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 .
1. This application has been examined. The preliminary amendment filed 8/21/24 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are pending.
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
3. The IDS filed 8/17/25 has been considered.
4. 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 1-4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
• STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
• STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
- STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
- STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
- STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
Step 1:
Claims 1-4 and 6 are directed to a method/process. Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claims fall within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2:
Step 2A, Prong I: Regarding Prong I of Step 2A, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Taking claim 1 as exemplary, the claim recites mathematical concepts as indicated below in bold:
A method of diagnosing a vehicle including an electric motor performed in the vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring a first measurement value for a temperature associated with the electric motor, a second measurement value for a voltage associated with the electric motor, and a third measurement value for a current associated with the electric motor from one or more sensors installed in the electric motor;
calculating a first score for a predetermined diagnostic factor based on the first measurement value;
calculating a second score for the predetermined diagnostic factor based on the second measurement value;
calculating a third score for the predetermined diagnostic factor based on the third measurement value;
reading a weight for each of the temperature, the voltage, and the current with regard to the predetermined diagnostic factor from a database installed in the vehicle; and
calculating a comprehensive diagnostic score for the predetermined diagnostic factor based on the weight for each of the first score, the second score, the third score, and the predetermined diagnostic factor.
The above highlighted limitations involve mathematical concepts (“calculating”).
Step 2A, Prong II: Regarding Prong II of Step 2A, the claim is analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)).
It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
Referring to claim 1 as shown above, the claim further recites the steps of:
• acquiring a first measurement value for a temperature associated with the electric motor, a second measurement value for a voltage associated with the electric motor, and a third measurement value for a current associated with the electric motor from one or more sensors installed in the electric motor
• reading a weight for each of the temperature, the voltage, and the current with regard to the predetermined diagnostic factor from a database installed in the vehicle.
The “acquiring” and “reading” steps merely provide values which are operated upon in the calculations and thus represent insignificant extra solution activity in that the steps merely provide the values used in the mathematical concepts (calculating operations). The end result of the method is a calculated value (“score”). The claim further recites structural elements (vehicle, electric motor, one or more sensors, database), but these elements are recited at a high level of generality and represent an environment or intended use and fail to impart meaningful limitations on the calculation/acquiring/reading steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (See MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, 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 as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, claim 1 as a whole is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 and 6 further define the calculating operations of claim 1 and thus are directed to the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 sets forth a system which includes a processor which performs the method of claim 1. The processor receives input values from the sensors and database as discussed above in claim 1 to enable the processor to perform the calculations. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to impart meaningful limitations on the judicial exception. Furthermore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., merely produces a calculated value). Hence, claim 8 is also not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 5 and 7, these additional steps are deemed to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application insofar as at least one of the calculated scores for a predetermined diagnostic factor is compared with a reference value and generates a warning based on a comparison result (i.e., diagnoses fault in electric motor) or evaluating at least one of a state, failure, stability, or expected failure of the electric motor based on the comprehensive diagnostic score.
5. Claims 1-8 are deemed to be distinguishable over the prior art. The prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claimed limitations, calculating a comprehensive diagnostic score for the predetermined diagnostic factor based on the weight for each of the first score, the second score, the third score, and the predetermined diagnostic factor.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular,
• Du et al. (WO 2022217597)- AI diagnosis of motor driver of an electric vehicle drivetrain; takes into consideration parameters of motor such as motor temperature, motor current and motor voltage; provides early warning of fault.
• Ozaki (EP 2684731)- diagnosing drive motor of an electric vehicle; detects coil temperature of motor; abnormality determined based on motor temperature, current and voltage.
• Lu et al. (US 2013/0013138)- predicting failure of traction motor of a vehicle; examines electrical signatures of motor to detect faults; monitors signals related to current, voltage and temperature.
• Zhang et al. (Artificial Intelligence Technique-Based EV Powertrain Condition Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis: A Review)- uses AI technology for fault analysis of electric powertrain of a vehicle.
• El hadraoui et al. (Diagnostic and Prognostic Health Management of Electric Vehicle Powertrains : An Empirical Methodology for Induction Motor Analysis)- on-board diagnostic and prognostic processing for detecting and predicting failures related to motor of an electric vehicle; incorporates trained models.
None of the cited references, either alone or in combination, disclose or reasonably suggest the distinguishing feature noted above.
7. Claims 5 and 7 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. ZANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-6969. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 9-4; Th 9-2.
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, Ramya P. Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/MICHAEL J ZANELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661