CTFR 18/850,868 CTFR 74138 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 11/24/25 (an IDS). 2. This is a Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 26 is amended; claims 17-32 are currently pending and are addressed below. 3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. Response 4. Applicant’s argument on 35 USC 101 on claims 17-25, and 27-34 are unpersuasive. According to MPEP § 2106, a claim must meet two criteria to be patent-eligible: Statutory category — it must be one of the four categories defined in 35 U.S.C. 101: processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, and It is not directed to a judicial exception/abstract idea — if it is, the claim must integrate the exception into a practical application and provide significantly more than the exception In the REMARKS ((3/02/26) pages 6-7, applicant argues” The claims are rooted in, and specifically improves, the operation of a concrete motor vehicle electrical system. The claim requires ascertaining a measure of the actual voltage applied to a safe ty- relevant consumer within a vehicle power distribution architecture that includes a stored energy source, line resistances, and switching elements, detecting an undervoltage relative to a defined limit value, determining a physically required reduction measure to increase the voltage at that safety- relevant consumer, and then selecting and disconnecting or downgrading specific non-safety-relevant consumers to achieve the calculated voltage increase” However, the applicant admits “As described in the specification, ...” to show supportive evidences not in the claims ; therefore, these claims are not eligible. Applicant’s argument on 35 USC 103 on claims 17-25, and 27-34 are also unpersuasive These claims suggest steps to follow, the examiner submits that cited art suggest claimed idea. The claims recite the feature of determining, depending on the undervoltage, a reduction measure for a disconnection or downgrading of a non- safety- relevant consumer required to increase the voltage applied to the safety- relevant consumer (e.g., turning off air- conditioning); and selecting a non- safety- relevant consumer to be disconnected or to be downgraded (e.g., instead of setting an air-conditioning at 68 degree Fahrenheit, setting it for 75 degree Fahrenheit to reducing supplied power), based on the reduction measure. Sagert suggests claimed features; therefore, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 5. Independent claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (i.e., at most, applicant presents about using a generic computer to detect/practice a mental process). 101 Analysis - Step 1: Claim 17 is directed to “a method for monitoring a vehicle electrical system” (i.e., a method); therefore, claim 17 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 17 includes limitation(s) that recites an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process): A method for monitoring a motor vehicle electrical system, the electrical system including at least one power distributor via which at least one safety-relevant consumer is supplied with a supply voltage and via which non-safety-relevant consumers are supplied, wherein the power distributor is supplied by at least one stored energy source, the method comprising: ascertaining a measure for a voltage applied at least to the safety-relevant consumer (a mental step: checking/observing an applied voltage to a load); ascertaining, based on the ascertained measure for the voltage, an undervoltage at the safety-relevant consumer, depending on a limit value (a mental step: recognizing an applied voltage level); determining, depending on the undervoltage, a reduction measure for a disconnection or downgrading of at least one non-safety-relevant consumer required to increase the voltage applied to the safety-relevant consumer (this is a mental step); and selecting a non-safety-relevant consumer to be disconnected or to be downgraded, based on the reduction measure (e.g., turning off air-conditioning). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally , or which are the equivalent of human mental work , are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("“[M]ental processes .. and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, a method that claims about above steps is an abstract idea. 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 using a device/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 (e.g., using a computing system/(a storage device) 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 (i.e., there is no “specific” practical structure, or storage medium in those pending claims, 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 claimed abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, those claims recite at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong II According to the 2019 PEG, the claim is 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 generic computer/processor 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.” 101 Analysis - Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 17 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 an proper processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception (e.g., using a generic computer component for measuring/obtaining results). Generally applying an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional limitations of receiving/obtaining data, comparing, and outputting estimated data are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that these claimed activities are all conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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 for a ship is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner from the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int'l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere pre/post-solution activity is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. 6. Dependent claims 18-25, and 27-32 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are also directed to non-statutory subject matter by incorporating their independent claim’ deficiencies; those claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101 because they do not indicate a specific practical application (e.g., including a significant further) for the claimed features. 7. In summary, claims 17-25, and 27-32 are ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 17-18, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christel Sarfert et al. (DE 102020213357A1 – hereafter “Sarfert”) . A. Per independent claim 17 : Sarfert teaches a method for monitoring a motor vehicle electrical system (see Sarfert, pg. 3, 1 st paragraph), the electrical system including at least one power distributor via which at least one safety-relevant consumer is supplied with a supply voltage and via which non-safety-relevant consumers are supplied, wherein the power distributor is supplied by at least one stored energy source (see Sarfert, pg. 3, paragraph 1-2), the method comprising: ascertaining a measure for a voltage applied at least to the safety-relevant consumer (see Sarfert, pg. 7, 4th paragraph); ascertaining, based on the ascertained measure for the voltage, an undervoltage at the safety-relevant consumer, depending on a limit value (e.g., comparing an applied voltage to a limit value, see Sarfert, pg. 8, 1 st paragraph); determining, depending on the undervoltage, a reduction measure for a disconnection or downgrading of at least one non-safety-relevant consumer required to increase the voltage applied to the safety-relevant consumer (e.g., “If the limit value is exceeded, measures are taken to reduce the consumption of the additional consumer, in particular to switch off or downgrade the consumer, the reliability of the alternative energy supply for the safety-relevant consumer can be further increased .” see Sarfert, pg. 8, 1 st paragraph); and Sarfert does not expressly disclose about selecting a non-safety-relevant consumer to be disconnected or to be downgraded, based on the reduction measure (see Sarfert, pg. 10, last paragraph, and pg. 11, 1 st paragraph); however, Sarfert suggests about a disconnecting between consumers 16-17 with a switching means 15; therefore, a selection for disconnecting can be made as suggested by claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Sarfert’s disclosure to selecting a consumer for not providing power to prevent insufficient power for a more critical/safety user during operations. B. Per dependent claim 18 : Sarfert also discloses about a disconnecting power with a switching means 15 when a supply source across a load/consumer is overvoltage (see Sarfert, pg. 10, last paragraph). C. Per dependent claim 27 : Sarfert also discloses about the measure for the voltage applied at least to the safety-relevant consumer is ascertained: (i) by measuring a voltage at the safety-relevant consumer (see Sarfert, pg. 15, second paragraph). D. Per dependent claim 28 : Sarfert also discloses about (ii) the safety-relevant consumer transmits: the trigger to the power distributor – see Sarfert, page 17, last paragraph – this has been a familiar electronic feedback signal between two electronic components to report a current status. E. Per dependent claim 29 : Sarfert also discloses about a selection of the non-safety-relevant consumer to be disconnected or downgraded is made based on currents flowing through each of the non-safety-relevant consumer/load, wherein that non-safety-relevant consumer with a maximum current flow or with a current flow that exceeds a certain limit value is disconnected or downgraded. This claimed limitation is suggested by Sarfert page 13, first para., an overload voltage drop or a circuit that drawing maximum current is disconnected to avoiding further damages to related electronic parts/components. F. Per dependent claim 30 : Sarfert (page 10 last paragraph – page 11 first paragraph) also suggests a consumer/load is disconnected (until a correction/reduction measure is made/reached) . 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim s 19-22, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christel Sarfert, in view of Juergen Motz et al (DE102018201119A1 – hereafter “Motz”) . A. Per dependent claims 19, and 21 : Sarfert and Motz suggest a fundamental effect of voltage drops/reduction(s) (internal and line resistances) is already taken into account when measuring for a voltage drop at a safety-relevant consumer/load (see Motz, page 15, last para.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Sarfert with Motz to measure a voltage drop by subtracting a distributed voltage source with voltage drops on line resistance(s) including an internal resistance) because this is a basic principle of an electronic circuit. B. Per dependent claim 20 : Sarfert also suggests that the voltage drop on the line path between the power distributor and the safety-relevant consumer is ascertained using a resistance of the line path and a current flowing through the safety-relevant consumer overvoltage (see Sarfert, pg. 11, 2nd paragraph). C. Per dependent claim 22 : Sarfert in view of Motz also suggests that a number of the non-safety-relevant consumers that are to be disconnected is ascertained depending on the dropped/reduction measure (see Motz, page 18, first para.). D. Per dependent claim 32: Sarfert in view of Motz also suggests each of the non-safety-relevant consumers is provided with a weighting or priority value, and the selection of the non-safety- relevant consumer to be disconnected or downgraded is carried out by an optimization of the provided weightings or priority values (e.g., a familiar default value for “a weighting or priority value” is “one”, then cited prior art are still good to apply, see Motz’119, page 12, last paragraph). 10. Claims 23-25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christel Sarfert, in view of Droof et al (CN 101673137 B – hereafter “Droof”). A. Per dependent claim 23 : Sarfert in view of Droof suggests the reduction measure is made sure/ascertained that the supply voltage and/or the voltage applied to the safety-relevant consumer is increased at least by the undervoltage (see Droof, page 12, first para.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Sarfert with Droof’s suggestion to supply power within a limit level to guarantee a reliable working condition which this intention has been a successful expectation. B. Per dependent claim 24 : Sarfert in view Droof suggests the limit value changes depending on a time period for which the measure of a voltage drop at the safety-relevant consumer falls below a current limit value, the limit value increasing as the time period increases (see Droof, page 14, para. 1-2). C. Per dependent claim 25 : Sarfert in view Droof suggests the reduction measure (e.g., a voltage drop by loss(s) before delivering to a load (e.g., a voltage difference between u2, and u1: a voltage drop on converter 22 – see Sarfert, Fig. 1), and this voltage is transmitted by an energy management system (e.g., an energy management system of a motor vehicle, see Droof, Fig. 1 ref. 20). D. Per dependent claim 31 : Sarfert in view Droof suggests an intelligent controller to a weighting factor specific to the respective load/consumer (e.g., using a default weighting factor of “one”) and the respective linked values are used for a selection of the load/;consumer to be disconnected – the rationales and references for an obvious rejection is similar as above because of using a weighting factor of “one” with a controller (e.g., see also an example of Kernahan et al Kernahan et al (CN 100474751 C) using an intelligent controller (SYS) 1205 for switching purposes). Reason for Allowance 11. Pending independent claim 26 is patentable over Sarfert et al in view of Juergen Motz et al, and in view of Droof et al because they do not suggest a method for monitoring a motor vehicle electrical system, the electrical system including at least one power distributor via which at least one safety- relevant consumer is supplied with a supply voltage and via which non- safety- relevant consumers are supplied, wherein the power distributor is supplied by at least one stored energy source, the method comprising: ascertaining a measure for a voltage applied at least to the safety-relevant consumer; ascertaining, based on the ascertained measure for the voltage, an undervoltage at the safety-relevant consumer, depending on a limit value; determining, depending on the undervoltage, a reduction measure for a disconnection or downgrading of at least one non-safety-relevant consumer required to increase the voltage applied to the safety-relevant consumer; and selecting a non-safety-relevant consumer to be disconnected or to be downgraded, based on the reduction measure, wherein it is ascertained when the measure for the voltage drop at the safety-relevant consumer reaches the limit value and from a time the limit value is reached, a time period is detected during which the limit value is undershot, wherein the detected time period is compared with a time period assigned to the limit value and when the assigned time period is reached, a trigger is generated for initiating a disconnection or downgrading of at least one non-safety-relevant consumer. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 12. Pending claims 17-25, 27-32 are rejected; claim 26 is allowed. 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. 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or S71-272- 1000. /CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/850,868 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights