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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of an apparatus and a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of acquisition of information related to location of a vehicle, determining based on the location information, whether the location of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition indicating a location where ventilation is poor; output a notification notifying a user that the location of the vehicle needs to be changed as recited in independent claim 1.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as the recited parts are no more than an information processor as stated in ¶ [0008] of the specification and do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.);. See Alice, 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.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
As for dependent claims 2-5, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an information acquisition process”; “a determination process”; and “an output process” in claim 1; “a start process”; “a concentration acquisition process”; and “a stop process” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 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.
A review of the specification yields the following:
The information processor is, for example, a processor such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) or an Electronic Control Unit (ECU).
¶ [0023] The vehicle 10 includes an information processor 20. The information processor 20 includes a processing circuit including a CPU 21 and a memory 22. The memory 22 includes three types of memories, that is, a RAM, a ROM, and an electrically rewritable nonvolatile memory. In the present embodiment, these three types are collectively referred as the memory 22. The memory 22 stores, in advance, various programs in which processes to be executed by the CPU 21 are described and various types of information necessary for the CPU 21 to execute the programs
¶ [0008] The information processor includes processing circuitry. The processing circuitry is configured to execute an information acquisition process, a determination process, and an output process.¶ [0035] the information processor 20 performs such a start process.
¶ [0043] In step S40, the information processor 20 acquires the latest information on the concentration V of the specific components from the exhaust gas sensor 92. The process of step S40 is a concentration obtaining process.
¶ [0050] the information processor 20 ends the series of processes of the power feed process. The process of step S60 for stopping the operation of the engine 50 is a stop process.
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 2 and 3 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.
Claim 2 recites in the 4th line of the claim “the processing circuitry is configured to execute a start process that causes the power feed device to start the external power feed, the start process being initiated by reception of execution of the external power feed;”. It is unclear when the start process is to be executed, wherein the claim recites the start process is initiated by reception of execution of the external power feed, and the external power feed is started by execution of the start process. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood as “the processing circuitry is configured to execute a start process that causes the power feed device to start the external power feed, the execution of the external power feed being initiated by reception of the start process”. Claim 3 depends on Claim 2 and is therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Archer et al (US 2024/0149089 hereinafter “Archer”).
In regards to claim 1:
Archer teaches an information processor (810) for a vehicle (10), the vehicle (10) including a power feed device configured to perform external power feed that supplies power generated by a generator (510) using driving force of an engine (202) to a load outside the vehicle (Paragraph [0073] recites the usage of an engine to drive a generator), the information processor comprising: processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute: an information acquisition process that acquires location information related to a location of the vehicle; a determination process that determines, based on the location information, whether the location of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition indicating a location where ventilation is poor, the determination process being initiated by reception of execution of the external power feed (Paragraphs [0123] - [0129] recites the usage of location/GPS data to determine if the generator is to be powered by the engine or by a battery); and an output process that outputs notification information for notifying a user that the location of the vehicle needs to be changed, the output process being performed in response to the determination process determining that the location of the vehicle satisfies the predetermined condition (Paragraphs [0123] – [0129] recites a user interface that displays the usage of a geofence, wherein the usage of the geofence is selected by the user via the user interface, and when the vehicle is in the geofence such as a location with poor ventilation inside a fire station, a hanger, or other vehicle storage location that is indoors, the system the system turns the engine off preventing the combustion emissions filling the indoor space).
In regards to claim 4:
Archer teaches the location information relates to a positional relationship between the vehicle and a subject located outside the vehicle, and the predetermined condition indicating a location where ventilation is poor is that the vehicle is surrounded on at least three sides with respect to front, rear, left, and right of the vehicle by the subject that is continuous, and a distance between the vehicle and the subject is less than or equal to a predetermined determination distance at each of the three sides, wherein Archer recites the position can be a fire station using GPS data or a geofence, and when the vehicle is within the building or geofence (the subject), and being within the boundary of the building or geofence would place the vehicle at a distance less than a predetermined distance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer in view of Gregg et al (US 2020/0249213 hereinafter “Gregg”).
In regards to claim 2:
Archer teaches components contained in exhaust from the engine other than oxygen and nitrogen correspond to specific components (via exhaust gas sensor Paragraph [01292])); the processing circuitry is configured to execute a start process that causes the power feed device to start the external power feed, the external power feed being initiated by reception of execution of the start process (Paragraph [0073] recites the start of the generator being powered by the engine); the processing circuitry is configured to repeat a concentration acquisition process that acquires a concentration of at least one of the specific components in an ambient atmosphere of the vehicle during execution of the external power feed (Paragraph [0092] via exhaust gas sensor).
Archer does not teach the processing circuitry is configured to execute the output process in response to the determination process determining that the location of the vehicle satisfies the predetermined condition and the concentration reaching a predetermined first threshold and the processing circuitry is configured to execute a stop process that stops operation of the engine in response to the determination process determining that the location of the vehicle satisfies the predetermined condition and the concentration reaching a second threshold; and the second threshold is set to be greater than the first threshold in advance.
Gregg teaches a carbon monoxide concentration, wherein the engine operates while under a first threshold concentration and shutting off an engine upon reaching a second threshold concentration that is larger than the first threshold (Paragraphs [0035] – [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the controller of Archer to stop the engine upon reaching a second threshold for carbon monoxide as taught by Gregg in order to no longer emit lethal gases (Paragraph [0037] of Gregg). Wherein it is known in the art that carbon monoxide can be lethal to humans. Having a carbon monoxide sensor to detect its presence and to shut off the engine when the presence has a concentration that becomes a threat to human life would be obvious.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer and Gregg and further in view of Ogawa et al (US 2023/0133128 hereinafter “Ogawa”).
In regards to claim 3:
Archer teaches the processing circuitry is configured to output an alert to a user when a concentration of carbon monoxide has exceeded a threshold value (Paragraph [0035]).
Archer does not teach in the output process, the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a prediction time until the concentration reaches the second threshold based on a rotational speed of the engine at a time point at which the concentration reached the first threshold; and the processing circuitry is configured to output, together with the notification information, time information for notifying the user of the calculated prediction time.
Ogawa teaches a prediction time for carbon monoxide concentrations based on rotational speed of an engine (Paragraph [0241]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Archer alert a user of carbon monoxide concentrations as taught by Ogawa in order to allow a user to know the carbon monoxide concentration values and know how much time there is before concentration levels of the carbon become harmful. Ogawa teaches a prediction model for an engine based on engine characteristics such as engine speed (Paragraph [0033]), and predicts the output of harmful emissions (Paragraphs [0192]) and applies this value to arrive at a time value (Paragraph [0203]). The amount of carbon monoxide produced over time is known, and that amount is directly correlated to a concentration of carbon monoxide. Having a warning at a time beginning once the first threshold is reached would be obvious to let the user know that carbon monoxide is now collecting inside of the building, and to also let the user know how much time they have before the level of carbon monoxide becomes dangerous.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer in view of Hoki et al (US 2023/0021474 hereinafter “Hoki”).
In regards to claim 5:
Archer teaches the location information relates to a positional relationship between the vehicle and a subject located outside the vehicle; the predetermined condition indicating a location where ventilation is poor is that the vehicle is surrounded on four sides with respect to front, rear, left, and right of the vehicle by the subject that is continuous (such as a fire station, hanger, indoor location Paragraph [0151]), and a distance between the vehicle and the subject is less than or equal to a predetermined determination distance at each of the four sides (using location data being within a predetermined distance from each of the sides of the exterior walls, indicates that one’s position is within the walls); the determination process includes a first determination that determines whether the location of the vehicle satisfies the predetermined condition indicating a location where ventilation is poor (Paragraph [0151]), and the processing circuitry is configured to execute the output process and maintain the engine in a stopped state in response to the location of the vehicle satisfying the predetermined condition.
Archer does not teach a second determination that determines whether wireless communication is established between an operation terminal carried by a user and the vehicle the wireless communication being established.
Hoki teaches a determination process that determines whether a wireless communication is established by an operational terminal (200) carried by a user and a vehicle (100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to determine if the system of Archer had a wireless communication established as taught by Hoki in order to confirm that the decisions to the system were being transmitted properly. Archer teaches a wireless controller module (1474) and using a user interface to relay information and menu options to a user. Having information available remotely would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and establishing a wireless connection must exist for the remote connection to work properly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747