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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/921,564, with an effective filing date of 10/21/2024. Claims 16-30 are currently pending. Claims 1-15 have been canceled by the Applicant prior to examination.
Priority
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application which was filed 10/21/2024, claiming priority to DE Pat. Pub. No. 10 2023 210 510.1, filed 10/25/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 and 12/4/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 1 item 140;
Fig. 1 item 170;
Fig. 1 item 180.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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:
line 5 contains a phrase that can be implied (i.e., “…is also described.”);
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).
_______________________________________
The use of the term eCall (pg. 7 ln 17), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 18, 20-21, and 26-28 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 line 10 contains a typographical error where variable;, should be corrected to variable;[[,]];
Claim 18 line 3 contains a typographical error where the water level gradient should be corrected to ;
Claim 18 line 7 contains a typographical error where a water level value should be corrected to [[a]] the water level value;
Claim 20 line 1 contains a typographical error where The m ethod should be corrected to The method (omitting space between “m” and “e”);
Claim 21 limitations of detecting at least a location variable, and/or a movement variable, and/or a pressure variable, and/or a camera image; and taking into account the location variable, and/or the movement variable, and/or the pressure variable, and/or the camera image, when carrying out the first comparison and/or when carrying out the second comparison and/or when generating the water level information in order to improve clarity should be reworded to detecting a location variable, a movement variable, a pressure variable, and/or a camera image; and taking into account the location variable, the movement variable, the pressure variable, and/or the camera image, when carrying out the first comparison, carrying out the second comparison, and/or generating the water level information;
Claim 22 limitations of at least the water level information: to a central server, and/or to other road users, and/or to a fleet operator, and/or to a garage, and/or to a charging column operator, and/or to an insurance company, wherein a current geoposition of the vehicle, and/or movement data of the vehicle, and/or a number and a location of the people in the vehicle, and/or an opening state of windows and/or an opening state of doors, and/or landmarks of a surrounding area, are also transmitted in order to improve clarity should be reworded to of at least the water level information: to a central server, to other road users, to a fleet operator, to a garage, to a charging column operator, and/or to an insurance company, wherein a current geoposition of the vehicle, movement data of the vehicle, a number and a location of the people in the vehicle, an opening state of windows, an opening state of doors, and/or landmarks of a surrounding area, are also transmitted;
Claim 22 line 2 recites the limitation transmits which to be in proper form should be corrected to transmitting;
Claim 26 line 5 contains a typographical error where ae current geoposition should be corrected to [[ae]] a current geoposition;
Claim 27 line 1 contains a typographical error where incluiding should be corrected to including; and
Claim 28 line 1 contains a typographical error where based of the water level should be corrected to based off the water level.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
evaluation unit in claim 23 line 1 is described in the Applicant’s disclosure (see pg. 9 ln 23-24) as a control unit which is understood to be a processor that intakes inputs and is capable of actuating control over a function of the vehicle.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, in line 4 the claim recites the limitation a rising water level on the vehicle, and it is unclear whether this is the same as the rise in a water level which is in contact at least with part of a vehicle as recited in claim 16 lines 1-2.
Claims 17-22 are rejected as they inherit the rejection of the claim from which they depend.
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 16 is 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 16 is directed to a method of recognizing a rise in a water level on a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 16 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 16 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 16 recites:
A method for recognizing a rise in a water level which is in contact at least with part of a vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
determining at least two sensor variables of a first sensor which can change directly or indirectly due to a rising water level on the vehicle [mental process/step];
detecting a driving state of the vehicle;
carrying out a first comparison based on at least one first sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable [mental process/step];
carrying out a second comparison based on at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one second sensor variable [mental process/step];,
determining a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison [mental process/step];
comparing the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison [mental process/step]; and
generating water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state.
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…” and “comparing…” 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for recognizing a rise in a water level which is in contact at least with part of a vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
determining at least two sensor variables of a first sensor which can change directly or indirectly due to a rising water level on the vehicle;
detecting a driving state of the vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
carrying out a first comparison based on at least one first sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable;
carrying out a second comparison based on at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one second sensor variable;,
determining a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison;
comparing the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison; and
generating water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state [insignificant extra-solution activity (data source manipulation)].
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting…” and “generating…”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer or processing circuitry to perform the process. In particular, the detecting steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the comparing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating information step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of aggregating and analyzing the results from the comparing and detecting steps), and amounts to mere data source manipulation, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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. 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 16 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 vehicle controller to perform the determining and comparing… 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, the additional limitations of “detecting…” and “generating…”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 23 recites a device having substantially the same features of claim 16 above, therefore claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16.
Dependent claim(s) 17-19, 21-22, and 24 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 as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as determining and comparing and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as detect and generate. Therefore, dependent claims 17-19, 21-22, and 24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 16 and 23.
However, dependent claims 20 and 25 recite additional limitations that properly integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the controlling a component of the vehicle based on the water level information. Therefore, dependent claims 20 and 25 are patent eligible.
__________________________________________
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 27 is directed to a processing unit of recognizing a rise in a water level on a vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 27 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 27 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 27 recites:
A processing unit incluiding a central server, which receives transmitted water level information generated by a vehicle, the water level information being generated by:
determining at least two sensor variables of a first sensor which can change directly or indirectly due to a rising water level on the vehicle [mental process/step];
detecting a driving state of the vehicle;
carrying out a first comparison based on at least one first sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable [mental process/step];
carrying out a second comparison based on at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one second sensor variable [mental process/step];,
determining a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison [mental process/step];
comparing the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison [mental process/step]; and
generating water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state;
wherein the processing unit is configured to, based on the received water level information, determine hazard information [mental process/step] which is transmitted to disaster control and/or a rescue service and/or a traffic control center and/or a garage and/or other road users and/or charging columns and/or charging column operators and/or an insurance company.
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…” and “comparing…” 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for recognizing a rise in a water level which is in contact at least with part of a vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
determining at least two sensor variables of a first sensor which can change directly or indirectly due to a rising water level on the vehicle;
detecting a driving state of the vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
carrying out a first comparison based on at least one first sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable;
carrying out a second comparison based on at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one second sensor variable;,
determining a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison;
comparing the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison; and
generating water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state [insignificant extra-solution activity (data source manipulation)];
wherein the processing unit is configured to, based on the received water level information, determine hazard information which is transmitted to disaster control and/or a rescue service and/or a traffic control center and/or a garage and/or other road users and/or charging columns and/or charging column operators and/or an insurance company. [insignificant extra-solution activity (results transmission)].
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting…,” “generating…,” and “transmitted…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer or processing circuitry to perform the process. In particular, the detecting steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the comparing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating information step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of aggregating and analyzing the results from the comparing and detecting steps), and amounts to mere data source manipulation, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the transmit step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting the results from the determining steps), and amounts to mere transmitting of results, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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. 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 16 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 vehicle controller to perform the determining and comparing… 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, the additional limitations of “detecting…,” “generating…,” and “transmitted…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claim 27 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 28-30 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 as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as determining and comparing and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as detect and generate. Therefore, dependent claims 28-30 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 27.
Therefore, claims 16-19, 21-24, and 26-30 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)(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 16-28 are rejected under 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mohammed et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0410525 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mohammed.
Regarding claim 16, Mohammed discloses:
A method for recognizing a rise in a water level which is in contact at least with part of a vehicle ([0016] sentence (s.)1, defining a rising water level), the method comprising the following steps:
determining at least two sensor variables of a first sensor which can change directly or indirectly due to a rising water level on the vehicle ([0016] two-variables comprising of water-level and humidity);
detecting a driving state of the vehicle ([0038] s.1, collecting inputs including the speed of the automobile if in motion and registering if the vehicle is parked, which are construed as examples of determining the driving state of the vehicle);
carrying out a first comparison based on at least one first sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable ([0016] performing comparison of water level to a water level threshold);
carrying out a second comparison based on at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one second sensor variable ([0016] performing comparison of humidity to a humidity threshold);,
determining a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison ([0017] second timer associated with the water level);
comparing the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison ([0017] comparing to a second time threshold); and
generating water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state ([0016-17] as discussed above which necessarily generates water level information based on the state of the vehicle and time).
Regarding claim 17, Mohammed discloses:
The method according to claim 16, wherein, in the first and/or second comparison, an exceedance of a threshold value is determined using the at least one first sensor variable of the first sensor, or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable, or a water level gradient between two derived water level values, wherein a lower first threshold value is used for the first comparison and a higher second threshold value is used for the second comparison ([0008] classification of hazard data defines different working thresholds to distinguish between the different degrees of the hazards, which is construed as necessarily having a hierarchy of threshold values where the second is associated with a higher degree of hazard due to a higher level of water).
Regarding claim 18, Mohammed discloses:
The method according to claim 16, wherein, in the second comparison:
an exceedance of a first threshold value is determined using the at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor, or a water level value, or the water level gradient between two determined water level values,
based on the exceedance of the first threshold value being determined, an exceedance of a higher second threshold value is determined using the at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor, or a water level value, or the water level gradient between two determined water level values (see claim 16 regarding first and second value thresholds and claim 17 above regarding the exceeding of a water level);
wherein the water level information is additionally generated based on the determination of the exceedance of the second threshold value see claim 16 regarding generating water level information.
Regarding claim 19, Mohammed discloses:
The method according to claim 17, wherein at least one threshold value is defined based on the vehicle state, wherein the threshold value is defined based on a speed of the vehicle or an acceleration of the vehicle (see claim 16 regarding [0038] and detecting the speed of a vehicle as an input).
Regarding claim 20, Mohammed discloses:
The m ethod according to claim 16, further comprising:
controlling a component of the vehicle based on the water level information,
including deactivating energy connections of a battery of the vehicle or activating protection of the battery against water in contact with contacts of the battery ([0017] opening a contactor to terminate a vehicle charging operation, which is construed as deactivating energy connections of a battery).
Regarding claim 21, Mohammed discloses:
The method according to claim 16, further comprising:
detecting at least a location variable, and/or a movement variable, and/or a pressure variable, and/or a camera image (see claim 16 regarding [0038] detecting movement variable and also in [0038] where input data comprises global positioning system coordinates and map data of the automobile vehicle); and
taking into account the location variable, and/or the movement variable, and/or the pressure variable, and/or the camera image, when carrying out the first comparison and/or when carrying out the second comparison and/or when generating the water level information (see claim 16).
Regarding claim 22, Mohammed discloses:
The method according to claim 16, further comprising:
transmits at least the water level information: to a central server, and/or to other road users, and/or to a fleet operator, and/or to a garage, and/or to a charging column operator, and/or to an insurance company, wherein a current geoposition of the vehicle,
and/or movement data of the vehicle, and/or a number and a location of the people in the vehicle, and/or an opening state of windows and/or an opening state of doors,
and/or landmarks of a surrounding area, are also transmitted ([0004] s.3, system is in communication with the computer and a remote system (e.g., server) signals the predefined warning signal to a user of the automobile vehicle (necessarily other users) in time to mitigate against damage occurring to the automobile vehicle and [0038] pertaining to input data comprising speed, map, and location of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 23, Mohammed discloses:
A device for recognizing a rise in a water level which is in contact at least with part of a vehicle, comprising:
an evaluation unit which is part of an airbag control apparatus of the vehicle ([0004] us of computers in communication with a database, construed as an evaluation unit),
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to:
determine at least two water level values, in each case using at least one sensor variable of a first sensor (see claim 16);
detect a driving state of the vehicle using a second sensor, carry out a first comparison based on at least one first water level value, carry out a second comparison based on at least one second water level value (see claim 16),
determine a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison (see claim 16),
compare the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison (see claim 16), and
generate water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state (see claim 16).
Regarding claim 24, Mohammed discloses:
The device according to claim 23, wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine, in the first comparison and/or the second comparison, an exceedance of a threshold value using at least one water level value or a water level gradient between two determined water level values, wherein a lower threshold value is used for the first comparison than for the second comparison (see claim 17).
Regarding claim 25, Mohammed discloses:
The device according to claim 23, wherein the evaluation unit is configured to control a component of the vehicle based on the water level information, including deactivating energy connections of a battery of the vehicle or activating protection of the battery against water in contact with contacts of the battery (see claim 20).
Regarding claim 26, Mohammed discloses:
The device according to claim 23, wherein the evaluation unit is configured to, using a wireless transmission unit, transmit: at least the water level information to a processing unit and/or a central server and/or other road users and/or a fleet operator and/or a garage and/or a charging station and/or an insurance company, wherein evaluation unit is additionally configured to transmit: ae current geoposition of the vehicle and/or movement data of the vehicle, and/or a number and location of people in the vehicle and/or an opening state of windows and/or an opening state of doors and/or landmarks of a surrounding area (see claim 22).
Regarding claim 27, Mohammed discloses:
A processing unit incluiding a central server, which receives transmitted water level information generated by a vehicle, the water level information being generated by:
determining at least two sensor variables of a first sensor which can change directly or indirectly due to a rising water level on the vehicle (see claim 16),
detecting a driving state of the vehicle (see claim 16),
carrying out a first comparison based on at least one first sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable (see claim 16),
carrying out a second comparison based on at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one second sensor variable (see claim 16),
determining a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison (see claim 16),
comparing the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison (see claim 16), and
generating the water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state (see claim 16);
wherein the processing unit is configured to, based on the received water level information, determine hazard information which is transmitted to disaster control and/or a rescue service and/or a traffic control center and/or a garage and/or other road users and/or charging columns and/or charging column operators and/or an insurance company (see claim 22 regarding communication to a remote system to provide a warning signal, [0007] on-board database is in communication with the computer wherein a classification of hazard data in the on-board database is separated to distinguish different degrees of the hazards, and [0072] vehicle off-guard monitoring system 10 of the present disclosure provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) features for communication with a police department, which is construed as a rescue service).
Regarding claim 28, Mohammed discloses:
The processing unit according to claim 27, wherein, based of the water level information and a transmitted geoposition of the vehicle, the processing unit estimates a risk that electrical charging stations in an area of the geoposition should be deactivated for safety reasons with regard to their functionality or danger to users, wherein the processing unit, based on danger information, sends out indirect or direct control signals to deactivate at least one electrical charging station in an area of the geoposition ( [0038] pertaining to input data comprising speed, map, and location of the vehicle, also see claim 27 regarding communication to other systems, and claims 20 and 25 regarding termination of charging as a result of determining excessive water levels).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0410525 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mohammed, in view of Hakeem et al. (DE Pat. Pub. No. 10 2017 120 707 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hakeem.
Regarding claim 29, Mohammed discloses:
utilizing at least two pieces of water level information transmitted by different
vehicles and respective geopositions, wherein the processing unit is configured to transmit the prediction of the further rise in the water level or the spread of the rise in water to disaster control and/or a rescue service and/or a traffic control center and/or other road users (see claim 27 regarding communication to remote computers and other systems including that of law enforcement,
but Mohammed does not disclose:
wherein the processing unit is configured to predict a further rise in the water level or a spread of the rise in water in an area of the geoposition.
However, Hakeem teaches, in pg. 2 of the translation, vehicle navigation with water depth detection. An exemplary disclosed method includes determining current and predicted water depths for and around road segments of a current route to and around a destination. This is construed as predicting the future water levels associated with a specific route based on location and current water level measurements.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and water level observations before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system/method of Mohammed, by incorporating the prediction teachings of Hakeem, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved safety for the vehicle and other vehicles it is in communication with.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0410525 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mohammed, in view of Lavie et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0193943 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lavie.
Regarding claim 30, Mohammed discloses:
wherein the processing unit is configured to transmit information regarding the estimated damage to a garage and/or a fleet operator and/or an insurance company (see claim 27 regarding communication to other systems and generating water level information).
but Mohammed does not disclose:
wherein, based on the water level information, the processing unit is configured to estimate damage caused to the vehicle.
However, Lavie teaches in [0037] use image recognition and deep learning to detect vehicle body damage, and to predict damage type and extent of damage. This is construed as a system that estimates damage caused to the vehicle, necessarily based upon water level.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and water level observations before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system/method of Mohammed, by incorporating the damage assessment teachings of Lavie, as acknowledged by Lavie in [0077] s.6, which allows improved accuracy in damage estimates as compared to prior techniques.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Gao et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. CN 113954875 A) is directed towards an intelligent automobile flooding-preventing method and system, and comparing the water level data with a preset early warning water level;
Tanaka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,785 B1) is directed towards how upstream water level changes are predicted using water level data from the water level gauge; and
Cai et al. article titled, “Analytical approach for predicting fresh water discharge in an estuary based on tidal water level observations” which is directed to the development of an approach to estimating a fresh water discharge on the basis of tidal water level observations along the estuary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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 D. 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.
/KEITH A. VON VOLKENBURG/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665