DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application and IDS filed 6/17/2024.
In the application Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/2024 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The Drawings filed on 6/17/2024 have been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term “means” or “step” triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term “means,” examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term “means”). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.”. 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 elements in this application that use “configured to” in combination with generic placeholder are interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 15 recites: “control signal is configured to cause the actuator to perform a function…”
The “control signal” & “actuator” are generic placeholders while the linking word “configured to cause the actuator to perform a function” are the functional trigger language that recite the function being performed. The claim lacks sufficient structural meaning to avoid mean-plus-function interpretation. For example, the claim never defines how the actuator performs “the function” to change pressure (opening a valve, adjusting pump displacement etc.). The term is described primarily by its function without details of the underlying implementation, algorithms, or specific hardware architecture that would provide definite structural boundaries.
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.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
8. Claims 1, 8 and 15 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites: “a set of rules defined in part by the target oil pressure value”
The phrase “defined in part” renders the claim indefinite has its unclear how much of the rule depends on the target value and what other parameters define the rule. The claim fails to inform with reasonable certainty the scope of the invention as to the factors defining the set of rules being used. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of these limitations. Appropriate corrections are required.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A method…” (process). Claim 8 is directed to “An electronic device” (machine). Claim 15 is directed to “A system” (machine). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore, Independent claim 8 recites similar subject matter has in claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 1. A method comprising:
identifying, by a fuzzy logic system (FLS), a target oil pressure value [mathematical concept & mental process];
receiving, by the FLS, a measured oil pressure value from a sensor associated with an engine oil system [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering via generic sensors];
generating, by the FLS, a numerical command based on the received measured oil pressure value, a linguistic variable, membership functions for each linguistic term within a set of linguistic terms for the linguistic variable, and a set of rules defined in part by the target oil pressure value [mathematical concept & mental process];
converting, by a controller, the numerical command to a linguistic command from among a set of linguistic commands mapped to a set of control signals, respectively [mathematical concept & mental process]; and
outputting, by the controller, to an actuator in the engine oil system, a control signal mapped to the linguistic command [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity].
Claim 15, A system comprising:
a processor that includes a fuzzy logic system (FLS) configured to: identify a target oil pressure value [mental process];
receive a measured oil pressure value from a sensor associated with an engine oil system [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering via generic sensors]; and
generate a numerical command based on the received measured oil pressure value, a linguistic variable, membership functions for each linguistic term within a set of linguistic terms for the linguistic variable, and a set of rules defined in part by the target oil pressure value [mathematical concept & mental process];
a controller configured to: convert the numerical command to a linguistic command from among a set of linguistic commands mapped to a set of control signals, respectively, wherein: the set of linguistic commands is mapped to a set of types of change to oil pressure in the engine oil system, respectively the set of types of change to oil pressure includes no-change, increase, and decrease [mathematical concept & mental process]; and
output, to an actuator in the engine oil system, a control signal mapped to the linguistic command, wherein the control signal is configured to cause the actuator to perform a function that causes the type of change to oil pressure mapped to the linguistic command [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mathematical concept” & “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Claims 1 and 15 recite determining a target value using fuzzy logic which involves rule evaluation and inference that are abstract mathematical operations that can be performed mentally or mathematically. Furthermore, generating a numerical command using fuzzy logic is core inference via rule evaluation, membership weighting and defuzzification, which are mathematical in nature and involve abstract reasoning. The process of converting numerical command to a linguistic command falls under a mental process that can be accomplished via pen/paper, for example using a look-up table wherein if numerical command is 6-10 the linguistic command is [increase]. Thus, a human can perform this mapping, consequently these limitations fall under a mental process has it involves human observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving… from a sensor” & ”outputting …a control signal” & “output…a control signal…to cause the actuator to perform a function”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to pre-solution activity and data gathering. For example, receiving sensor data is merely collecting data for use in a later process. In addition, outputting a result to an actuator via control signal is post-solution activity that sends the result without modifying the operation of the actuator in a manner that improves the technology itself. Claim 15 recites a variation wherein the signal causes the actuator to perform a function to change to oil pressure which is applying the result of an abstract calculation to cause a physical effect which falls under post-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “converting, by a controller” & “a controller configured to: convert”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component by using the controller to perform the abstract idea of numerical to linguistic conversion. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2, 5, 9, 12 and 18, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe that the control signal is configured to cause the actuator to perform a function, and outputting an indicator via guidance information. However, outputting a result to an actuator via control signal is post-solution activity that sends the result without modifying the operation of the actuator in a manner that improves the technology itself. Furthermore, providing guidance information amounts to displaying results of the abstract idea using conventional display device and is considered post-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 16, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe comparing two measurements to which a human can perform by observing pressure readings and determine the difference mentally against a threshold including evaluation of a condition being met, which falls under a mental process. These steps involve observation, evaluation and judgements. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 17, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe receiving target oil pressure which is data gathering using generic sensors [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering via generic sensors]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19-20, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describes modification of received pressure values by removing a value based on an analysis which is mental process. In addition, generating the numerical command is a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
12/13/2025