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 .
Introduction
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 11-24 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 27, 2024 has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
With respect to figure 1, details regarding the identifications of items S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, and S6 as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses implied language (e.g., the method includes). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 11-24 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
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method for determining at least one defective vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A method for determining at least one defective vehicle, wherein the at least one defective vehicle is a subset of a specified main set of vehicles and the vehicles are divided into a plurality of vehicle types, comprising:
determining data channel actual values, which represent a respective quantity of transmitted data in a first data channel or a second data channel for at least one vehicle,
determining a vehicle-specific ratio value based on a ratio of a respective data channel actual value of the first data channel to a data channel actual value of the second data channel for the at least one vehicle,
determining a deviation value for the at least one vehicle, wherein each deviation value represents a deviation of the ratio value from a specified expected value for the vehicle type,
classifying whether or not the at least one vehicle is defective on the basis of the deviation value.
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, “determining…,” “determining…,” and “classifying…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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.”
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 determining at least one defective vehicle, wherein the at least one defective vehicle is a subset of a specified main set of vehicles and the vehicles are divided into a plurality of vehicle types, comprising:
determining data channel actual values, which represent a respective quantity of transmitted data in a first data channel or a second data channel for at least one vehicle,
determining a vehicle-specific ratio value based on a ratio of a respective data channel actual value of the first data channel to a data channel actual value of the second data channel for the at least one vehicle,
determining a deviation value for the at least one vehicle, wherein each deviation value represents a deviation of the ratio value from a specified expected value for the vehicle type,
classifying whether or not the at least one vehicle is defective on the basis of the deviation value.
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 limitation of “determining data channel actual values…” the examiner submits that this limitations is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the determining data channel actual values step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional element does 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. see 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 11 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, the additional limitations of “determining data channel actual values…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, this additional limitation (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim 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. Therefore, dependent claims 12-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 11.
Therefore, claim 11-24 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.
Claims 11, 16, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Armbruster (US 2017/0019290).
Regarding claim 11, Armbruster discloses a method for determining at least one defective vehicle, wherein the at least one defective vehicle is a subset of a specified main set of vehicles and the vehicles are divided into a plurality of vehicle types (Armbruster, regarding talking about finding a defective node on a vehicle which would inherently be of a specific manufacturer/make (i.e., main set) and a specific model from the manufacturer (i.e., vehicle type)), comprising:
determining data channel actual values, which represent a respective quantity of transmitted data in a first data channel or a second data channel for at least one vehicle (Armbruster, [0059] regarding the expected total outgoing data traffic),
determining a vehicle-specific ratio value based on a ratio of a respective data channel actual value of the first data channel to a data channel actual value of the second data channel for the at least one vehicle (Armbruster, [0061] regarding a difference between the outgoing data traffic DAB and the expected total outgoing data traffic GDV),
determining a deviation value for the at least one vehicle, wherein each deviation value represents a deviation of the ratio value from a specified expected value for the vehicle type (Armbruster, [0062] regarding the difference being compared with a redefinable threshold value SWLL. The redefinable threshold value would be dependent on the make and model of the vehicle.),
classifying whether or not the at least one vehicle is defective on the basis of the deviation value (Armbruster, [0062] regarding detecting a faulty node if the difference is greater than the threshold value. If the node is determined to be faulty then the vehicle would be determined to be faulty.).
Regarding claim 16, Armbruster discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein a vehicle classified as defective is assigned to a specified subgroup depending on at least one specified property (Armbruster, [0062] regarding detecting a faulty node if the difference is greater than the threshold value. If the node is determined to be faulty then the vehicle would be determined to be faulty.).
Regarding claim 23, Armbruster discloses a device for determining at least one defective vehicle, which is designed to execute the method as claimed in claim 11 (Armbruster, [0062] regarding detecting a faulty node if the difference is greater than the threshold value & [0078] regarding the invention being implemented using an apparatus. If the node is determined to be faulty then the vehicle would be determined to be faulty.).
Regarding claim 24, Armbruster discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a computer program comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute the method as claimed in claim 11 (Armbruster, [0078] regarding the invention being implemented using an apparatus (i.e., computer)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights