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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 11 recites “the frequency spectrum.” This phrase lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear whether it is referring to the “frequency representation” recited in line 9. The Examiner is interpreting every recitation of “the frequency spectrum” to mean the “frequency representation” referred to in line 9.
Please adjust the indentations on the claims so that each first line of each clause has an indent. For example, Claim 1 should read:
A method for generating a part of a vehicle control strategy for a vehicle following a route to a destination, said route extending through one or more route segments, said method being implemented by a control system comprising one or more processor devices, one or more sensors and a storage medium, said method comprising:
obtaining, via the one or more sensors, one or more data streams over time from the vehicle, said one or more data streams containing at least one measurable data parameter;
transforming, by the one or more processor devices, each time sequence of one type of obtained data streams to a frequency representation;
identifying, by the one or more processor devices, one or more relevant components of the frequency spectrum;
quantifying, by the one or more processor devices, the identified one or more relevant components of the frequency spectrum;
associating, by the one or more processor devices, the identified and quantified relevant components of the frequency spectrum with a given road segment of the route;
combining, by the one or more processor devices, the associated, quantified and identified relevant components of the frequency spectrum for the given road segment from different types of data streams into one route characteristics record; and
storing the generated route characteristics record in the storage medium.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 1 is directed to a method for generating a part of a vehicle control strategy for a vehicle following a route to a destination (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 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 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for generating a part of a vehicle control strategy for a vehicle following a route to a destination, said route extending through one or more route segments, said method being implemented by a control system comprising one or more processor devices, one or more sensors and a storage medium, said method comprising:
obtaining, via the one or more sensors, one or more data streams over time from the vehicle, said one or more data streams containing at least one measurable data parameter;
transforming, by the one or more processor devices, each time sequence of one type of obtained data streams to a frequency representation [mathematical concept];
identifying, by the one or more processor devices, one or more relevant components of the frequency spectrum [mental process/step];
quantifying, by the one or more processor devices, the identified one or more relevant components of the frequency spectrum [mental process/step];
associating, by the one or more processor devices, the identified and quantified relevant components of the frequency spectrum with a given road segment of the route [mental process/step];
combining, by the one or more processor devices, the associated, quantified and identified relevant components of the frequency spectrum for the given road segment from different types of data streams into one route characteristics record [mental process/step]; and
storing the generated route characteristics record in the storage medium.
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, “identifying…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data and forming a simple judgement. Also, the “quantifying…”, “associating…” and “combining…” steps, in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data and forming a simple judgement related to categorizing/organizing data.
The examiner further submits that the foregoing bolded limitation “transforming…” covers a mathematical concept since it encompasses a person inputting data into mathematical formula(s) such as a Fourier Transform formula in order to achieve the frequency representation of each time sequence of data streams.
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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for generating a part of a vehicle control strategy for a vehicle following a route to a destination, said route extending through one or more route segments, said method being implemented by a control system comprising one or more processor devices, one or more sensors and a storage medium [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], said method comprising:
obtaining, via the one or more sensors, one or more data streams over time from the vehicle, said one or more data streams containing at least one measurable data parameter [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
transforming, by the one or more processor devices [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], each time sequence of one type of obtained data streams to a frequency representation [mathematical concept];
identifying, by the one or more processor devices [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], one or more relevant components of the frequency spectrum [mental process/step];
quantifying, by the one or more processor devices [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the identified one or more relevant components of the frequency spectrum [mental process/step];
associating, by the one or more processor devices [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the identified and quantified relevant components of the frequency spectrum with a given road segment of the route [mental process/step];
combining, by the one or more processor devices [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the associated, quantified and identified relevant components of the frequency spectrum for the given road segment from different types of data streams into one route characteristics record [mental process/step]; and
storing the generated route characteristics record in the storage medium [insignificant post-solution activity].
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 “obtaining…” and “storing…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely use a computer (control system) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining step from the sensors is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering vehicle and road data for use in the transforming step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The storing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of storing data from the combining step) and amounts to mere post solution data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “control system comprising one or more processor devices, one or more sensors and a storage medium” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of transforming, categorizing, and organizing data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. 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 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 a control system to perform the identifying…, quantifying…, associating…, and combining… steps amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And, as discussed above, in regards to the additional limitations of “obtaining…” and “storing…” the examiner submits that these limitations (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 claims 2-17 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-17 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augst (US 2018/0111623 A1) in view of Maehlisch (DE102012009674 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Augst teaches
A method for generating a part of a vehicle control strategy for a vehicle following a route to a destination, said route extending through one or more route segments see at least the Abstract, said method being implemented by a control system comprising one or more processor devices, one or more sensors and a storage medium see at least FIG. 1, said method comprising:
obtaining, via the one or more sensors, one or more data streams over time from the vehicle, said one or more data streams containing at least one measurable data parameter see at least [0070] where the second set of route profile data and/or second local physical road characteristic have to do with a data fusion or data aggregation deriving from data captured from a plurality of vehicles (by means of a sensor system);
[transforming], by the one or more processor devices, each time sequence of one type of obtained data streams to a frequency representation see at least [0065] where “the second set of route profile data is provided in the coded manner, whereby the coded route profile data include a spectral distribution and/or spectral distribution function determined depending on the second set of route profile data.” Augst teaches that the data streams are provided in a coded manner which includes a spectral distribution and/or spectral distribution function (i.e., the coded data streams correspond to a frequency representation). However, Augst does not explicitly disclose the process of transforming the data streams in order to achieve the coded data streams. This is indicated above by the added [brackets] placed around the term “transforming”;
identifying, by the one or more processor devices, one or more relevant components of the frequency spectrum see at least [0067] where the coding of the second set of route profile data using a spectral distribution makes it possible to identify data such as height differences along a route section;
quantifying, by the one or more processor devices, the identified one or more relevant components of the frequency spectrum see at least [0067] & [0070];
associating, by the one or more processor devices, the identified and quantified relevant components of the frequency spectrum with a given road segment of the route see at least [0067] & [0070];
combining, by the one or more processor devices, the associated, quantified and identified relevant components of the frequency spectrum for the given road segment from different types of data streams into one route characteristics record see at least [0070] where the second set of route profile data comprises a data fusion or data aggregation deriving from data captured from a plurality of vehicles (by means of a sensor system); and
storing the generated route characteristics record in the storage medium see at least [0072].
Augst teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except Augst is silent regarding the process of transforming the data streams to the frequency representation (i.e., the coded second set of route profile data referred to in the disclosure of Augst).
Nevertheless, this is a well-understood, routine and conventional concept in the art of vehicle controls and more particularly in the art of receiving, transmitting, and storing data. For example, see at least the abstract and [0007] of Maehlisch which describes the process of transforming route data relating to the route profile of a journey by means of a frequency transformation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the process of transforming data streams to a frequency representation because, in doing so, “it makes it possible to transmit a driving route profile of an entire journey, regardless of its length, to a control unit in a motor vehicle at a predetermined, limited data rate” [0007].
Regarding claim 2, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining the one or more data streams containing at least one measurable data from one or more sensors arranged to measure one or more vehicle position parameters of the vehicle see at least Augst [0066].
Regarding claim 3, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining the one or more data streams containing at least one measurable data from one or more sensors arranged to measure one or more vehicle operating parameters along the given route segment see at least Augst [0054].
Regarding claim 4, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 3, wherein the one or more vehicle operating parameters comprise any one of the following: vehicle pay-load data, vehicle speed, energy storage system type, energy storage system status and characteristics, internal combustion engine system type, electric machine characteristics, operational characteristics of any auxiliary equipment, vehicle specification data see at least Augst [0054].
Regarding claim 5, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining the one or more data streams containing at least one measurable data from one or more sensors arranged to measure one or more vehicle environmental parameters see at least Augst [0064].
Regarding claim 6, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 5, wherein the at least one measurable data from the one or more sensors arranged to measure one or more vehicle environmental parameters comprises any one of an ambient temperature and a weather condition parameter see at least Augst [0064].
Regarding claim 7, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 1, wherein transforming each time sequence of one type of data streams to a frequency representation is performed by any one of a Discrete Cosine Transform, a Fourier transformation and a Z-transform see at least Augst [0069].
Regarding claim 8, Augst in view of Maehlisch does not explicitly disclose
Method according to claim 1, wherein identifying relevant components in the frequency spectrum is performed by applying a machine learning technique. However, using machine learning techniques to identify relevant components in a frequency spectrum is well-understood, routine and conventional, and doesn't constitute an inventive step. For example, see at least the abstract of Shima (US 2018/0324595 A1) where a deep neural network (DNN) may be used to identify areas within the spectrum that are occupied (i.e., relevant).
Regarding claim 9, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 1, wherein associating the identified and quantified relevant components in the frequency spectrum with a given road segment further comprises associating the identified and quantified relevant components in the frequency spectrum to a direction of travelling see at least Augst [0044].
Regarding claim 10, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 1, wherein combining the associated, quantified and identified relevant components in the frequency spectrum for the given road segment from different types of data streams into one route characteristics record is performed on any one of a road segment level and a route level comprising a number of road segments see at least Augst [0061] where the second set of route profile data represents a varying local physical road characteristic of a route section and [0053] where relevant details of the second set of route profile data may be chosen based on the route sections situated in front of the vehicle that are still to be driven on.
Regarding claim 11, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining different types of data streams from the vehicle, and iterating the steps of transforming, identifying, quantifying and associating for the obtained different types of data streams see at least Augst [0113].
Regarding claim 12, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 1, wherein at least one stored route characteristics record is used for adapting a vehicle control strategy see at least Augst [0082], said method further comprising:
determining a current vehicle position along the route, a current time and a current vehicle operating state see at least Augst [0075] & ;
accessing the storage medium to acquire one or more historical generated route characteristics records see at least Augst [0055]-[0057] & [0082];
comparing the determined current vehicle position, current time and current vehicle operating state with corresponding historical data from the one or more historical generated route characteristics records so as to identify one or more matching characteristics therebetween see at least Augst [0071];
based on the comparison, selecting an identified matching route characteristics record or combining different route characteristics records to form a matching composite route characteristics record of several route characteristics records see at least Augst [0082];
extracting one or more route and vehicle operational requirements from the selected route characteristics record or selected composite route characteristics record see at least Augst [0082]; and
adapting the vehicle control strategy based on the extracted one or more route and vehicle operational requirements, the current vehicle position along the route, the current time and the current vehicle operating state, wherein said vehicle control strategy is provided to set at least one operating parameter to control the operation of the vehicle see at least [0083].
Regarding claim 13, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
Method according to claim 12, further comprising informing an operator of the vehicle of any desired or needed changes to the operating parameter see at least Augst [0004].
Regarding claim 14, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the one or more processor devices, the method of claim 1 see at least Augst [0092].
Regarding claim 15, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
A control system comprising one or more sensors and one or more processor devices configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 see at least Augst FIG. 1.
Regarding claim 16, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the one or more processor devices, cause the one or more processor
devices to perform the method of claim 1 see at least Augst FIG. 1 and [0092].
Regarding claim 17, Augst in view of Maehlisch teaches
A vehicle comprising one or more processor devices to perform the method of claim 1 see at least Augst FIG. 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brittany Renee Peko whose telephone number is (408)918-7506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:30 PT.
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.
/B.R.P./1/10/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661