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 Objections
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, it appears Applicant intended “preform” to read --perform--
In claim 1, line 10, it appears Applicant intended “after a predetermined period of time” to read --after the predetermined period of time --, as antecedent basis for “predetermined period of time” has been established in the claims.
In claim 2, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “wherein further estimating the deterioration state” to read --wherein the operations further comprise estimating the deterioration state--
In claim 3, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “wherein generating the operating prediction data” to read --wherein the operations further comprise generating the operating prediction data--
In claim 4, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “further comprising performing a predetermined output” to read --wherein the operations further comprise performing a predetermined output--
In claim 8, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “and generating delivery plan information” to read --and wherein the operations further comprise generating delivery plan information--
In claim 10, line 3, it appears Applicant intended “the operating prediction data include at least one of at least one of an average value and an upper limit value …” to read --the operating prediction data include at least one of an average value and an upper limit value …--, removing the redundant phrase “at least one of”
In claim 13, line 7, it appears Applicant intended “after a predetermined period of time” to read --after the predetermined period of time --, as antecedent basis for “predetermined period of time” has been established in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, claims 1, 12, and 13 each recite "acquiring operating prediction data indicating a prediction result of an operating state of the product until after a lapse of a predetermined period of time", or similar, which is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “until after a lapse of a predetermined period of time”, rendering the scope of the claim(s) indefinite. Claim(s) 2-10 depend(s) from claim(s) 1, (respectively,) fail(s) to cure said indefiniteness issues, and is/are thereby similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret said limitation to mean "acquiring operating prediction data indicating a prediction result of an operating state of the product after a lapse of a predetermined period of time", or similar, as appears to be most consistent with Applicant's specification.
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 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine), independent claim 12 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), and independent claim 13 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 and 12-13 are each 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. The method and apparatus of claims 12 and 13 mirror claim 1, and are analyzed similarly. Claim 1 recites:
A component state estimation apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires state information indicating a state of a component included in a product, and also acquires operating prediction data indicating a prediction result of an operating state of the product until after a lapse of a predetermined period of time; and
an estimation unit that estimates a deterioration state of the component after a predetermined period of time has elapsed by using the state information and the operating prediction data.
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. For example, “estimates a deterioration state of the component after a predetermined period of time has elapsed by using the state information and the operating prediction data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing data collected and forming a simple judgement regarding a component’s deterioration state. 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 component state estimation apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires state information indicating a state of a component included in a product, and also acquires operating prediction data indicating a prediction result of an operating state of the product until after a lapse of a predetermined period of time; and
an estimation unit that estimates a deterioration state of the component after a predetermined period of time has elapsed by using the state information and the operating prediction data.
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 “[acquiring] state information indicating a state of a component included in a product, and also [acquiring] operating prediction data indicating a prediction result of an operating state of the product until after a lapse of a predetermined period of time”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (circuitry) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information of a component, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “circuitry” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using circuitry to perform the estimating… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “[acquiring] state information indicating a state of a component included in a product, and also [acquiring] operating prediction data indicating a prediction result of an operating state of the product until after a lapse of a predetermined period of time”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “[acquiring] state information indicating a state of a component included in a product, and also [acquiring] operating prediction data indicating a prediction result of an operating state of the product until after a lapse of a predetermined period of time” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as outlined in the prior art rejections below. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 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. Said claims as a whole recite a mental process because the claims recite, under their broadest reasonable interpretation as drafted, using track record data about the product to estimate the deterioration state, using schedule information to generate the operating prediction data, performing an output when an estimation result satisfies a reference, the output indicating a timing when the component needs to be exchanged, the output includes reference information for suppressing deterioration of the component, specifying the reference information is related to an operating timing of the product, specifying the product is a vehicle and generating a delivery plan using the reference information, specifying the component is a battery, engine oil, a windshield wiper, a headlight, a belt, a tire, or a brake pad, and specifying the operating prediction data include an average value and an upper limit of traveling distance, travelling time, speed, operating time of a windshield wiper or a headlight, a temperature setting of an air conditioner, and a number of times an engine is activated.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-10 and 12-13 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda (US PGPub. No. 2016/0133070).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 13, Ikeda discloses a component state estimation apparatus [10] comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (¶0027); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to preform operations comprising (¶0025):
acquiring state information indicating a state of a component included in a product [20] (¶0030-0032, ¶0049), and also acquiring operating prediction data indicating a prediction result of an operating state of the product until after a lapse of a predetermined period of time (¶0031-0033; Ikeda’s deterioration coefficient reads on “operating prediction data” for determining an operating state of the product at “a predetermined future moment (specified by timing, running distance, etc.) of the consumable” (¶0031)); and
estimating a deterioration state of the component after a predetermined period of time has elapsed by using the state information and the operating prediction data (¶0031-0033).
Regarding Claim 2, Ikeda discloses the component state estimation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
further estimating the deterioration state by using track record data about an operating state of the product (¶0027-0028, ¶0047).
Regarding Claim 4, Ikeda discloses the component state estimation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising
performing a predetermined output when an estimation result satisfies a reference (¶0035-0036).
Regarding Claim 5, Ikeda discloses the component state estimation apparatus according to claim 4, wherein
the predetermined output includes information indicating a timing at which the component needs to be exchanged (¶0035-0036).
Regarding Claim 6, Ikeda discloses the component state estimation apparatus according to claim 4, wherein
the predetermined output includes reference information that needs to be referred in order to suppress deterioration of the component (¶0035-0036).
Regarding Claim 7, Ikeda discloses the component state estimation apparatus according to claim 6, wherein
the reference information is related to an operating timing of the product (¶0035-0036).
Regarding Claim 8, Ikeda discloses the component state estimation apparatus according to claim 7, wherein
the product is a vehicle [20] for distribution, and
generating delivery plan information by the vehicle by using the reference information (¶0035-0036). Examiner notes Ikeda’s system may be implemented within a carrier fleet of work trucks (Figure 1; ¶0006, ¶0022, ¶0025-0026), so any future maintenance deemed necessary (¶0035-0036) represents a down-time for a particular vehicle undergoing maintenance and thereby represents a type of delivery plan information.
Regarding Claim 9, Ikeda discloses the component state estimation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the product is a vehicle [20], and
the component is at least one of a battery, engine oil, a windshield wiper, a headlight, a belt, a tire, and a brake pad (¶0028, ¶0032, ¶0047, ¶0059-0060).
Regarding Claim 10, Ikeda discloses the component state estimation apparatus according to claim 9, wherein
the component is a battery (¶0047), and
the operating prediction data include at least one of at least one of an average value and an upper limit value of a traveling distance, a traveling time, and a speed, an operating time of a windshield wiper, an operating time of a headlight, an operating time and a setting temperature of an air conditioner, and a number of times an engine is activated (including a number of times of an idling stop of an engine) (¶0031-0033; Ikeda’s deterioration coefficient represents at least “a running area, a road condition, weather, [or] a load capacity”, a “running speed”, and a “[running] duration time”).
Claim 11 was cancelled.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US PGPub. No. 2023/0226942).
Regarding Claim 3, Ikeda discloses the component state estimation apparatus according to claim 1 (Ikeda ¶0025, ¶0027, ¶0030-0033, ¶0049), but appears to be silent on the apparatus further wherein
generating the operating prediction data by using at least one of schedule information indicating an operating schedule of the product, and current month and day.
Yang, however, teaches a charging control device [Yang 130] that considers a delivery schedule for a fleet of vehicles [Yang 300] for determining a current charging requirement based on delivery distance and weight of an article to be delivered, and for determining a battery degradation map relating to a future degradation of the battery following said delivery (Yang ¶0104-0108). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ikeda in view of Yang. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Ikeda, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include the apparatus further wherein generating the operating prediction data by using at least one of schedule information indicating an operating schedule of the product, and current month and day, as doing so was a known way of accounting for known future vehicle usage in determining future vehicle component degradation states, as recognized by Yang (Yang ¶0104-0108). Furthermore, Yang’s system is understood to consider a current date (at least a month and day) for making sense of the delivery schedule and grasping what upcoming vehicle usage will be, as otherwise the delivery schedule would not be useful.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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 V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664