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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 0 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
The “suspension control electronic control unit” is not merely a generic computer component, but rather a specific vehicle control unit with a defined function of controlling physical suspension mechanisms.
The filtering process is specific to vehicle suspension technology and is not a generic mathematical operation.
Regarding argument A: In light of paragraph [0037] of the specification, the SC-ECU “can be formed using a microprocessor including a CPU that performs arithmetic processing in accordance with a program, an FPGA, an ASIC, etc.” These are generic computer components that thus amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore, the claims do not recite the argued control of physical suspension mechanisms by the SC-ECU, which merely performs the previously-discussed abstract idea and insignificant post-solution activity of data transmission.
Regarding argument B: Whether the filtering process is suspension-specific or not has no bearing on whether the filtering process presents a mathematical operation. Regardless of the purpose for which a filtering process is being performed, the filter itself can be represented by a transfer function, which is a mathematical operation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computing part that computes a plurality of types of load value”, “integral processing part that computes integrals”, “transmission processing part that performs a process for transmitting”, “gain processing part that computes gain integrals”, and “generating part that generates vehicle information” in claims 1, 11, 12, and 13, and “gain setting part that is allowed to change the gains” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Namely, these limitations are interpreted as being a program executed by a CPU, as disclosed in paragraphs [0049] and [0054].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim should read “a server that is allowed to communicate with the SC-ECU through a communication network”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a suspension control electronic control unit (SC-ECU) mounted on a vehicle, the SC-ECU configured to control suspension mechanisms of the vehicle based on sensor data”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 12, and 13: The claims recite “a filtering process to extract acceleration data for a sprung resonance frequency band and a filtering process to extract acceleration data for an unsprung resonance frequency band”; it is not clear whether these are meant to be the same filtering process or different filtering processes. For the purposes of examination, these filtering processes will be interpreted as if they refer to a first filtering process and a second filtering process.
Regarding claims 3 and 4: Each claim recites that the computing part “performs a filtering process” in which acceleration data outside the claims’ respective frequency bands is removed. It is not clear if these filtering processes are meant to be the same filtering processes recited in claim 1, or if they refer to additional filtering processes. For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as if they refer to the same filtering process (i.e., claim 3 refers to the first filtering process discussed above, whereas claim 4 refers to the second filtering process discussed above).
Regarding claims 2 and 5-10: The claims fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1, and are thus indefinite for at least the same reasons.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed towards two systems and two devices. (Step 1: Yes.) System claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A vehicle information generation system comprising: a suspension control electronic control unit (SC-ECU) mounted on a vehicle the SC-ECU configured to control suspension mechanisms of the vehicle based on sensor data; and a server that is allowed to communicate with the electronic control device through a communication network,
wherein
the SC-ECU includes:
a computing part that computes a plurality of types of load value about load applied to the vehicle during traveling, based on results of detection obtained by a sensor mounted on the vehicle, wherein the computing part performs a filtering process on acceleration sensor data obtained from acceleration sensors to extract acceleration data for a sprung resonance frequency band and a filtering process to extract acceleration data for an unsprung resonance frequency band;
an integral processing part that computes integrals of the load values; and
a transmission processing part that performs a process for transmitting the integrals to the server, and
the server includes:
a gain processing part that computes gain integrals obtained by multiplying the integrals by gains, the gains being set for each part of the vehicle and for each of the load values; and
a generating part that generates vehicle information about damage to the vehicle, based on a total value obtained by adding together the plurality of gain integrals corresponding to the respective plurality of types of load value.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this system performs a process of calculating a value corresponding to a damage condition by adding together a set of calculated gain integrals based on filtered acceleration data. This falls within the mathematical processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites an “suspension control electronic control unit (SC-ECU)” and a server in addition to a plurality of “part”s which are interpreted as a program executed by a CPU, as discussed in the “Claim Interpretation” section above. The SC-ECU is further recited as including a processor, which implements several of the aforementioned “part”s. These recited elements are generic computer components which amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The recited “suspension control” of the SC-ECU is further recited at so high a level of generality as to do no more than generally link the abstract idea to the field of use of suspension systems. The claim further recites a part for determining a plurality of types of load value; this, however, is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously mentioned, the additional elements amount to no more than instructions to perform the judicial exception on a computer, the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, or generally linking of the abstract idea to suspension control. These are recited at so high a level of generality as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claim 11 recites the same limitations as claim 1, with the exception that the gain processing part is performed by the electronic control device rather than the server; the claim is thus not patent eligible. Claims 12 and 13 correspond to the electronic control devices recited in claims 1 and 11, respectively, and are thus not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 further define the abstract idea, and are thus abstract for the same reasons. No further elements are disclosed; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 further recites a gain setting part which changes the gains; however, this is a process that can be performed in the human mind. The gain setting part is a generic computer component; therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 11-13: Although the closest available art, Saito (US 58834421, previously cited) teaches a weight applied to a load integral, the art of record fails to teach a plurality of weights which are set differently for each part of the vehicle and for each load applied to the vehicle, instead merely teaching a single weight which can either be applied or not applied.
Regarding claims 2-10: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claim 1 and would thus be potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights