DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on May 8, 2024.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0053]: Language “Since the control signal response 74 pertain to various durations …” should read “Since the control signal response 74 pertains to various durations …” in order to correct minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
provide a control signal to a contactor device control circuit comprising a contactor, the contactor device control circuit being configured to carry out a state switch in response to receiving the control signal;
receive a control signal response from the contactor device control circuit in response to the state switch;
obtain one or more contactor device properties based on the control signal response to the control signal;
compare the one or more contactor device properties to baseline contactor device properties, the baseline contactor device properties being indicative of one or more predefined contactor device types; and
based on the comparison, identify whether a type of the contactor corresponds to the one or more predefined contactor device types” in order to correct minor informalities while providing appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “comparing said response signature to the baseline signature” should read “comparing the response signature to the baseline signature” in order to correct minor informalities while providing appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The computer system of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to create the baseline signature based on an output from a contactor device model being configured to process the baseline contactor device properties of a plurality of the one or more predefined contactor device types” in order to correct minor informalities while providing appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to provide an identification report in response to the identification of whether [[a]]the type of the contactor corresponds to the one or more predefined contactor device types .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The computer system of claim 2, wherein the time series data pertain to a time-to-close duration of a closing operation of the contactor, the time-to-close duration being initiated upon the control signal the time-to-close duration ending upon completing the state switch, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the one or more contactor device properties as a function of a measured property of the control signal response in relation to a predefined property of the control signal during the closing operation” in order to correct minor informalities while providing appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The computer system of claim 2, wherein the time series data pertain to a time-to-open duration of an opening operation of the contactor or a time-to-close duration of a closing operation of the contactor, the time-to-close duration or the time-to-open duration being initiated upon the control signal being provided, the time-to-close duration or the time-to-open duration ending upon completing the state switch, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to pulse-width modulate the control signal” in order to correct minor informalities while providing appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The vehicle of claim 12, wherein the contactor device control circuit is a circuit of [[a]]the contactor, a relay or a switch arranged in an electrical machine of the vehicle” in order to correct minor informalities while providing appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The vehicle of claim 12, wherein the contactor device control circuit comprises a battery contactor, the battery contactor being a switching element capable of adjusting [[the]]an electrical flow of control signals transferred through the contactor device control circuit” in order to correct minor informalities while providing appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The vehicle of claim 12, further comprising a vehicle telematics unit and a cloud-based computing resource, wherein an identification report obtained in response to the identification of whether [[a]]the type of the contactor corresponds to the one or more predefined contactor device types is transferable between the vehicle telematics unit and the cloud-based computing resource” in order to correct minor informalities while providing appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“A computer-implemented method for contactor device identification[[,]] comprising:
providing, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a control signal to a contactor device control circuit comprising a contactor, the contactor device control circuit being configured to carry out a state switch in response to receiving the control signal;
receiving, by the processing circuitry, a control signal response from the contactor device control circuit in response to the state switch;
obtaining, by the processing circuitry, one or more contactor device properties based on the control signal response to the control signal;
comparing, by the processing circuitry, the one or more contactor device properties to baseline contactor device properties, the baseline contactor device properties being indicative of one or more predefined contactor device types; and
based on the comparison, identifying, by the processing circuitry, whether a type of the contactor corresponds to the one or more predefined contactor device types” in order to correct minor informalities while providing appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“A non-transitory computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 18” for compliance under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP 2106.03) and in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 18” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test:
the limitation “obtain one or more contactor device properties based on the control signal response to the control signal” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information (i.e., one or more contactor device properties; see specification at [0006]-[0007], [0011]-[0013], [0041]-[0042], [0049], [0051], [0053]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
the limitation “compare the one or more contactor device properties to baseline contactor device properties, the baseline contactor device properties being indicative of one or more predefined contactor device types” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to compare data (see specification at [0009], [0050], [0054]-[0055]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to compare data.
the limitation “based on said comparison, identify whether a type of said contactor corresponds to said one or more predefined contactor device types” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to evaluate comparison results for identification purposes (see specification at [0010], [0032], [0043], [0057]-[0058]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to evaluate comparison results for identification purposes.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“A computer system comprising processing circuitry” adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see specification at [0063]; see also MPEP 2106.05(f));
“provide a control signal to a contactor device control circuit comprising a contactor, the contactor device control circuit being configured to carry out a state switch in response to receiving said control signal” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data/signal transmission) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., contactor device control circuit comprising a contactor; see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) while appending a transformation at a high level of generality and contributing only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., transformation used for data gathering or as a field-of-use limitation; see specification at [0003], [0033], [0037]-[0039], [0049]; see also MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
“receive a control signal response from the contactor device control circuit in response to said state switch” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data/signal gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., contactor device control circuit; see specification at [0003], [0033], [0037]-[0039], [0049]; see also MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
append generic computer components (i.e., A computer system comprising processing circuitry) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (i.e., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f);
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., contactor device type identification, see specification at [0002]), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data/signal gathering by selecting a particular data/signal source/type to be manipulated) using elements (i.e., contactor device control circuit comprising a contactor) specified at a high level of generality, which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); and
append transformations at a high level of generality (e.g., transformation used for data gathering or as a field-of-use limitation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application)” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claim 18 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea, Step 2A – Prong One) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or without providing significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 2-5, 7), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source), generic computer components, transformations used for data gathering or as a field-of-use limitation (Claims 6-17 and 19-20), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Deutsch (US 4932246 A) discloses:
A computer system (Fig. 1, item 10 – “diagnostic fault test system”) comprising processing circuitry (Fig. 1, item 11 – ‘controller’; col. 4, lines 35-52: a diagnostic fault test system includes a microprocessor controller to test electrical devices (e.g., solenoid drives operating solenoids having relays) operated in on or off states for identification of faults (see col. 1, lines 6-11)) configured to:
provide a control signal to a contactor device control circuit (Fig. 1, item 12 – “driver”) comprising a contactor (Fig. 1, item 13 – ‘solenoid’), the contactor device control circuit being configured to carry out a state switch in response to receiving said control signal (col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 14: solenoid driver receives control signal from the controller in order to operate the solenoid in an on or off state);
receive a control signal response from the contactor device control circuit in response to said state switch (col. 7, lines 20-57: each driver includes a summation circuit which outputs a VM signal to be processed by a comparator and the controller as a Vin signal for identifying faults and the type of fault);
obtain one or more contactor device properties based on the control signal response to the control signal (col. 8, lines 5-12: magnitude of Vin signal is obtained for comparison);
compare the one or more contactor device properties to baseline contactor device properties (col. 7, lines 20-57; col. 8, lines 5-12: Vin signal is compared to predefined thresholds for identifying faults and the type of fault (see also col. 8, lines 30-37)).
Newhouse (US 20100250194 A1, IDS reference) discloses:
“In response to receiving the indication, an HV contactor diagnostic test is performed in block 204. Embodiments of performing an HV contactor diagnostic test are described in more detail in conjunction with FIG. 4, later. Essentially, however, performing the HV contactor diagnostic test includes providing control signals (e.g., over control lines 140, FIG. 1) to selectively open and close the HV contactors (e.g., HV contactors 104, FIG. 1), and determining through voltage measurements whether the HV contactors opened and closed as expected, in response to the control signals” ([0031]: evaluation of high voltage contactors in vehicles is achieved by comparing voltage measurements to expected signals).
Moreno (US 20220341990 A1) discloses:
“In an embodiment, there is provided a method comprising: receiving an output generated by a device under test (DUT)/system under test (SUT), the output generated in response to an injected signal applied to the DUT/SUT and to the DUT/SUT comprising an electronic component to be authenticated; evaluating the output, relative to a profile defined for a type of the DUT/SUT, to determine an authentication result for the DUT/SUT; and providing the authentication result for at least one of display and subsequent action relative to the DUT/SUT. The output may be responsive to physical characteristics of the DUT/SUT, which influence one or more of: a speed at which electrical signals comprising an electromagnetic wave travel through a medium; a reflection pattern; and a transmission pattern” ([0007]: authentication of an electronic component of a DUT/SUT is performed by applying a signal to the DUT/SUT, receiving a response output, and comparing the response to a profile defined for a type of DUT/SUT).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“the baseline contactor device properties being indicative of one or more predefined contactor device types; and
based on said comparison, identify whether a type of said contactor corresponds to said one or more predefined contactor device types”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that while the prior art of record discloses techniques for detecting faulty contactors, as well as methods for identifying type of devices based on signal comparisons, the prior art of record does not disclose, teach or suggest the combination of both techniques, as claimed by the applicant).
Regarding claim 18.
Deutsch (US 4932246 A) discloses:
A computer-implemented method for contactor device identification (col. 4, lines 35-52: a diagnostic fault test system includes a microprocessor controller to test electrical devices (e.g., solenoid drives operating solenoids having relays) operated in on or off states for identification of faults (see col. 1, lines 6-11)), comprising:
providing, by processing circuitry (Fig. 1, item 11 – ‘controller’) of a computer system (Fig. 1, item 10 – “diagnostic fault test system”), a control signal to a contactor device control circuit (Fig. 1, item 12 – “driver”) comprising a contactor (Fig. 1, item 13 – ‘solenoid’), the contactor device control circuit being configured to carry out a state switch in response to receiving said control signal (col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 14: solenoid driver receives control signal from the controller in order to operate the solenoid in an on or off state);
receiving, by the processing circuitry, a control signal response from the contactor device control circuit in response to said state switch (col. 7, lines 20-57: each driver includes a summation circuit which outputs a VM signal to be processed by a comparator and the controller as a Vin signal for identifying faults and the type of fault);
obtaining, by the processing circuitry, one or more contactor device properties based on the control signal response to the control signal (col. 8, lines 5-12: magnitude of Vin signal is obtained for comparison);
comparing, by the processing circuitry, the one or more contactor device properties to baseline contactor device properties (col. 7, lines 20-57; col. 8, lines 5-12: Vin signal is compared to predefined thresholds for identifying faults and the type of fault (see also col. 8, lines 30-37)).
Newhouse (US 20100250194 A1, IDS reference) discloses:
“In response to receiving the indication, an HV contactor diagnostic test is performed in block 204. Embodiments of performing an HV contactor diagnostic test are described in more detail in conjunction with FIG. 4, later. Essentially, however, performing the HV contactor diagnostic test includes providing control signals (e.g., over control lines 140, FIG. 1) to selectively open and close the HV contactors (e.g., HV contactors 104, FIG. 1), and determining through voltage measurements whether the HV contactors opened and closed as expected, in response to the control signals” ([0031]: evaluation of high voltage contactors in vehicles is achieved by comparing voltage measurements to expected signals).
Moreno (US 20220341990 A1) discloses:
“In an embodiment, there is provided a method comprising: receiving an output generated by a device under test (DUT)/system under test (SUT), the output generated in response to an injected signal applied to the DUT/SUT and to the DUT/SUT comprising an electronic component to be authenticated; evaluating the output, relative to a profile defined for a type of the DUT/SUT, to determine an authentication result for the DUT/SUT; and providing the authentication result for at least one of display and subsequent action relative to the DUT/SUT. The output may be responsive to physical characteristics of the DUT/SUT, which influence one or more of: a speed at which electrical signals comprising an electromagnetic wave travel through a medium; a reflection pattern; and a transmission pattern” ([0007]: authentication of an electronic component of a DUT/SUT is performed by applying a signal to the DUT/SUT, receiving a response output, and comparing the response to a profile defined for a type of DUT/SUT).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“the baseline contactor device properties being indicative of one or more predefined contactor device types; and
based on said comparison, identifying, by the processing circuitry, whether a type of said contactor corresponds to said one or more predefined contactor device types”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that while the prior art of record discloses techniques for detecting faulty contactors, as well as methods for identifying type of devices based on signal comparisons, the prior art of record does not disclose, teach or suggest the combination of both techniques, as claimed by the applicant).
Regarding claims 2-17 and 19-20.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bansal; Subhash Chand et al., US 20210242711 A1, UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY COMPONENT ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND METHOD
Reference discloses estimation of relay lifetime based on relay specification and operational information of relay.
WON; Dong Sun, US 20250277854 A1, CIRCUIT BREAKER
Reference discloses testing blocking operation of a relay element of a circuit breaker.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights