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 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stieff et al (U.S.10,241,195) and further in view of Farooqi et al (U.S.2022/0227419).
1. As per claims 1,9,17 Stieff disclosed a method of visualizing torque distribution in a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensor devices mounted to the vehicle [Data acquired by each imaging sensors is processed to acquire two or more measures of distances between each sensor and an associated point of laser illumination projected onto a surface of an adjacent vehicle wheel assembly passing through an associated imaging sensor observable field of view. A processor is configured to evaluate the measurement data associated with wheel assemblies on each axle, together with the known parameters of the system, to determine an orientation measurement associated with each axle of the vehicle passing between the opposed non-contact imaging sensors] (col. 3, lines 39-56);
calculating a wheel rotation delta between a first wheel and a second wheel on an axle based on the sensor data [Vehicle speed can be used to facilitate an estimate of spacing between the front and rear axles, enabling estimates of the vehicle centerline, thrust angle, and individual toe measurements to be made if sufficient measurement data is captured. Using a horizontally spaced second displacement sensor 106n (or set of displacement sensors) to obtain a second representation of toe and/or camber for an observed vehicle wheel assembly 104 enables an estimate of runout for the vehicle wheel assembly 104 to be determined, using a known or calculated angular rotation of the vehicle wheel assembly 104 between the two displacement measurements. Once determined, an estimate or representation of runout can be used in a traditional manner to compensate or correct other measurements associated with the vehicle wheel assembly 104] (col. 9, lines 46-61), the axle comprising a differential, a first halfshaft that connects the first wheel to the differential, and a second halfshaft that connects the second wheel to the differential [The pair of vehicle wheel assemblies may be, but are not limited to wheel assemblies coupled by a solid interconnecting axle shaft, by a pair of half-shafts coupled through a differential, may be partially independent of each other, or may be fully independent of each other.] (col. 9, lines 59-64);
determining a total torque value of at least the first halfshaft based on the wheel rotation delta and a halfsaft stiffness value associated with the first halfshaft [rotational movement of each wheel assembly 104 about a center point CP provides each observing displacement sensor 106 with a set of displacement measurement points defining a horizontal chord across the wheel assembly surfaces (tire and rim). Preferably, each horizontal chord of measurement points includes two data points on the tire sidewall surface 108 outer circumferential edge] (col. 11, line 67 & col. 12, lines 1-6);
However, Stieff did not explicitly disclose accessing a lookup table to determine a threshold value that corresponds with the first halfshaft based on the sensor data, the lookup table correlating the threshold value with the sensor data;
performing a comparison of the total torque value of the first halfshaft with the threshold value; and causing display of a visual representation of the comparison.
In the same field of endeavor Farooqi disclosed, “An example apparatus disclosed herein includes a motor operatively coupled to a rack, a current associated with the motor to indicate a velocity of the rack, a torque sensor operatively coupled to an interface of the rack and a steering shaft, the torque sensor to determine a torque at the interface of the rack and the steering shaft, and an autonomous steering control system including a first torque threshold and a second torque threshold to be associated with a hands on/off condition, the autonomous steering control system to adjust the first or second torque threshold in response to the velocity of the rack satisfying a rack velocity threshold, compare the torque at the interface of the rack and the steering shaft to the first and second torque threshold, and detect a hands off condition in response to the torque not satisfying the first or second torque threshold (Paragraph. 0005)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated An example apparatus disclosed herein includes a motor operatively coupled to a rack, a current associated with the motor to indicate a velocity of the rack, a torque sensor operatively coupled to an interface of the rack and a steering shaft, the torque sensor to determine a torque at the interface of the rack and the steering shaft, and an autonomous steering control system including a first torque threshold and a second torque threshold to be associated with a hands on/off condition, the autonomous steering control system to adjust the first or second torque threshold in response to the velocity of the rack satisfying a rack velocity threshold, compare the torque at the interface of the rack and the steering shaft to the first and second torque threshold, and detect a hands off condition in response to the torque not satisfying the first or second torque threshold as taught by Farooqi in the method and system of Stieff to providing monitoring of the torque in real-time.
2. As per claims 2,10,18 Stieff-Farooqi disclosed wherein the determining the total torque value of at least the first halfshaft further comprises: calculating a baseline torque based on the wheel rotation delta and halfshaft stifness value associated with the first half shaft; and adding a drive unit torque divided by two to the baseline torque to obtain the total torque value. (Stieff, (col. 11, line 67 & col. 12, lines 1-6).
3. As per claims 3,11,19 Stieff-Farooqi disclosed further comprising: issuing an alert based on the comparison (Farooqi, Paragraph. 0063). Claims 3,11 and 19 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
4. As per claims 4,12,20 Stieff-Farooqi disclosed further comprising: applying a torque limit to a drive unit associated with the first halfshaft based on the comparison of the total torque value with the threshold value (Farooqi, Paragraph. 0025). Claims 4,12 and 20 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
5. As per claims 5,13 Stieff-Farooqi disclosed wherein the sensor data includes one or more data elements of a list of data elements comprising: wheel speed data (Farooqi, Paragraph. 0025); ride height sensor data; steering angle sensor data; and torque estimator data that indicate a torque output of a drive unit (Stieff, col. 3, lines 39-56). Claims 5 and 13 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
6. As per claims 6,14 Stieff-Farooqi disclosed wherein the accessing the lookup table to determine the threshold value includes: determining a Constant Velocity (CV) joint angle associated with a CV joint of the first halfshaft based on the sensor data; and wherein the lookup table correlates the CV joint angle with the threshold value (Stieff, col. 1, lines 65-67 & col. 2, lines 1-9).
7. As per claims 7,15 Stieff-Farooqi disclosed wherein the visual representation of the comparison includes a torque capacity indicator that comprises a bar element, wherein the bar element comprises a first graphical attribute based on the threshold value and a second graphical attribute based on the total torque value (Farooqi, Paragraph. 0005). Claims 7 and 15 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
8. As per claims 8,16 Stieff-Farooqi disclosed wherein the visual representation of the comparison includes a graphical representation of a vehicle that comprises an indication of the comparison of the total torque value of the first halfshaft with the threshold value at a position upon the graphical representation of the vehicle that corresponds with the first wheel (Farooqi, Paragraph. 0030). Claims 8 and 16 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 9 is directed to a system and claim 17 is directed to non-transitory machine-readable storage medium. Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 9 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method of visualizing torque distribution in a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensor devices mounted to the vehicle;
calculating a wheel rotation delta between a first wheel and a second wheel on an axle based on the sensor data, the axle comprising a differential, a first halfshaft that connects the first wheel to the differential, and a second halfshaft that connects the second wheel to the differential;
determining a total torque value of at least the first halfshaft based on the wheel rotation delta and a halfshaft stiffness value associated with the first halfshaft; accessing a lookup table to determine a threshold value that corresponds with the first halfshaft based on the sensor data, the lookup table correlating the threshold value with the sensor data; performing a comparison of the total torque value of the first halfshaft with the threshold value; and
causing display of a visual representation of the comparison.
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 …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of visualizing torque distribution in a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensor devices mounted to the vehicle;
calculating a wheel rotation delta between a first wheel and a second wheel on an axle based on the sensor data, the axle comprising a differential, a first halfshaft that connects the first wheel to the differential, and a second halfshaft that connects the second wheel to the differential;
determining a total torque value of at least the first halfshaft based on the wheel rotation delta and a halfshift stiffness value associated with the first halfshaft; accessing a lookup table to determine a threshold value that corresponds with the first halfshaft based on the sensor data, the lookup table correlating the threshold value with the sensor data;
performing a comparison of the total torque value of the first halfshaft with the threshold value; and
causing display of a visual representation of the comparison.
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 above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 9 and 17 further recite “the method comprising: receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensor devices; A system visualizing torque distribution in a vehicle comprising: an axle comprising a differential and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations” and “A non-transitory computer-readable media storage medium, comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a machine” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “determining a total torque value of at least the first halfshaft based on the wheel rotation data” in claim 1; determining a total torque of at least the first halfshaft based on the wheel rotation data in claim 7 and “performing a comparison of the total torque value of the first halfshaft with the threshold value with the sensor data” in claim 17 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the autonomous vehicle autonomously drives functionality through the system” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 9 and 17.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument as follows.
A. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “determining a total torque value of at least the first halfshaft based on the wheel rotation delta and a halfshaft stifness value associated with first halfshaft”.
As to applicant’s argument Stieff disclosed, rotational movement of each wheel assembly 104 about a center point CP provides each observing displacement sensor 106 with a set of displacement measurement points defining a horizontal chord across the wheel assembly surfaces (tire and rim). Preferably, each horizontal chord of measurement points includes two data points on the tire sidewall surface 108 outer circumferential edge] (col. 11, line 67 & col. 12, lines 1-6); Examiner interpreted the above limitation as calculating Torque where “halfshaft rotation based on the wheel rotation data” as “circumferential edge”. In view of the examiner interpretation the above excerpt reads on the applicant’s limitation.
B. Applicant argued that there is no motivation or suggestion to combine the references.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Farooqi taught in the method and system of Stieff to providing monitoring of the torque in real-time.
C. Applicant argued that the claim limitation overcome the 101rejection.
Applicant’s arguments did not overcome 101 rejection and claims stand rejected under 101.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
13. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
14. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights