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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A steer-by-wire steering system for a vehicle, the steer-by-wire steering system comprising:
a steering wheel actuator operatively coupled to a steering wheel;
a road wheel actuator operatively coupled to steerable wheels of the vehicle; and
programmable circuitry to communicate with the steering wheel actuator and the road wheel actuator, the programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute machine readable instructions to:
identify an overlay force to be applied by the road wheel actuator, the overlay force from a driver assistance function;
identify a torque encountered by the steering wheel;
determine a steering wheel torque that corresponds with the overlay force and the torque encountered by the steering wheel; and
determine an overlay torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the steering wheel torque and the torque encountered by the steering wheel
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to steer-by-wire steering system, which is considered a machine; therefore claim 1 is within one of the four statutory categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2a prong 1: The 2019 PEG requires examiners to determine whether the claim includes any of the following abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. The claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception:
“identify an overlay force to be applied by the road wheel actuator, the overlay force from a driver assistance function”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase encompasses performance of the limitation in the human mind. “Identifying an overlay force to be applied by the road wheel actuator, the overlay force from a driver assistance function” is an gathering of data from a driver assistance function. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“identify a torque encountered by the steering wheel”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase encompasses performance of the limitation in the human mind. “identify(ing) a torque encountered by the steering wheel” is an example of gathering of data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determine a steering wheel torque that corresponds with the overlay force and the torque encountered by the steering wheel”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. “Determin(ing) a steering wheel torque that corresponds with the overlay force and the torque encountered by the steering wheel” merely describe the type of information gathered and used in the mental steps recited as abstract ideas in the claim. Accordingly, these limitations further limit the abstract idea, but do not amount to an additional limitation.
“determine an overlay torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the steering wheel torque and the torque encountered by the steering wheel”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. “Determin(ing) an overlay torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the steering wheel torque and the torque encountered by the steering wheel” merely describe the type of information gathered and used in the mental steps recited as abstract ideas in the claim. Accordingly, these limitations further limit the abstract idea, but do not amount to an additional limitation.
Step 2a prong 2: The 2019 PEG requires examiners to analyze the claim to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application in a meaningful manner. 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”.
Claim 1 does not include any additional steps.
Step 2B: The 2019 PEG inquires if the claim includes additional elements that are “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Regarding claims 2-7, these claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible.
Step 1:
Claims 2-6 recite describe the type of information gathered by the programmable circuitry and claim 7 is towards the type of movement the overlay produces. These claims recite eligible subject matter of “process” and “machine”.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 2 recites “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: determine a feedback counter torque to be provided to the steering wheel based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator; and determine an output torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the feedback counter torque and the overlay torque”; claim 3 recites “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: convert the torque encountered by the steering wheel to an associated force for the road wheel actuator; combine the overlay force and the associated force to obtain a combined force for the road wheel actuator; convert the combined force to a total torque for the steering wheel; and subtract the torque encountered by the steering wheel from the total torque to obtain the overlay torque”; claim 4 recites “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to determine a feedback counter torque to be combined with the overlay torque based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator, and wherein a same conversion function or table is utilized to convert (i) the force applied by the road wheel actuator to the feedback counter torque and (ii) the combined force to the total torque for the steering wheel”; claim 5 recites “the programmable circuitry is to receive a request to cause the road wheel actuator to apply the overlay force”; claim 6 recites “the overlay force is proportional to a steering force applied to move the steerable wheels” and claim 7 recites “the overlay torque produces a movement of the steering wheel that results in an equilibrium between the overlay torque, the torque encountered by the steering wheel, and a feedback counter torque”.
Each recite the abstract ideas as identified in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: determine a feedback counter torque to be provided to the steering wheel based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator; and determine an output torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the feedback counter torque and the overlay torque”. The determining feedback counter torque and output torque amounts to gathering of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: convert the torque encountered by the steering wheel to an associated force for the road wheel actuator; combine the overlay force and the associated force to obtain a combined force for the road wheel actuator; convert the combined force to a total torque for the steering wheel; and subtract the torque encountered by the steering wheel from the total torque to obtain the overlay torque” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to determine a feedback counter torque to be combined with the overlay torque based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator, and wherein a same conversion function or table is utilized to convert (i) the force applied by the road wheel actuator to the feedback counter torque and (ii) the combined force to the total torque for the steering wheel” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to receive a request to cause the road wheel actuator to apply the overlay force” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the overlay force is proportional to a steering force applied to move the steerable wheels” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the overlay torque produces a movement of the steering wheel that results in an equilibrium between the overlay torque, the torque encountered by the steering wheel, and a feedback counter torque” generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim do not amount to significantly more for the following reasons: With respect to the programmable circuitry, the reasons noted above in Step 2A, prong 2 analysis for “data gathering” continue to apply when considering if the limitations alone or in ordered combination amount to significantly more in Step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h), respectively
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining step, the converting step and the subtracting step were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification recites that the computer network is conventional computer devices, and the specification does not provide any indication that these elements are anything other than conventional computing devices. 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), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
These claims are ineligible.
Claim 8 recites:
A method comprising:
identify an overlay force to be applied by the road wheel actuator, the overlay force from a driver assistance function;
identify a torque encountered by the steering wheel;
determine a steering wheel torque that corresponds with the overlay force and the torque encountered by the steering wheel; and
determine an overlay torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the steering wheel torque and the torque encountered by the steering wheel
Step 1: Claim 8 is directed to aa method, which is considered a process; therefore claim 8 is within one of the four statutory categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2a prong 1: The 2019 PEG requires examiners to determine whether the claim includes any of the following abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. The claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception:
“identify an overlay force to be applied by the road wheel actuator, the overlay force from a driver assistance function”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase encompasses performance of the limitation in the human mind. “Identifying an overlay force to be applied by the road wheel actuator, the overlay force from a driver assistance function” is an gathering of data from a driver assistance function. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“identify a torque encountered by the steering wheel”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase encompasses performance of the limitation in the human mind. “identify(ing) a torque encountered by the steering wheel” is an example of gathering of data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determine a steering wheel torque that corresponds with the overlay force and the torque encountered by the steering wheel”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. “Determin(ing) a steering wheel torque that corresponds with the overlay force and the torque encountered by the steering wheel” merely describe the type of information gathered and used in the mental steps recited as abstract ideas in the claim. Accordingly, these limitations further limit the abstract idea, but do not amount to an additional limitation.
“determine an overlay torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the steering wheel torque and the torque encountered by the steering wheel”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. “Determin(ing) an overlay torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the steering wheel torque and the torque encountered by the steering wheel” merely describe the type of information gathered and used in the mental steps recited as abstract ideas in the claim. Accordingly, these limitations further limit the abstract idea, but do not amount to an additional limitation.
Step 2a prong 2: The 2019 PEG requires examiners to analyze the claim to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application in a meaningful manner. 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”.
Claim 8 does not include any additional steps.
Step 2B: The 2019 PEG inquires if the claim includes additional elements that are “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claim 8 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Regarding claims 9-14, these claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible.
Step 1:
Claims 9-13 recite describe the type of information gathered by the programmable circuitry and claim 14 is towards the type of movement the overlay produces. These claims recite eligible subject matter of “process” and “machine”.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 9 recites “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: convert the torque encountered by the steering wheel to an associated force for the road wheel actuator; combine the overlay force and the associated force to obtain a combined force for the road wheel actuator; convert the combined force to a total torque for the steering wheel; and subtract the torque encountered by the steering wheel from the total torque to obtain the overlay torque”; claim 10 recites “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: determine a feedback counter torque to be provided to the steering wheel based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator; and determine an output torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the feedback counter torque and the overlay torque”; claim 11 recites “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to determine a feedback counter torque to be combined with the overlay torque based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator, and wherein a same conversion function or table is utilized to convert (i) the force applied by the road wheel actuator to the feedback counter torque and (ii) the combined force to the total torque for the steering wheel”; claim 12 recites “the programmable circuitry is to receive a request to cause the road wheel actuator to apply the overlay force”; claim 13 recites “the overlay force is proportional to a steering force applied to move the steerable wheels” and claim 14 recites “the overlay torque produces a movement of the steering wheel that results in an equilibrium between the overlay torque, the torque encountered by the steering wheel, and a feedback counter torque”.
Each recite the abstract ideas as identified in claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: convert the torque encountered by the steering wheel to an associated force for the road wheel actuator; combine the overlay force and the associated force to obtain a combined force for the road wheel actuator; convert the combined force to a total torque for the steering wheel; and subtract the torque encountered by the steering wheel from the total torque to obtain the overlay torque” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: determine a feedback counter torque to be provided to the steering wheel based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator; and determine an output torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the feedback counter torque and the overlay torque”. The determining feedback counter torque and output torque amounts to gathering of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to determine a feedback counter torque to be combined with the overlay torque based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator, and wherein a same conversion function or table is utilized to convert (i) the force applied by the road wheel actuator to the feedback counter torque and (ii) the combined force to the total torque for the steering wheel” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to receive a request to cause the road wheel actuator to apply the overlay force” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the overlay force is proportional to a steering force applied to move the steerable wheels” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the overlay torque produces a movement of the steering wheel that results in an equilibrium between the overlay torque, the torque encountered by the steering wheel, and a feedback counter torque” generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim do not amount to significantly more for the following reasons: With respect to the programmable circuitry, the reasons noted above in Step 2A, prong 2 analysis for “data gathering” continue to apply when considering if the limitations alone or in ordered combination amount to significantly more in Step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h), respectively
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining step, the converting step and the subtracting step were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification recites that the computer network is conventional computer devices, and the specification does not provide any indication that these elements are anything other than conventional computing devices. 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), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
These claims are ineligible.
Claim 15 recites:
An apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry;
machine readable instructions; and
programmable circuitry to communicate with the steering wheel actuator and the road wheel actuator, the programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute machine readable instructions to:
identify an overlay force to be applied by the road wheel actuator, the overlay force from a driver assistance function;
identify a torque encountered by the steering wheel;
determine a steering wheel torque that corresponds with the overlay force and the torque encountered by the steering wheel; and
determine an overlay torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the steering wheel torque and the torque encountered by the steering wheel
Step 1: Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus, which is considered a machine; therefore claim 15 is within one of the four statutory categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2a prong 1: The 2019 PEG requires examiners to determine whether the claim includes any of the following abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. The claim(s) recite(s) two judicial exceptions:
“identify an overlay force to be applied by the road wheel actuator, the overlay force from a driver assistance function”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase encompasses performance of the limitation in the human mind. “Identifying an overlay force to be applied by the road wheel actuator, the overlay force from a driver assistance function” is an gathering of data from a driver assistance function. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“identify a torque encountered by the steering wheel”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase encompasses performance of the limitation in the human mind. “identify(ing) a torque encountered by the steering wheel” is an example of gathering of data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determine a steering wheel torque that corresponds with the overlay force and the torque encountered by the steering wheel”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. “Determin(ing) a steering wheel torque that corresponds with the overlay force and the torque encountered by the steering wheel” merely describe the type of information gathered and used in the mental steps recited as abstract ideas in the claim. Accordingly, these limitations further limit the abstract idea, but do not amount to an additional limitation.
“determine an overlay torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the steering wheel torque and the torque encountered by the steering wheel”. This limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. “Determin(ing) an overlay torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the steering wheel torque and the torque encountered by the steering wheel” merely describe the type of information gathered and used in the mental steps recited as abstract ideas in the claim. Accordingly, these limitations further limit the abstract idea, but do not amount to an additional limitation.
Step 2a prong 2: The 2019 PEG requires examiners to analyze the claim to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application in a meaningful manner. 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”.
Claim 15 does not include any additional steps.
Step 2B: The 2019 PEG inquires if the claim includes additional elements that are “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Regarding claims 16-20, these claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible.
Step 1:
Claims 16-20 recite describe the type of information gathered by the programmable circuitry. These claims recite eligible subject matter of “process”.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 16 recites “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: determine a feedback counter torque to be provided to the steering wheel based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator; and determine an output torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the feedback counter torque and the overlay torque”; claim 17 recites “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: convert the torque encountered by the steering wheel to an associated force for the road wheel actuator; combine the overlay force and the associated force to obtain a combined force for the road wheel actuator; convert the combined force to a total torque for the steering wheel; and subtract the torque encountered by the steering wheel from the total torque to obtain the overlay torque”; claim 18 recites “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to determine a feedback counter torque to be combined with the overlay torque based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator, and wherein a same conversion function or table is utilized to convert (i) the force applied by the road wheel actuator to the feedback counter torque and (ii) the combined force to the total torque for the steering wheel”; claim 19 recites “the programmable circuitry is to receive a request to cause the road wheel actuator to apply the overlay force”; claim 20 recites “the overlay force is proportional to a steering force applied to move the steerable wheels”.
Each recite the abstract ideas as identified in claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: determine a feedback counter torque to be provided to the steering wheel based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator; and determine an output torque for the steering wheel actuator based on the feedback counter torque and the overlay torque”. The determining feedback counter torque and output torque amounts to gathering of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: convert the torque encountered by the steering wheel to an associated force for the road wheel actuator; combine the overlay force and the associated force to obtain a combined force for the road wheel actuator; convert the combined force to a total torque for the steering wheel; and subtract the torque encountered by the steering wheel from the total torque to obtain the overlay torque” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to determine a feedback counter torque to be combined with the overlay torque based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator, and wherein a same conversion function or table is utilized to convert (i) the force applied by the road wheel actuator to the feedback counter torque and (ii) the combined force to the total torque for the steering wheel” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the programmable circuitry is to receive a request to cause the road wheel actuator to apply the overlay force” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “the overlay force is proportional to a steering force applied to move the steerable wheels” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim do not amount to significantly more for the following reasons: With respect to the programmable circuitry, the reasons noted above in Step 2A, prong 2 analysis for “data gathering” continue to apply when considering if the limitations alone or in ordered combination amount to significantly more in Step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h), respectively
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining step, the converting step and the subtracting step were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification recites that the computer network is conventional computer devices, and the specification does not provide any indication that these elements are anything other than conventional computing devices. 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), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
These claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobberphul (DE 10 2013 011 286 B4; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’) in view of Bolourchi et al. (US 2006/0060412).
With respect to claims 1-2, 8, 10, Dobberphul discloses a steering system comprising: a steering wheel actuator (4; MTD paragraph 27) operatively coupled to a steering wheel (3); a road wheel actuator (4) operatively coupled to steerable wheels (fig. 1; MTD paragraph 29) of the vehicle; and programmable circuitry (fig. 2) to communicate with the steering wheel actuator (4) and the road wheel actuator (4), the programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute machine readable instructions to: identify an overlay force (LF) to be applied by the road wheel actuator (4), the overlay force from a driver assistance function (7); identify a torque (FHM) encountered by the steering wheel (3); determine a steering wheel torque (SM) that corresponds with the overlay force (LF) and the torque (FHM) encountered by the steering wheel (3); and determine an overlay torque (LFA) for the steering wheel actuator (4) based on the steering wheel torque (LF) and the torque (FHM) encountered by the steering wheel (3) (MTD paragraphs 36-38). (Figs. 1-2, MTD paragraphs 7-40.) Dobberphul does not disclose a steer-by-wire system but discloses the functions of steering wheel actuator and road wheel actuator are accomplished by the same motor (4), not separate actuators. Bolourchi et al. teaches of a steer-by-wire system applicable to electric power systems (paragraph 26) that has separate actuators being the steering wheel actuator (106; paragraph 35) and the road wheel actuator (204; paragraph 35) (fig. 6A); the programmable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: determine a feedback counter torque to be provided to the steering wheel based on a force applied by the road wheel actuator (paragraph 12); and determine an output torque for the steering wheel actuator (106, 128) based on the feedback counter torque and the overlay torque (paragraph 35). (Figs. 1-7, paragraphs 28-48.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Bolourchi et al. into the invention of Dobberphul with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively provide feedback to the driver and moving the rack. (Paragraph 35) In addition, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have separate actuators for the road wheel and steering wheel, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, Dobberphul, as modified, discloses the programmable circuitry is to receive a request to cause the road wheel actuator (4) to apply the overlay force (MTD paragraph 30 “(d)epending on the driver's hand torque FHM and the support torque UM, the steering force LF to be provided by the steering support motor 4 is determined and the steering support motor 4 is set accordingly”). (Figs. 1-2, MTD paragraphs 7-40.)
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, Dobberphul, as modified, discloses the overlay force (LF) is proportional (use of proportional calculation block 64) to a steering force applied to move the steerable wheels. (Figs. 1-2, MTD paragraphs 7-40.)
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Dobberphul, as modified, discloses the overlay torque (LFA) produces a movement of the steering wheel that results in an equilibrium (fig. 2 shows an equilibrium of the operation of the steering system) between the overlay torque (LFA), the torque (FHM) encountered by the steering wheel, and a feedback counter torque (UM). (Figs. 1-2, MTD paragraphs 7-40.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 9-11 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 9 and 17 include the limitations of converting the torque (23) encountered by the steering wheel to an associated force (25) for the road wheel actuator; combining the overlay force and the associated force to obtain a combined force (26) for the road wheel actuator; converting the combined force to a total torque (29) for the steering wheel; and subtracting the torque encountered by the steering wheel from the total torque to obtain the overlay torque (28). The closest prior art, Dobberphul (DE 10 2013 011 286 B4; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’), does not disclose the step of subtracting the torque encountered by the steering wheel from the total torque to obtain the overlay torque.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Varunjikar et al. (US 2020/0262474) discloses a similar steer-by-wire system (fig. 2) that applies an overlay torque (paragraph 64). The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights