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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 1/2/2025. Accordingly, claims 1- 8 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: they are independent claims written in dependent format. Appropriate correction is required.
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- 8—in particular Independent claims 1, 7 & 8—are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “determining, selecting and setting…” data. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the “by the vehicle…and/or electric motor…and/or controller/computer” language, the claims encompass a user simply comparing the collected data to a predetermined/configurable threshold in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor, motor and/or memory does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the elements of determining, selecting and setting, and that a generic computer preform these steps. The determining and selecting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting and storing data for use in the setting step), and as such they amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the determining, selecting steps is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the setting step. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the determining, selecting and setting steps were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) 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 (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claims 2-8 they depend from claim1 and as such rejected for the same deficiencies as presented above with respect to claim 1.
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 1-2 & 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Francis (GB 2583856 A).
Francis discloses:
1: A method to operate a main drive of an electric vehicle (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 and Abstract), the method comprising:
determining a first acceleration value based on a setting of an operating determining a second acceleration value based on a deviation of a current acceleration from a predetermined maximum acceleration (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 in particular Abstract & Summary and pg. 3);
selecting a minimum of the first acceleration value and selecting the second acceleration value as a control value (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 in particular Abstract & Summary and pg. 3); and
setting an energization of the main drive according to the control value (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 in particular Abstract & Summary and pg. 3, 12 and 16-17).
2: wherein a value of a torque is used as the first and second acceleration values (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 in particular Abstract & Summary and pg. 2-3).
5: wherein the current acceleration is determined based on operating data of the main drive (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 in particular Abstract & Summary and pg. 16-17).
6: wherein a current position of the operating element and/or a rate of change of the position of the operating element is used (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 in particular Abstract & Summary and pg. 2-3 & 16-17).
7: A main drive of an electric vehicle, the main drive comprising: an electric motor; and a controller that is arranged to carry out the method according to claim 1 (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 in particular Abstract & Summary and pg. 2-3 & 16-17).
8: A computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute the method of claim 1 (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 in particular Abstract & Summary and pg. 2-3 & 16-17).
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.
Claims 3- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Schonhuber et al (US 2019/0337399 A1).
As per claim 3, Francis discloses the invention as detailed above.
However, Francis does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined maximum acceleration is read out from a selected driving profile.
Nevertheless, determining maximum acceleration associated with a driving profile was well known in the art as is evident by Schonhuber—who is in the same field of endeavor (see Schonhuber at least fig. 1-2 and Abstract and ¶2- 21 & 30; acceleration information, predictive speed profile, power predictive profile, and determining maximum possible acceleration).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention would have been motivated to combine Schonhuber’s basing of a predetermined maximum acceleration associated with a driving profile with those of Francis’s controlling of a driving apparatus in order to form a more efficient system and an overall better user experience (i.e., by allocating certain maximum acceleration with respective driving profiles ensuring a reduction in energy consumption and improved utilization of a driver assistance system).
Motivation to combine Francis with Schonhuber not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from Schonhuber (see par. 10-15).
Both Francis and Schonhuber disclose claim 4: wherein the first acceleration value is determined using a table (see Francis at least fig. 1-8 in particular Abstract & Summary and pg. 2-3 & 16-17 and see Schonhuber at least fig. 1-2 and Abstract and ¶2- 21 & 30).
Motivation to combine Schonhuber with Francis, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-9:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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 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). 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.
MACEEH . ANWARI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/MACEEH ANWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663