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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “”
() “”
() “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) ()-() constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and 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. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim .
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
(D) “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) ()-() constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and 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. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 13-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Fault Estimation of Rack-Driving Motor in EPS System using Artificial Neural Network Observer) hereinafter Kim and Hiwatashi et al. (US 5,816,669) hereinafter Hiwatashi.
Claim 1:
Kim discloses a device, comprising: a memory configured to store one or more instructions; and [pg. 3, ¶3] a processor configured to detect an abnormality of a
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose a rear wheel steering motor.
However, Hiwatashi discloses a rear wheel steering motor [col. 19, lines 27-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim with the concept of detecting failures in the rear-wheel steering motor to provide failure detection to rear steering components thus improving reliability.
Claim 2:
Kim and Hiwatashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kim also discloses wherein the input data comprise information on at least one of a speed of the vehicle, a shift lever position of the vehicle, a steering angle of the vehicle, and a steering angular velocity of the vehicle. [pg. 3, ¶3; Fig. 1]
Claim 5:
Kim and Hiwatashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kim also discloses wherein the processor is further configured to obtain the input data through a controller area network (CAN) of the vehicle. [pg. 3, ¶3; Fig. 1]
Claim 13:
Kim discloses a method of detecting an abnormality of a
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose a rear wheel steering motor.
However, Hiwatashi discloses a rear wheel steering motor [col. 19, lines 27-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim with the concept of detecting failures in the rear-wheel steering motor to provide failure detection to rear steering components thus improving reliability.
Claim 14:
Kim and Hiwatashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Kim also discloses wherein the input data comprise information on at least one of a speed of the vehicle, a shift lever position of the vehicle, a steering angle of the vehicle, and a steering angular velocity of the vehicle. [pg. 3, ¶3; Fig. 1]
Claim 20:
Kim discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store at least one instruction, that when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations of detecting an abnormality of a of the
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose a rear wheel steering motor.
However, Hiwatashi discloses a rear wheel steering motor [col. 19, lines 27-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim with the concept of detecting failures in the rear-wheel steering motor to provide failure detection to rear steering components thus improving reliability.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Hiwatashi as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of George (US 2019/0031231 A1) hereinafter George.
Claim 3:
Kim and Hiwatashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the estimated data comprise a first estimated value for a first residual, which is a difference between a command and a measurement value for a position of the rack that is determined to correspond to the input data, and wherein the measured data comprise a first actual measurement value, which is an actual measurement value of the first residual.
However, George does disclose wherein the estimated data comprise a first estimated value for a first residual, which is a difference between a command and a measurement value for a position of the rack that is determined to correspond to the input data, and wherein the measured data comprise a first actual measurement value, which is an actual measurement value of the first residual. [¶¶61-62]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim and Hiwatashi with the error determination of George to improve the reliability of the system by comparing calculated with measured values.
Claim 15:
Kim and Hiwatashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the estimated data comprise a first estimated value for a first residual, which is a difference between a command and a measurement value for a position of a rack that performs rear wheel steering of a vehicle, wherein the position is determined to correspond to the input data, and wherein the measured data comprise a first actual measurement value, which is an actual measurement value of the first residual.
However, George does disclose wherein the estimated data comprise a first estimated value for a first residual, which is a difference between a command and a measurement value for a position of a rack that performs rear wheel steering of a vehicle, wherein the position is determined to correspond to the input data, and wherein the measured data comprise a first actual measurement value, which is an actual measurement value of the first residual. [¶¶61-62]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim and Hiwatashi with the error determination of George to improve the reliability of the system by comparing calculated with measured values.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Hiwatashi, and George as applied to claims 3 and 15 above, and further in view of Bahena et al. (US 2023/0014442A1) hereinafter Bahena.
Claim 4:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and George as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the estimated data further comprise a second estimated value for a second residual, which is a difference between a command and a measurement value for a motor torque to be generated by the rear wheel steering motor that is determined to correspond to the input data, and wherein the measured data further comprise a second actual measurement value, which is an actual measurement value of the second residual.
However, Bahena does disclose wherein the estimated data further comprise a second estimated value for a second residual, which is a difference between a command and a measurement value for a motor torque to be generated by the rear wheel steering motor that is determined to correspond to the input data, and wherein the measured data further comprise a second actual measurement value, which is an actual measurement value of the second residual. [¶¶55, 67, 72; the motor torque difference being applied is based on position]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim, Hiwatashi, and George with the error determination of Bahena to improve the reliability of the system by comparing calculated with measured values.
Claim 16:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and George as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 15.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the estimated data further comprise a second estimated value for a second residual, which is a difference between a command and a measurement value for a motor torque to be generated by the rear wheel steering motor that is determined to correspond to the input data, and wherein the measured data further comprise a second actual measurement value, which is an actual measurement value of the second residual.
However, Bahena does disclose wherein the estimated data further comprise a second estimated value for a second residual, which is a difference between a command and a measurement value for a motor torque to be generated by the rear wheel steering motor that is determined to correspond to the input data, and wherein the measured data further comprise a second actual measurement value, which is an actual measurement value of the second residual. [¶¶55, 67, 72; the motor torque difference being applied is based on position]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim, Hiwatashi, and George with the error determination of Bahena to improve the reliability of the system by comparing calculated with measured values.
Claim(s) 6, 8-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Hiwatashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 20230017677 A) hereinafter Lee.
Claim 6:
Kim and Hiwatashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the artificial neural network model comprises a generative adversarial network (GAN) including a generator configured to receive the input data and generate the estimated data, and a discriminator configured to receive the input data and the measured data, and output a discrimination value related to actual measurement.
However, Lee does disclose wherein the artificial neural network model comprises a generative adversarial network (GAN) including a generator configured to receive the input data and generate the estimated data, and [Abstract; ¶41; Fig. 2, S110-120] a discriminator configured to receive the input data and the measured data, and output a discrimination value related to actual measurement. [¶53]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim and Hiwatashi with the GAN of Lee to improve measurement accuracy thus increase durability [¶38].
Claim 8:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and Lee as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to input error data related to a difference between the estimated data and the measured data into an abnormality detection model to detect the abnormality of the rear wheel steering motor.
However, Lee does disclose wherein the processor is further configured to input error data related to a difference between the estimated data and the measured data into an abnormality detection model to detect the abnormality of the rear wheel steering motor. [Abstract; Fig. 4; 100, 200, "abnormality detection network"]
Claim 9:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and Lee as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the abnormality detection model uses a one-class support vector machine (OCSVM) algorithm.
However, Lee does disclose wherein the abnormality detection model uses a one-class support vector machine (OCSVM) algorithm. [¶¶34, 41, 58; S110, S120]
Claim 10:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and Lee as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein: the estimated data comprise a plurality of estimated values; the measured data comprise a plurality of measured values; the input data comprise a plurality of input values; and the error data comprise a mean and standard deviation of errors between the plurality of estimated values and the plurality of measured values, a maximum absolute error among the errors, and the discrimination value of the discriminator for the plurality of input values and the plurality of measured values.
However, Lee does disclose wherein: the estimated data comprise a plurality of estimated values; the measured data comprise a plurality of measured values; the input data comprise a plurality of input values; and the error data comprise a mean and standard deviation of errors between the plurality of estimated values and the plurality of measured values, a maximum absolute error among the errors, and the discrimination value of the discriminator for the plurality of input values and the plurality of measured values. [Fig. 4; 100, 220; the use of statistics is well known in the art; Fig. 3; 102, 104, 106, 108, 109; ¶¶51-54]
Claim 11:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and Lee as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the discriminator is further configured to additionally receive the input data and the estimated data, and additionally output an additional discrimination value related to estimation.
However, Lee does disclose wherein the discriminator is further configured to additionally receive the input data and the estimated data, and additionally output an additional discrimination value related to estimation. [Fig. 4; 101, 108, 200; ¶53]
Claim 12:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and Lee as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the artificial neural network model is constructed by alternately performing learning of the generator and the discriminator, and wherein the input data and the measured data are obtained when the vehicle and the rear wheel steering motor are in a normal state, and inputted into the artificial neural network model for performing learning of the generator and the discriminator.
However, Lee does disclose wherein the artificial neural network model is constructed by alternately performing learning of the generator and the discriminator, and wherein the input data and the measured data are obtained when the vehicle and the rear wheel steering motor are in a normal state, and inputted into the artificial neural network model for performing learning of the generator and the discriminator. [¶¶50-54; Fig. 4; 106, 108]
Claim 17:
Kim and Hiwatashi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the artificial neural network model comprises a generative adversarial network (GAN) including: a generator configured to receive the input data and generate the estimated data, and a discriminator configured to receive the input data and the measured data, and output a discrimination value related to actual measurement.
However, Lee does disclose wherein the artificial neural network model comprises a generative adversarial network (GAN) including: a generator configured to receive the input data and generate the estimated data, and a discriminator configured to receive the input data and the measured data, and output a discrimination value related to actual measurement. [Abstract; ¶41; Fig. 2, S110-120]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim and Hiwatashi with the GAN of Lee to improve measurement accuracy thus increase durability [¶38].
Claim 18:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and Lee as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the detecting comprises: inputting, by the processor, the input data and the measured data into the discriminator, and obtaining by the processor, the discrimination value related to actual measurement generated by the discriminator; and inputting, by the processor, error data including the discrimination value and a value related to a difference between the estimated data and the measured data into an abnormality detection model, and obtaining, by the processor, an output of the abnormality detection model.
However, Lee does disclose wherein the detecting comprises: inputting, by the processor, the input data and the measured data into the discriminator, and obtaining by the processor, the discrimination value related to actual measurement generated by the discriminator; and [Abstract; Fig. 4; 100, 200, "abnormality detection network"] inputting, by the processor, error data including the discrimination value and a value related to a difference between the estimated data and the measured data into an abnormality detection model, and obtaining, by the processor, an output of the abnormality detection model. [Fig. 4; 100, 220; the use of statistics is well known in the art; Fig. 3; 102, 104, 106, 108, 109; ¶¶51-54]
Claim 19:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and Lee as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein: the estimated data comprise a plurality of estimated values; the measured data comprise a plurality of measured values; the input data comprise a plurality of input values; and the error data comprise a mean and standard deviation of errors between the plurality of estimated values and the plurality of measured values, a maximum absolute error among the errors, and the discrimination value of the discriminator for the plurality of input values and the plurality of measured values.
However, Lee does disclose wherein: the estimated data comprise a plurality of estimated values; the measured data comprise a plurality of measured values; the input data comprise a plurality of input values; and the error data comprise a mean and standard deviation of errors between the plurality of estimated values and the plurality of measured values, a maximum absolute error among the errors, and the discrimination value of the discriminator for the plurality of input values and the plurality of measured values. [Fig. 4; 100, 220; the use of statistics is well known in the art; Fig. 3; 102, 104, 106, 108, 109; ¶¶51-54]
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Hiwatashi, and Lee as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Mandane et al. (Transformer-Based Conditional Generative Adversarial Network for Multivariate Time Series Generation) hereinafter Mandane.
Claim 7:
Kim, Hiwatashi, and Lee as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Kim doesn’t disclose wherein the generator includes a multivariate transformer.
However, Mandane discloses wherein the generator includes a multivariate transformer. [Abstract; pg. 3, "MTS-CGAN"]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality detection of Kim with the multivariate transformer of Mandane to allow generation of realistic high dimensional and long data sequences under different conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights