DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/934,666 filed on November 1, 2024 in which claims 1-8 were presented for examination.
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
Claims 1-8 are pending, of which claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), and claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 1, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
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 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).
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):
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” “step,” or a generic placeholder, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function in the claims. Such claim limitations are: “selection unit,” “speed acquisition unit,” and “position estimation unit” in claims 1-8.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because they depend from claim 3, while intervening claim 4 depends from claim 2. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, Applicants’ sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
This objection will be held in abeyance upon Applicant’s request.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-8, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claim recites, when considered individually or as a whole, a system for selecting the correct speed of a vehicle. 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 in the 2019 PEG, the claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the § 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A monitoring device configured to monitor a vehicle that travels through unattended operation using an electric motor as a power source, comprising:
a selection unit configured to select which one of a first method and a second method is used to acquire a speed of the vehicle according to a status about the speed of the vehicle, the first method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using a detection value from a vehicle speed sensor that makes an output in synchronization with rotation of a wheel of the vehicle, and the second method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using information about a rotational speed of the electric motor provided in the vehicle; and
a speed acquisition unit configured to acquire the speed of the vehicle using the method selected by the selection unit.
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, selecting a piece of data to be used from among multiple options in the context of this claim encompasses process that is easily capable of being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A monitoring device configured to monitor a vehicle that travels through unattended operation using an electric motor as a power source, comprising:
a selection unit configured to select which one of a first method and a second method is used to acquire a speed of the vehicle according to a status about the speed of the vehicle, the first method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using a detection value from a vehicle speed sensor that makes an output in synchronization with rotation of a wheel of the vehicle, and the second method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using information about a rotational speed of the electric motor provided in the vehicle; and
a speed acquisition unit configured to acquire the speed of the vehicle using the method selected by the selection unit.
For the following reasons, 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 the “monitoring device,” the “selection unit,” and the “speed acquisition unit,” the examiner submits that these limitations are instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
In particular, the components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea.
Regarding the limitations “the first method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using a detection value from a vehicle speed sensor that makes an output in synchronization with rotation of a wheel of the vehicle, and the second method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using information about a rotational speed of the electric motor provided in the vehicle” and “acquire the speed of the vehicle using the method selected by the selection unit,” the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
In particular, the steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 limitations do 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, 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 elements of “monitoring device,” the “selection unit,” and the “speed acquisition unit,” 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “the first method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using a detection value from a vehicle speed sensor that makes an output in synchronization with rotation of a wheel of the vehicle, and the second method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using information about a rotational speed of the electric motor provided in the vehicle” and “acquire the speed of the vehicle using the method selected by the selection unit,” the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and Cao et al., US Publication 2023/0286517 (hereinafter Cao).
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite a mental process for selecting a piece of data. Each of the further limitations expound upon the mental process and do not recite additional elements integrating the mental process into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 2-8 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cao et al., US Publication 2023/0286517 (hereinafter Cao).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a monitoring device configured to monitor a vehicle that travels through unattended operation using an electric motor as a power source, comprising “selection unit configured to select which one of a first method and a second method is used to acquire a speed of the vehicle according to a status about the speed of the vehicle, the first method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using a detection value from a vehicle speed sensor that makes an output in synchronization with rotation of a wheel of the vehicle” (Cao ¶ 41) where wheel speed sensors 171 determine the speed by “sensing rotation of the wheels 105.” Additionally, Cao discloses “the second method being a method of acquiring the speed of the vehicle using information about a rotational speed of the electric motor provided in the vehicle” (Cao ¶ 37) where EDUs 11 calculate the “rotational information” of the motors “to derive motor speed.” Finally, Cao discloses “a speed acquisition unit configured to acquire the speed of the vehicle using the method selected by the selection unit” (Cao ¶ 42) where the sensor information, including the speed information, is used and, thus, acquired, to control various functions of the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Edwards et al., US Publication 2023/0192116 (hereinafter Edwards).
Regarding claim 2, Cao discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Cao discloses “wherein the selection unit is configured to: select the first method when a predetermined condition indicating that a reliability degree of the detection value from the vehicle speed sensor … is met; and select the second method when the predetermined condition is not met” (Cao ¶¶ 43-44) where a process is described that performs a “sensed wheel speed fault check” (i.e., a predetermined condition indicating that a reliability degree of the detection value from the vehicle speed sensor) is equal to or higher that a predetermined value, and if it fails, the motor speed information “provide[s] a source of redundancy and backup to the sensed wheel information” (i.e., selects the second method when the predetermined condition is not met).
Cao does not disclose how the fault flag is determined and, thus, does not appear to explicitly disclose “select the first method when a predetermined condition indicating that a reliability degree of the detection value from the vehicle speed sensor is equal to or higher than a predetermined value is met; and select the second method when the predetermined condition is not met.”
However, Edwards discloses a monitoring device configured to monitor a vehicle that travels through unattended operation using an electric motor as a power source, comprising determining the wheel speed sensor is accurate “when a predetermined condition indicating that a reliability degree of the detection value from the vehicle speed sensor is equal to or higher than a predetermined value is met” (Edwards ¶ 40) where the sensor is determined to be accurate when the detected speed equals the speed of the motion plan (i.e., a predetermined value).
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Edwards was combined with Cao, the error detection of Edwards would be at least one of the methods used for setting a fault flag according to Cao. Therefore, the combination of Cao and Edwards at least teaches and/or suggests “select the first method when a predetermined condition indicating that a reliability degree of the detection value from the vehicle speed sensor is equal to or higher than a predetermined value is met; and select the second method when the predetermined condition is not met,” rendering it obvious.
Cao and Edwards are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle testing.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cao and Edwards before him or her to modify the fault flag of Cao to include the method for determining a fault of Edwards.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Cao teaches the “base device” for determining if a vehicle speed sensor is accurate. Further, Edwards teaches the “known technique” determining that a vehicle speed sensor is inaccurate by comparing a speed setting to a predetermined speed that is applicable to the base device of Cao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cao and Edwards discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Cao and Edwards discloses “wherein the predetermined condition involves indicating that the detection value from the vehicle speed sensor is equal to or more than a predetermined speed” (Edwards ¶ 40) where the predetermined condition involves indicating that the detection value from the vehicle speed sensor is equal to the predetermined speed.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cao and Edwards discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Cao and Edwards discloses “wherein: the vehicle is configured to travel in a factory in which a plurality of processes is executed in order to manufacture the vehicle.” (Edwards ¶ 10 and Fig. 3). Further, the combination of Cao and Edwards discloses “the predetermined condition involves a travel speed of the vehicle being not limited in a present process of the vehicle” (Edwards ¶ 25) where a list of limitations that may be applied to the vehicle are present. Although travel speed is present on this list, Edwards clearly indicates that any combination of these constraints may be applied and, thus, indicates some combinations that do not limit the speed of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cao and Edwards discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Cao and Edwards discloses “wherein when the first method is selected, a control value for controlling the unattended operation of the vehicle includes at least a target value for acceleration of the vehicle” (Edwards ¶ 25) where acceleration constraints set a target value for the maximum acceleration of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cao and Edwards discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Cao and Edwards discloses “wherein when the second method is selected, a control value for controlling the unattended operation of the vehicle includes at least a target value for the speed of the vehicle” (Edwards ¶ 40) where a target value of the speed of the vehicle is the control value when any method is selected.
Regarding claim 7, Cao discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Cao does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising a communication device that regularly receives the detection value from the vehicle speed sensor and the rotational speed of the electric motor from the vehicle.”
However, Edwards discloses a monitoring device configured to monitor a vehicle that travels through unattended operation using an electric motor as a power source, comprising “a communication device that regularly receives the detection value from the vehicle speed sensor and the rotational speed of the electric motor from the vehicle” (Edwards ¶ 29) where any of the detected data may be sent to monitoring system 340 because it is part of system 200.
Cao and Edwards are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle testing.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cao and Edwards before him or her to modify the vehicle testing system of Cao to include the external communication device of Edwards.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the external gathering of data improves the quality and experience of the system. (Edwards ¶ 17).
Regarding claim 8, Cao discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Cao does not appear to explicitly disclose “a position estimation unit configured to estimate a position of the vehicle using a detection result output from an external sensor that is positioned outside the vehicle and that images the vehicle.”
However, Edwards discloses a monitoring device configured to monitor a vehicle that travels through unattended operation using an electric motor as a power source, comprising “a position estimation unit configured to estimate a position of the vehicle using a detection result output from an external sensor that is positioned outside the vehicle and that images the vehicle” (Edwards ¶ 42) where monitoring system 340 is positioned outside the vehicle and uses computer vision (i.e., images the vehicle) to monitor the vehicle and determine its location (i.e., estimate its position).
Cao and Edwards are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle testing.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cao and Edwards before him or her to modify the vehicle testing system of Cao to include the external communication device of Edwards.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the external gathering of data improves the quality and experience of the system. (Edwards ¶ 17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Cho et al., US Publication 2021/0101584, System for detecting and correcting malfunctions in vehicle speed sensors.
Xia, US Publication 2024/0383457, System for detecting and correcting malfunctions in vehicle speed sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662