CTNF 19/048,133 CTNF 83391 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. DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to communications filed on 2/7/2025. Accordingly, claims 1-16 are pending. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 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. 07-30-06 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: “input unit configured to receive…first control unit configured to determine…second control unit configured to determine…” in claim 1. 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. As per claims 2-8 they depend from claim 1 and therefore have the same concerns as those detailed above with respect to claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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- 18 —in particular Independent claims 1 & 9 —are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “determin[-ing]… and determin[-ing]” 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 processor…and memory” 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 and 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, and that a generic computer preform these steps. The determining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting data for use in steps), and as such they amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity . The processor that performs the determining steps is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determining steps. 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 4-8 & 13-16 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. The following language in the claims below are not clearly understood (see exemplary claim 4 below): As per claim 4: the claim recites “a fourth comparison unit configured to provide…” without any reference being made to comparison units 1-3 in claim 1 . As per claims 5-8 and 13-16 : they all contain the same deficiency as stated above with respect to exemplary claim 4 . Furthermore, regarding claim 2-3, 10-11 : the claims recites “IG-on information” without explicitly detailing the “IG-on” signifies? Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the limitation to signify ignition on information . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by KR20080055424A (hereinafter 424) . 424 discloses: 1: An apparatus for controlling a fuel filter heater of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a processor (see 424 at least fig. 6 and Abstract; diesel vehicle and diesel engine with controller [30]) ; an input unit connected to the processor, the input unit configured to receive vehicle-related information (see 424 at least fig. 6 and Abstract; signals input to controller [30]) ; and a memory connected to the processor, the memory configured to store setting data (see 424 at least fig. 6 and Abstract; diesel vehicle and diesel engine with controller [30]) , wherein the processor includes: a first control unit configured to determine, based on the vehicle-related information input through the input unit and the setting data stored in the memory, a heater-on condition, and to control operation-on for a fuel filter heater of a diesel vehicle when the heater-on condition is satisfied (see 424 at least fig. 4A, 6 and Abstract; fuel heater [60], diesel vehicle and diesel engine with controller [30], startability of diesel engine, ignition key) ; and a second control unit configured to determine, based on the vehicle-related information input through the input unit and the setting data set in consideration of a cloud point of diesel fuel and stored in the memory, a heater-off condition, and to control operation-off for the fuel filter heater when the heater-off condition is satisfied (see 424 at least fig. 6 and Abstract; diesel vehicle and diesel engine with controller [30], timer [40] in conjunction with engine stopped) . 9: A method for controlling a fuel filter heater of a vehicle (see 424 at least fig. 6 and Abstract; diesel vehicle and diesel engine with controller [30]) , the method comprising: a first control step of determining, based on vehicle-related information and setting data, a heater-on condition, and controlling operation-on for a fuel filter heater of a diesel vehicle when the heater-on condition is satisfied (see 424 at least fig. 4A, 6 and Abstract; fuel heater [60], diesel vehicle and diesel engine with controller [30], startability of diesel engine, ignition key) ; and a second control step of determining, based on the vehicle-related information and the setting data set in consideration of a cloud point of diesel fuel, a heater-off condition, and controlling operation-off for the fuel filter heater when the heater-off condition is satisfied (see 424 at least fig. 6 and Abstract; diesel vehicle and diesel engine with controller [30], timer [40] in conjunction with engine stopped) . 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 Application/Control Number: 19/048,133 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/048,133 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/048,133 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/048,133 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/048,133 Page 7 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights