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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because empty diagram boxes are impermissible under 37 CFR §1.83(a) which recites as follows:
“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).” (Emphasis added by Examiner)
The empty diagram boxes found in Figures 1-2 of the drawings, must be labeled with an appropriate descriptive phrase in addition to the reference characters already present. Please see 37 CFR §1.84(n), 37 CFR §1.84(o), and 37 CFR §1.84(p) for more information on the difference between the required legends and the reference characters already present. Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, and fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
As to claims 11-17 and 19-20:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 11-17 and 19-20 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 11 recites a method for detecting an open load fault of a wideband lambda sensor, the wideband lambda sensor being configured to sense at least one property of an exhaust gas in an exhaust gas space of a motor vehicle, the wideband lambda sensor also including at least one heater, the method comprising the following steps:
a) enabling a fault check, wherein a temperature model is used to check when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated (this is directed to math and/or can be done in human mind; checking when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated using a temperature model can be done in human mind);
b) carrying out the fault check, wherein when no fault is detected according to the fault check, the following step is carried out (this can be done in human mind):
b1) concluding the method with a result of OK, and wherein when a fault is detected according to the fault check (this can be done in human mind), the following step is carried out:
b2) concluding the method with a result of not OK; wherein before step b) is carried out (this can be done in human mind), the necessity of overheating protection is checked, and based on the overheating protection being necessary, a heater voltage of the heater is reduced simultaneously with step a) or before step a) is carried out (this can be performed manually by human).
Thus, claim 11 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental processes of abstract ideas. Mathematical algorithms are not eligible for patent protection. Mathematical algorithms are found by courts to be abstract (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981)). Claims 12-17 depends on claim 11. Claims 12-17 recite at least all of the judicial exceptions of claim 11, and therefore also recite limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental processes of abstract ideas. Additionally, claims 14 and 17 recites nothing more than additional abstract ideas of mathematical concept and mental step (limitations of “wherein in step a), it is checked whether an operating temperature of the wideband lambda sensor ascertained by the temperature model exceeds a defined limit value” and “in the fault check in step b), a comparison of a measured internal resistance with a diagnostic threshold takes place” which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind)) to implement the abstract ideas.
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding the data recited in claims 11-17, that because the method merely recites abstract ideas of data gathering/identifying and mathematical concepts, and not any particular structure or steps for gathering data, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of routine data generating and routine data collecting.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 11-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mathematical algorithms/formula/concept something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claims 11-17, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities of data generating and/or gathering and/or collecting and field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claims 11-17 do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claims.
Note that: as for claim 11, limitations of “wideband lambda sensor being configured to sense at least one property of an exhaust gas in an exhaust gas space of a motor vehicle, the wideband lambda sensor also including at least one heater” are routine and conventional in wideband lambda sensor area (as seen in abstract and para. 0011 and 0025 of US 20070113615).
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 11-17, and claims 11-17 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
As to claims 19-20, claims 19-20 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas as reasons stated in the rejections of claims 11-17.
As to claim 18:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 18 are directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 18 recites a system, comprising:
at least one wideband lambda sensor (routine and conventional in wideband lambda sensor area (as seen in abstract and para. 0011, 0019-0020 and 0025 of US 20070113615)); and
at least one controller including at least one processor (routine and conventional in wideband lambda sensor area (as seen in abstract and para. 0011, 0019-0020 and 0025 of US 20070113615)), the wideband lambda sensor being configured to sense at least one property of an exhaust gas in an exhaust gas space of a motor vehicle, the wideband lambda sensor also including at least one heater (routine and conventional in wideband lambda sensor area (as seen in abstract and para. 0011, 0019-0020 and 0025 of US 20070113615)), the controller being configured to:
a) enable a fault check, wherein a temperature model is used to check when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated (this is directed to math and/or can be done in human mind; checking when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated using a temperature model can be done in human mind);
b) carry out the fault check, wherein when no fault is detected according to the fault check (this can be done in human mind), the following step is carried out:
b1) conclude the method with a result of OK, and wherein when a fault is detected according to the fault check (this can be done in human mind), the following step is carried out:
b2) conclude the method with a result of not OK; wherein before b) is carried out, the necessity of overheating protection is checked (this can be done in human mind), and based on the overheating protection being necessary, a heater voltage of the heater is reduced simultaneously with a) or before a) is carried out (this can be performed manually by human).
Thus, claim 18 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental processes of abstract ideas. Mathematical algorithms are not eligible for patent protection. Mathematical algorithms are found by courts to be abstract (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981)).
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding the data recited in claim 18, that because the method merely recites abstract ideas of data gathering/identifying and mathematical concepts, and not any particular structure or steps for gathering data, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of routine data generating and routine data collecting.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mathematical algorithms/formula/concept something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claim 18, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities of data generating and/or gathering and/or collecting and field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim 18 does not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claims.
Note that: as for claim 18, limitations of “wideband lambda sensor being configured to sense at least one property of an exhaust gas in an exhaust gas space of a motor vehicle, the wideband lambda sensor also including at least one heater” are routine and conventional in wideband lambda sensor area (as seen in abstract and para. 0011, 0019-0020 and 0025 of US 20070113615).
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claim 18, and claim 18 is therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 recite limitation "temperature model, WPA model, BP model, WPA/BP model", which render the claim indefinite because it is not clear what exactly constitute “temperature model, WPA model, BP model, WPA/BP model”. The instant specification does not clearly describe "temperature model, WPA model, BP model, WPA/BP model". Hence, it is unclear.
Claims 11 and 18-20 also recite limitation “sufficiently heated”, which render the claims indefinite. What temperature considered to be “sufficiently heated”? 50F? 70F? Hence, it is unclear.
Claims 12-17 dependent upon a rejected claim 11 are therefore rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 18-20 recite “a temperature model is used to check when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated” and “fault check”. Page 8 of the instant specification states the temperature model is BP model (or best performance model) or WPA model (or worst case acceptable model). However, page 8 of the instant specification does not disclose what exactly constitute those BP and WPA model and how a temperature model is used to check when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated.
Also, page 14 of the instant specification states open load diagnosis 134 can be performed using a physical temperature model 136 of an OK system. Furthermore, the open load diagnosis 134 can be carried out using a physical temperature model 138 of a WPA system. A parameter battery voltage, shutdown time, ambient temperature, and heater can each be included in the physical temperature model 136 and the physical temperature model 138, as shown schematically by arrows 140. Furthermore, the open load diagnosis 134 can be carried out based on sensor signals and an exhaust gas temperature model, which can take into account a wall temperature and/or a catalytic converter temperature, as shown schematically by arrows 142. However, page 14 of the instant specification does not disclose what exactly constitute those temperature model 136 and 138.
There is no disclosure about how a temperature model is used to check when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated and fault check/diagnosis.
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-17 dependent upon a rejected claim 11 are therefore rejected as well.
Claims 11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 11 and 18-20 recite “a temperature model is used to check when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated” and “fault check”. Page 8 of the instant specification states the temperature model is BP model (or best performance model) or WPA model (or worst case acceptable model). However, page 8 of the instant specification does not disclose what exactly constitute those BP and WPA model and how a temperature model is used to check when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated.
Also, page 14 of the instant specification states open load diagnosis 134 can be performed using a physical temperature model 136 of an OK system. Furthermore, the open load diagnosis 134 can be carried out using a physical temperature model 138 of a WPA system. A parameter battery voltage, shutdown time, ambient temperature, and heater can each be included in the physical temperature model 136 and the physical temperature model 138, as shown schematically by arrows 140. Furthermore, the open load diagnosis 134 can be carried out based on sensor signals and an exhaust gas temperature model, which can take into account a wall temperature and/or a catalytic converter temperature, as shown schematically by arrows 142. However, page 14 of the instant specification does not disclose what exactly constitute those temperature model 136 and 138.
An adequate disclosure may require details of mathematical equations/formulas associated with temperature model(s) that employing i.e. a wall temperature and/or a catalytic converter temperature, a parameter battery voltage, shutdown time, ambient temperature, and heating temperature of wideband lambda sensor, and/or sensor signals for checking when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated and for checking fault or open load fault.
The Examiner concluded that there was not an enabling disclosure because the specification did not describe how a temperature model is used to check when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated and fault check, with only a reasonable amount of experimentation" and that "an unreasonable amount of work would be required to arrive at the detailed relationships applicant says that he has solved." See also MPEP 2164.06 and 2164.06(a). The instant disclosure fails to provide a sufficient amount of direction provided to make and/or use the instant invention (Wands factor (F)), as well as providing any specific working examples employing all the method steps to have “a temperature model is used to check when the wideband lambda sensor is sufficiently heated and fault check” as recited in instant independent claims 11 and 18-20 (Wands factor (G)).
Thus, the instant specification fails to fully enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the instant claimed invention.
Claims 12-17 dependent upon a rejected claim 11 are therefore rejected as well.
Conclusion
A proper comparison of the claimed invention to the prior art i.e. search and understanding of the claimed invention was not possible due to the numerous 112 Rejections as outlined above. Upon applicant' s amendment to overcome the rejections raised by the Examiner and upon the Examiner's better understanding of the invention a comparison of the prior art to the claims will again be made.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Applicant is invited to review DE102011077171A1, which teaches a diagnosis of the cable connections can sometimes only be presented by evaluating the internal resistance ratios of the broadband lambda probe, the probe ceramic must have exceeded a defined operating temperature for the open load diagnosis (detection of a cable break) (see pages 2-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights