CTNF 18/984,074 CTNF 74138 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 1/29/2025. 2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are addressed below. 3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. Priority 4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (a DE application with priority date back to 1/18/2024). Information Disclosure Statement 5. Applicant filed two IDSs on 12/17/2024 and on 1/29/2025; The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim interpretations 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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. 7. 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: (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 “ ...one device configured to control a system... ” (see applicant’s claim 10, line 2), 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) 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 07-30-06 10. 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: “ ...one device configured to control a system..... ” (see pending claim 10, line 2). 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. 11. 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. 12. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 13. 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. 14. Independent claims 1, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (i.e., at most, applicant claims about using a generic computer to practice a mental process). 101 Analysis - Step 1: Claims 1, 8, and 10 are directed to “a process”, “a device”, and “a system” (i.e., a structure); therefore, they 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 . Representative claim 1 includes limitation(s) that recites an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process) and not provide significantly more than the judicial exception (emphasized below): A method for controlling a system with functional safety requirements, the method comprising the following steps: determining a control for the system according to a first control method, which satisfies first requirements for the functional safety of the system ; determining a control for the system according to a different/second control method; determining a difference between the control for the system according to the first control method and the control for the system according to the second control method; and outputting a signal for controlling the system according to the first requirements for the functional safety of the system based on the determined difference. 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 ("“[M]ental 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). Accordingly, a method that claims about above steps is an abstract idea. 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 using a device/computer (processor and memory) 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 (i.e., there is no “specific” practical structure, or storage medium in those pending claims (besides claiming well-known generic computing device/objects or its peripheral), 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 claimed abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea . Accordingly, those claims recite at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong II According to the 2019 PEG, the claim is 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 generic computer/processor 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 specific “practical application” – there is no specific practical application in pending claims . 101 Analysis - Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception (e.g., using a generic computer component). Generally applying an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities. D. The additional limitations of receiving/obtaining data, comparing, and outputting estimated data are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that these claimed activities are all conventional, 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 for a ship is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner from 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 pre/post-solution activity is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. 15. Per dependent claims 2-3 : Applicant claims an abstract step (e.g., a mental process ) of determination/comparation two values to generate a certain output signal accordingly. 16.Per dependent claim 4 : Applicant claims an abstract step (e.g., a mental process ) of determining an abstract difference /value with a first range, and with a second range, to satisfies second “unknown’ requirements (of another “control method” to generate a certain output signal accordingly. 17.Per dependent claim 5 : Applicant claims second abstract method (e.g., a mental process) of a sequentially control signal (as in claim 1) 18.Per dependent claim 6 : Applicant claims a first abstract method (e.g., a mental process) of control depending on a user’s selection – this is not further explaining the abstract idea. 19.Per dependent claim 7 : Applicant claims a mental process of control: The method according to claim 1, wherein the first control method is selected from a plurality of first control methods wherein each of the plurality of first control methods satisfies the first functional safety requirements 20. Per claims 8-10 : They include insignificant generic components to practice the invention (i.e., using generic processors, and a non-volatile storage medium to implemented a process of claim 1), having other similar features in the claimed bodies as disclosed in claim 1; therefore, they are analyzed, and are rejected as above claim 1; these claims also do not indicate a specific practical application (e.g., including a significant further) for the claimed features. 21. In summary, claims 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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. 07-34-01 22. Claims 1, 8, and 10 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. Applicant claims a limitation of “ determining a difference ” in: determining a difference between the control for the system according to the first control method and the control for the system according to the second control method; and outputting a signal for controlling the system according to the first requirements for the functional safety of the system based on the determined difference . It is unclear of what exactly applicant’s “determining a difference” (between a first control and a second control in these claims (i.e., is it a time difference or is it a distance difference or is it a small gap difference? or between ambiguous methods ?) Claim Objections 23. Applicant discloses about using AI for a second method (see applicant’s specification, para. [0035]) but not claim. According to a requirement “... particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”); therefore, pending claims 1-10 are objected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA 24. Claim s 1, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuerth et al (US Pub 20170190327 A1 – hereafter “Wuerth’327”), in view of Kubertschak’611 (DE-102017214611-A1), in view of Braeuchle et al. (US Pub.20220402469 A1 – hereafter “Braeuchle’468”) . A. Per claim 1: Wuerth’327 teaches a method for controlling a system with functional safety requirements, comprising: determining a control for the system according to a control method, which satisfies requirements for the functional safety of the system (i.e., using a first brake circuit to control, see Wuerth et al ‘327 claim 11); determining a control for the system according to a different/second control method (i.e., using a different/second brake circuit to control, see Wuerth‘327 claim 11). Wuerth‘327 does not disclose that: determining a difference between the control for the system according to a first control method and the control for the system according to the second control method; however, Kubertschak ’611 suggest that idea (see Kubertschak’611 “ From the DE 10 2015 217 386 A1 a method for operating a motor vehicle is known, in which two independently operated control devices are each intended to determine information about an object in an environment from the same environment data. Autonomous driving of the motor vehicle is controlled depending on whether the two control units supply the same or different information . ”). Wuerth‘327 does not disclose about outputting a signal for controlling the system acc-ording to the first requirements for the functional safety (a better/optimal result – an intent of use) of the system based on the determined difference; however, Braeuchle’468 suggests that idea (see Braeuchle’468 para. [0036]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Wuerth’327 and Kuberschak’611 with Braeuchle’468 to avoid collisions by using braking intervention or engine intervention or transmission intervention methods which have been proven successful in practices. B. Per independent claims 8, and 10 : These claims are implemented from steps (in limitations of independent claim 1), with similar limitations in the bodies of claims 8, and 10, together with generic features of a computing system (a device with processor(s) and a nonvolatile computer-readable storage medium performing claim 1’s steps; therefore, similar rationales, and references are applied for obvious rejections/ C. Per dependent claim 5 : Applicant claims that steps to perform a first control method and a second control method take place sequentially (e.g., two control methods are used). Wuerth‘327 teaches about using a first brake circuit to control, see Wuerth‘327 claim 11; Wuerth‘327 also teaches about using a different/second brake circuit to control, see Wuerth‘327 claim 11). D. Per dependent claim 6 : Wuerth’327 also suggests a step of selecting an operating mode of the system depending on a selection by a user of the system (e.g., a step to select between an automatic control and a manual brake control , see Wuerth’327 para.[0008] “Brake-by-wire brake systems, such as EHB electrohydraulic brake systems, for example, provide an option for controlling a total deceleration of a vehicle that is less work-intensive ”). E. Per dependent claim 7 : Wuerth’327 suggests a step of selecting from a plurality of control methods (Wuerth’327 discloses that there are many processes “ in the case of a brake-by-wire brake system, the braking torques can be blended by decoupling the pedal, without the driver having to additionally actuate the pedal or another brake input element. Therefore, in the case of a brake-by-wire brake system, the driver hardly notices the blending processes .” see Wuerth’327 para.[0008]), wherein each control method satisfies the functional safety requirements (this is safety control since Wuerth’327 is related to a vehicle’s brake controls). F. Per dependent claim 9 : Wuerth’327 suggests a device comprises at least one electro-mechanical control device , wherein the electromechanical control device indirectly/[does not permit directly] perform a mechanical control (see Wuerth’327 para .[0008]) (to control a vehicle’s safety function with a brake-by-wire system) . 07-21-aia AIA 25. Claim s 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuerth’327 in view of Kuberschak’611, in view of Braeuchle’468, and in view of Beijing Jingxiang Technology Co Ltd (CN116061974A hereafter “Beijing”) . A. Per dependent claim 2: The references and rationales for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated. Wuerth’327 and Braeuchle’468 do not suggest about determining whether a differenc e is within a first tolerance range around a control for the system according to the first control method; however, Beijing suggests using ASIL (see Beijing “ Typical scenarios of interaction, function activation and function inactivation, warning and downgrading strategies, according to the functional safety goal obtained in step S2, construct a functional safety architecture, analyze the failure of the safety architecture according to the FTA analysis method, and obtain functional safety requirements, ASIL (Automotive Safety Integrity Level, automotive safety integrity level) level, FTTI (Fault Tolerant Time Interval, fault tolerance time interval), safety status .”) and in response to a determination that the difference is within the first tolerance range, performing the outputting of the signal for controlling the system (as in pending CLAIM 1), wherein the signal follows the control for the system according to the second control method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Wuerth’327, Kuberschak’611 with Braeuchle’468, and with Beijing’s suggestion to determining whether the difference is within a first tolerance range in order to select another level of control – which proves to be successful in practice. B. Per dependent claim 3. : The references and rationales for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated. Applicant claims a recognizing step is obvious to one with skill in the art (see Beijing reference above) to obey the range requirement for functional safety by using a previous output signal to control the system instead of reliant on assisting system with a result “NOT within a range” as requirement (see a limitation of its parent claim 2) . 07-21-aia AIA 26. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuerth’327, in view of Kuberschak’611, in view of Braeuchle’468, in view of Beijing’974, and in view of Petrak et al (US Pat 11260749 B2) . The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated. Applicant claims that a step of determining is made to see if a difference is outside the first tolerance range, determining whether the difference is within a second tolerance range around the control for the system according to the first control method; and performing the outputting of the signal for controlling the system, wherein the signal follows a control for the system according to a third control method, which satisfies second requirements for the functional safety of the system. The examiner submits that Petrak’749 determines/selects a second tolerance range to perform a control (e.g., selecting a different sufficient level, see Petrak’749, page 11, 3 rd paragraph “ At 204 (shown in FIG. 2A), a determination is made as to whether the characteristic(s) of the cooling system that are monitored at 202 indicate that the cooling system has failed or that operation of the cooling system has otherwise decreased, that is, the cooling system is not operating at a sufficient level to cool the component(s) of the vehicle (e.g., to designated temperatures, to below designated temperature thresholds, to within designated temperature ranges ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Wuerth’327, in view of Kuberschak’611, in view of Braeuchle’468, in view of Beijing’974 with Petrak’749 suggestion to select a second/different safe tolerance range to perform a better control – which task has been a successful expectation. Conclusion 27. Pending claims 1-10 are rejected. 28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 15 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 16 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/984,074 Page 17 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights