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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and request for reconsideration of application 18/800,419 filed on March, 05, 2026.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the 112(b) of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the 112(b) of that action is withdrawn.
Claims 1-12 are amended.
Claim 13 was previously introduced.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
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: a device configured to detect the damage.., apparatus is configured to determine…, apparatus is configured to detect…, device is configured to determine a moisture…, device is configured to determine a moisture gradient, in claims 7-12.
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 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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for detecting damage to a steering system, comprising:
detecting, with a sensor, moisture in the steering system;
determining with a sensor within the steering system values of moisture in the steering system based upon the detected moisture; and
detecting the damage as a function of the determined values of moisture.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determining” step encompasses a user determining based on the data values from sensor related to the moisture of the steering system. Furthermore, the user is able to detect if there is damage based on the deviation of the data relative to reference values or thresholds. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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”):
A method for detecting damage to a steering system, comprising:
detecting, with a sensor, moisture in the steering system;
determining with a sensor within the steering system values of moisture in the steering system based upon the detected moisture; and
detecting the damage as a function of the determined values of moisture.
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 the detecting steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and steering system condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity
Furthermore, the additional limitations of “steering system and sensor” the examiner submits that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering information for use in the determining step).
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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, 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 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More specifically, the limitations of determining, detecting,.. are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the determining steps in the dependent claims constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Furthermore, the additional limitations in dependent claims 8-12 of “device” and “sensors”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the sensor is recited at a high level of generality and merely collects data, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The sensor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the sensor).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim]. Therefore, claim(s) 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CICERO (2016/0075372) in view of TANABE (WO2018110216A1).
Regarding claim 1, CICERO discloses a method for detecting damage to a steering system (¶0003, “provide early detection in any breach of the bellows of an EPS. In addition, it is desirable to notify the operator of the vehicle of the potential for damage”, EPS is electronic power steering), comprising:
determining with a sensor within the steering system values of moisture in the steering system (¶0030, “determine that the relationship between the temperature value 406′ and the pressure value 408′ is not within a threshold of the reference relationship … the operator of the vehicle could have the EPS system inspected and repair before more serious damage to the EPS system occur” and,
detecting the damage as a function of the determined values (”, ¶0028, “a reduction or loss of pressure when the temperature is rising due to operation of the vehicle indicates that the seal has been breached and a repair is needed. As will be appreciated, at any point where pressure can escape the steering gear assembly 106, moisture can ingress and begin to damage the EPS system 102”).
CICERO does not explicitly but, TANABE teaches detecting, with a sensor, moisture in the steering system (page 03, lines 30-32, “The power steering device 1 is mounted on a vehicle…power steering apparatus 1 includes …a housing 5, and a moisture detection element 6.”, page 05, lines 1-3, “The moisture information signal receiving unit 24 receives the output signal of the moisture detecting element 6.”);
determining values of moisture in the steering system based upon the detected moisture (page 07, lines 41-42, “the moisture purity is estimated based on the resistance value signal from the moisture detecting element 6”); and detecting the damage as a function of the determined values of moisture (page 08, lines 43-45, “The abnormality determination unit 27 determines whether there is an abnormality in the power steering device 1 by further considering the signal of the resistance value between the pair of electrodes in the moisture detection element 6”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the detection of the damage disclosed in CICERO with the determining the detection of moisture taught in Tanabe with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in damage detection of the power steering system by detecting the moisture in the housing of the power steering system.
Regarding claim 2, CICERO discloses wherein: determining with the sensor includes determining values of a temperature in the steering system (FIG. 4B, ¶0030, “ FIG. 4B illustrates the case of a breach of one or both of the bellows (202 in FIG. 2). As can be seen, while the temperature value 406′ is increasing over time, the pressure value 408′ remains at zero at both time 410′ and 412′. In such a circumstance, the processor (300 in FIG. 3) would determine that the relationship between the temperature value 406′ and the pressure value 408′ is not within a threshold of the reference relationship”).
CICERO does not explicitly disclose but, TANABE teaches detecting, with the sensor, temperature in the steering system (page 03, lines page 04, line 45, page 5, line 1, “The temperature information signal receiving unit 23 receives temperature information from the temperature sensor 33 mounted on the control board of the control unit 7.”, page 05, line 20-21, “determines whether the power steering device 1 is abnormal based on the output signals of the temperature sensor”);
determining values of temperature in the steering system based upon the detected temperature (page 05, lines 36-39, “estimates the temperature in the ball screw mechanism housing unit 19 from the temperature information signal from the temperature sensor 33 received by the temperature information signal reception unit 23”); determining a difference of the temperature to a dew point temperature associated with the determined values of moisture, wherein (page 06, lines 18-24, “in the power steering… the abnormality determination unit 27 has entered the housing 5 based on the temperature information signal and the output signal of the moisture detecting element 6 installed in the housing 5. It is determined whether or not the power steering apparatus 1 is abnormal due to moisture freezing. The intrusion of moisture into the housing 5 can be detected from the output signal of the moisture detecting element 6. The freezing of moisture in the housing 5 can be determined from the temperature information signal”); detecting the damage includes detecting the damage as a function of the determined difference (page 06, lines 43-44, “The abnormality determination unit 27 further considers a delay factor with respect to the change in the temperature information signal, and determines whether the moisture in the housing 5 is frozen”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the detection of the damage disclosed in CICERO with the determining the temperature and moisture taught in TANABE with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a safe and reliable operation.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CICERO (2016/0075372) in view TANABE (WO2018110216A1) and further in view of Wang (CN 114913653 A).
Regarding claim 3, CICERO does not explicitly disclose but, Wang teaches wherein: a moisture gradient is determined as a function of the values of moisture; and
detecting the damage includes detecting the damage as a function of the determined moisture gradient (page 08, lines 11-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the detection of the damage disclosed in CICERO with the moisture gradient taught in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a reduction of defect of devices.
Regarding claim 4, Wang further teaches wherein detecting the damage includes detecting the damage as a function of the determined moisture gradient in response to the determined moisture gradient being greater than a threshold value at first time (page 08, lines 11-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the detection of the damage disclosed in CICERO with the moisture gradient taught in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a reduction of defect of devices.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches wherein the damage is detected in response to detection of a deviation of at least one of the determined values of moisture from a reference curve for the moisture or the moisture gradient (page 08, lines 11-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the detection of the damage disclosed in CICERO with the moisture gradient taught in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a reduction of defect of devices.
Claim 6 is is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CICERO (2016/0075372) in view TANABE (WO2018110216A1) and further in view of Winter (DE 102019112099 B3).
Regarding claim 6, CICERO does not explicitly disclose but, WINTER discloses wherein: the damage is detected using artificial intelligence which is configured to map the determined values of moisture to a classification; and the damage is further detected as a function of the classification (page 19, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the detection of the damage disclosed in CICERO with the artificial intelligence taught in Winter with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more accurate and precise estimation of the damage at an earlier stage.
Regarding claims 7-13, claims 7-13 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1-6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding prior art rejection and have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant' s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In particular the applicant argues: the claim has been amended to clarify the sensor detects the moisture and thus claim 1 cannot be performed in the mind of an individual.
Regarding the above argument, examiner respectively disagrees. The detecting steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and steering system condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Delrahim (US 9145783 B2) discloses A monitoring and control system for a seal gas supply system for a non-contacting gas seal. The supply includes several gas conditioning elements or units. The monitoring and control system includes an evanescent wave sensor to sense the presence of liquid in the seal gas. Multiple sensors to sense the temperature and pressure of the treated seal gas are disposed at the outlet of the conditioning elements. A programmable logic device is provided with information regarding the phase of the gas at various pressures and temperatures and compares the sensed data to the baseline data. Recognition of liquid concentrate results in an output signal (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667