting the system model to at least one software model that represents the system model. However, Freitas suggests the above (claim 1; receiving a system model and generating a transformed model and software code representing the system model). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Joshi and Freitas to generate a transformed model and software code representing the system model, as this provides a model-driven development that reduces model complexity while facilitating the generation of code (Freitas, paragraph [0010]).
Joshi also does not teach configuring at least one software component of a vehicle system using the at least one software model, and controlling the vehicle system using the at least one software component. However, Moors suggests the above (paragraphs [0003][0006][0013]-[0016][0063]; model-based development of control programs in the automotive sector; the control programs are developed for interacting with external components; a software model comprises one or more blocks which specify a desired behavior of a control program, generate production code from the software model; the generated production code is used in the ECU (software component), the production code is linked in a technical system, for example an ECU, with external software and hardware components; i.e. the function of the ECU is dependent on the production code; the ECU programmed with the production code interacts and controls other components in a vehicle). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Joshi, Freitas and Moors to generate production code from the software model and to configure an ECU with production code to control other components in a vehicle, as the model-based development offers fast speed in code programming for the automative sector (Moors, paragraph [0003]).
Per claim 6, Joshi further suggests wherein the at least one integration requirement includes an execution rate (paragraph [0067]; The model included in the contract may describe one or more functional or non-functional requirements for a software component or subcomponent of a software component, the one or more assumptions may state one or more pre-conditions for the model in one or more domains (performance)).
Per claim 8, Joshi further suggests wherein the at least one integration requirement includes a priority (paragraph [0070]; the contract may describe one or more assumptions that state one or more pre-conditions for the model in one or more domains (e.g., safety, performance, function), the contract may also describe one or more guarantees (priority) that state one or more post-conditions for the model in the one or more domains).
Per claim 10, Joshi further suggests wherein the system model integrates a model, associated with the at least one software component model, and at least one other model (paragraphs [0077][0078][0065]; an integrated model comprises of plurality of models including a software component model).
Per claim 11, Joshi further suggests wherein the at least one software model is configured to model aspects of at least one vehicle component (paragraphs [0101][0065]; the integrated model data may then be used by the electronic device to determine an integrated system such as an embedded system for a vehicle).
Claims 12, 14, 16, 18-19 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 1, 6, 8, 10-11.
Claim 20 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 1.
Claims 2-5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi, in view of Freitas, in view of Moors, in view of Rath et al. (US PGPUB 20100235809) hereinafter Rath.
Per claim 2, Joshi does not teach wherein the vehicle system includes a steering system. However, Rath discloses developing models for a steering system for a vehicle (paragraph [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Joshi, Freitas, Moors and Rath to utilize Joshi’s modeling system to develop a steering system for a vehicle, this would increase versatility of Joshi’s invention.
Per claim 3, Rath discloses developing models for a steering system for a vehicle (paragraph [0003]), an electronic power steering system is a typical steering system widely used in the field of the art (as evidence in applicant’s specification paragraph [0003], background section)).
Per claim 4, Rath discloses developing models for a steering system for a vehicle (paragraph [0003]), a steer-by-wire steering system is a typical steering system widely used in the field of the art (as evidence in applicant’s specification paragraph [0003], background section)).
Per claim 5, Rath discloses developing models for a steering system for a vehicle (paragraph [0003]), a hydraulic steering system is a typical steering system widely used in the field of the art (as evidence in applicant’s specification paragraph [0003], background section)).
Claim 13 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 2.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi, in view of Freitas, in view of Moors, in view of Rossa et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0144140) hereinafter Rossa.
Per claim 7, Joshi discloses wherein the at least one integration requirement includes a safety requirement (paragraph [0101]), but does not teach wherein the at least one integration requirement includes a memory protection unit assignment. However, Rossa discloses providing a memory protection unit assignment to protect memory against unwanted access (abstract, paragraph [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Joshi, Freitas, Moors and Rossa that the integration requirement includes a safety requirement such as a memory protection unit assignment, to protect memory against unwanted access.
Claim 15 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 7.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi, in view of Freitas, in view of Moors, in view of Tocci et al. (US patent 7487080) hereinafter Tocci.
Per claim 9, Joshi discloses integrating models (reference model and partition model) with integration parameters (paragraphs [0065]-[0067][0079]), but does not teach wherein the at least one model reference block is configured to propagate integration parameters associated with the at least one partition block. However, Tocci discloses propagating parameters from one block to another block in a diagram model (column 7, line 30-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Joshi, Freitas, Moors and Tocci to allow propagation of integration parameters from a reference block to a partition block in a diagram model, so the different block can communication with each other, resulting in a successful integration.
Claim 17 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Kim (US PGPUB 2014/0137091) discloses an Automobile Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR)-based Electronic Control Unit (ECU) and a method for updating the ECU, including configuring the ECU with parameters.
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 HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights