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 .
Priority
1. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 07/11/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 11-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and Egami (U.S. 2003/0233187) further in view of NAAB et al (U.S. 20080195292).
1. As per claims 11,19 Egami disclosed a method for adjusting a driving dynamics of a motor vehicle comprising: in one operating mode of the motor vehicle having at least assisted longitudinal guiding, in which a speed of the motor vehicle is controlled by a vehicle guiding system of the motor vehicle [A vehicle driving assist system according to the present invention comprises a traveling situation detection device that detects a vehicle condition and a traveling environment around a subject vehicle; a risk potential calculation device that calculates a risk potential around the subject vehicle based upon detection results of the traveling situation detection device; an accelerator pedal reaction force control device that controls an actuation reaction force which is generated for an accelerator pedal based upon the risk potential which has been calculated by the risk potential calculation device; an actuation amount detection device that detects an actuation amount of the accelerator pedal] (Paragraph. 0007), monitoring for activations of an operating element comprising an accelerator pedal of the motor vehicle [The target drive force Fta to be generated by the engine of the vehicle is defined based upon the accelerator pedal actuation amount S, the subject vehicle speed V1, and the gear of the transmission which is currently selected.] (Paragraph. 0054); and
in response to identifying a detected activation of the operating element as touching of the operating element [the subject vehicle speed V1 which is being detected by the speed sensor 6 is read in, and next in step S102 the accelerator pedal actuation amount S which is being detected by the accelerator pedal stroke sensor 4 is read in] (Paragraph. 0071),
However, Egami did not explicitly disclosed subsequently automatically increasing the driving dynamics for the at least assisted longitudinal guiding at least for a respective current driving situation in a predefined manner, wherein the at least assisted longitudinal guiding of the motor vehicle by the vehicle guiding system remains active.
In the same field of endeavor NAAB disclosed, “In this case, the limit of the speed change of the vehicle, as a function of the driver's desired dynamic characteristic of the vehicle, in particular as a function of the shift state of at least one driver-operable operator control element, is suspended or set to higher values. In this case, the acceleration and/or the deceleration dynamics of a driving speed control system are designed so as to be adjustable. Therefore, since the driver sets the acceleration and/or deceleration dynamics, he is tied into the system. Since in this case the limit values of the maximum acceleration and/or deceleration that is set by the system are changed, the effect of the intervention becomes clear only when the automatic speed control system executes an acceleration, acceleration change” (Paragraph. 0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated in this case, the limit of the speed change of the vehicle, as a function of the driver's desired dynamic characteristic of the vehicle, in particular as a function of the shift state of at least one driver-operable operator control element, is suspended or set to higher values. In this case, the acceleration and/or the deceleration dynamics of a driving speed control system are designed so as to be adjustable. Therefore, since the driver sets the acceleration and/or deceleration dynamics, he is tied into the system. Since in this case the limit values of the maximum acceleration and/or deceleration that is set by the system are changed, the effect of the intervention becomes clear only when the automatic speed control system executes an acceleration, acceleration change as taught by Egami in the method and system of improve the efficiency of the driving assist system.
2. As per claim 12 Egami-NAAB disclosed comprising: identifying the touching of the operating element using a predefined movement profile of the operating element (Egami, Paragraph. 0089).
3. As per claims 13,22 Egami-NAAB disclosed comprising: identifying a detected activation of the operating element as touching in response to determining that a duration of the activation of the operating element corresponds at its most to a predefined maximum activation duration (NAAB, Paragraph. 0014), and/or a maximum redirection of the operating element as a result of the activation starting from a position of the operating element as provided at a beginning of the respective activation corresponds at its most to a predefined maximum redirection (NAAB, Paragraph. 0035). Claims 13,22 have the same motivation as to claim 11.
4. As per claims 14,23 Egami-NAAB disclosed comprising: increasing the driving dynamics including increasing an acceleration that is controlled by the vehicle guiding system of the motor vehicle (NAAB, Paragraph 0035). Claims 14,23 have the same motivation as to claim 11.
5. As per claims 15,24 Egami-NAAB disclosed comprising: increasing the driving dynamics including adjusting an earlier or immediate beginning of an acceleration (Egami, Paragraph 0071-0072).
6. As per claims 16,25 Egami-NAAB disclosed wherein in response to, at a time of the touching of the operating element, a preceding vehicle which is still or was previously driving directly in front of the motor vehicle and which is moving out of a travel path of the motor vehicle is selected as a reference object for the longitudinal guiding of the motor vehicle, as a result of the touching of the operating element, an earlier or immediate deselection of the preceding vehicle as a reference object for the longitudinal guiding is initiated (NAAB, Paragraph. 0012). Claims 16,25 have the same motivation as to claim 11.
7. As per claims 17,26 Egami-NAAB disclosed comprising: increasing the driving dynamics by several steps, wherein, in response to the operating element being touched multiple times in succession within a same driving situation for each individual touching of the operating element, the driving dynamics is increased by one step (NAAB, Paragraph. 0019). Claim 17 has the same motivation as to claim 11.
8. As per claims 18,27 Egami-NAAB disclosed comprising: monitoring for activations of a second operating element of the motor vehicle in the operating mode, wherein, in response to identifying an activation of the second operating element as a touching of the second operating element (NAAB, Paragraph. 0038-0039), automatically reducing in a predefined manner the driving dynamics for the at least assisted longitudinal guiding of the motor vehicle at least for the respective current driving situation, wherein the at least assisted longitudinal guiding of the motor vehicle by the vehicle guiding system remains active (NAAB, Paragraph. 0011).
9. As per claim 20 Egami-NAAB disclosed the operating element comprising the accelerator pedal configured to manually control a speed of the motor vehicle; a vehicle guiding system configured to provide at least assisted longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle; and an assistance system coupled thereto (NAAB, Paragraph. 0055).
10. As per claim 21 Egami-NAAB disclosed wherein the processor device is configured to: identify the touching of the operating element using a predefined movement profile of the operating element (Egami, Paragraph. 0089).
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.
11. Claims 11-27 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
Claim 11 is directed to a method and claim 19 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1 and 19 are 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 other analogous claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method for adjusting a driving dynamics of a motor vehicle comprising: in one operating mode of the motor vehicle having at least assisted longitudinal guiding, in which a speed of the motor vehicle is controlled by a vehicle guiding system of the motor vehicle, monitoring for activations of an operating element comprising an accelerator pedal of the motor vehicle; and
in response to identifying a detected activation of the operating element as touching of the operating element, subsequently automatically increasing the driving dynamics for the at least assisted longitudinal guiding at least for a respective current driving situation in a predefined manner, wherein the at least assisted longitudinal guiding of the motor vehicle by the vehicle guiding system remains active.
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, “Monitoring …” all the various data in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 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 Mental 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).
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 method for adjusting a driving dynamics of a motor vehicle comprising: in one operating mode of the motor vehicle having at least assisted longitudinal guiding, in which a speed of the motor vehicle is controlled by a vehicle guiding system of the motor vehicle, monitoring for activations of an operating element comprising an accelerator pedal of the motor vehicle; and
in response to identifying a detected activation of the operating element as touching of the operating element, subsequently automatically increasing the driving dynamics for the at least assisted longitudinal guiding at least for a respective current driving situation in a predefined manner, wherein the at least assisted longitudinal guiding of the motor vehicle by the vehicle guiding system remains active.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 19 further recite “a method for adjusting a driving dynamics of a motor vehicle comprising: in one operating mode of the motor vehicle having at least assisted longitudinal guiding; and an assistance system for a motor vehicle comprising: an interface for detecting input data and outputting control signals; and processor device configured to” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 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.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “automatically increase driving dynamics for the at least assisted longitudinal guiding” in claim 1 and “automatically increasing the driving dynamics for at least assisted longitudinal guiding” in claim 19 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the at least assisted longitudinal guiding of the motor vehicle by the vehicle guiding system remains active” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
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 9 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 a processor to perform the steps 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 discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, 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 over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because 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 performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 12-18 and 20-27 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 12-18 and 20-27 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 11-27 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
13. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
14. 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 PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667