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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 14, 2024. Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are pending. Claim 8 is cancelled.
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 1-7 and 9-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 and 9-11 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As addressing a machine readable storage medium, these are considered Beauregard claims, named after In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1538 (Fed.Cir. 1995).
As to claim 9, a claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of machine readable media in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves) Manual of Patent Examining Procedure Section 2106.
The Specification at [0041], [0138], or other locations, does not limit the computer-readable storage medium to not include propagating electromagnetic waves, or signals per se. As understood in light of the Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9 encompasses signals which are not within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 I.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Subject Matter of Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Official Gazette of the Patent Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
See also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir. 2011) and Digital Vending Services Intl. v. University of Phoenix Inc., 672 F.3d 1270 (Fed.Cir. 2012).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 recites:
A computer program product, comprising computer-readable codes which, when run on an electronic device, causes the electronic device to perform the method according to claim 1.
This is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and is merely software per se. The claim is exclusively computer-readable codes, which are considered software per se.
A claim to software per se is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it doesn’t fall within one of the statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hrovat et al., U.S. Patent 7,499,787 B2 (2009).
As to claim 1, Hrovat et al. discloses a slip control method, comprising:
acquiring a wheel speed of each wheel of a vehicle in response to a working condition that the vehicle is in a launch starting execution stage (Column 3, Line 58 – Column 4, Line 8);
determining a slip working condition of the vehicle according to the wheel speed of each wheel (Column 3, Line 58 – Column 4, Line 8);
acquiring one or more motor operating parameters of the vehicle, and determining a slip output torque of the vehicle according to the slip working condition of the vehicle and the motor operating parameters (Column 3, Line 58 – Column 4, Line 8); and
adjusting an actual output torque of the vehicle according to the slip output torque, and controlling the motor to operate at the adjusted actual output torque (Column 3, Line 58 – Column 4, Line 8).
As to claim 9, Hrovat et al. discloses a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method according to claim 1 is implemented (Claim 1, Column 3, Line 58 – Column 4, Line 8).
As to claim 10, Hrovat et al. discloses an electronic device, comprising a processor, a communication interface, a memory and a communication bus, wherein the processor, the communication interface and the memory communicate with each other through the communication bus (Column 2, Lines 60-67);
the memory is configured to store a computer program; and the processor is configured to, when executing the computer program stored in the memory, implement the method according to claim 1 (Claim 1, Column 3, Line 58 – Column 4, Line 8).
As to claim 11, Hrovat et al. discloses a computer program product, comprising computer-readable codes which, when run on an electronic device, causes the electronic device to perform the method according to claim 1 (Claim 1, Column 3, Line 58 – Column 4, Line 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Drako, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0090005 A1 discloses a torque distribution based on detected wheel slip. Lee, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0121870 A1 discloses four wheel slip detection and torque control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6442.
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 A BERNS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667