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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claim 1 – 8 are currently pending and considered below.
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 1 – 8 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Furthermore, the claims constructed poorly in the sense that it is incomprehensive due to too many errors such as lack of antecedent basis in the claims.
For Example, claim 1 recites “set point” in different steps but it is not clear which “set point” the term is referring to as the set point is determined but there are multiple set points already described in the preamble. Is that a new set point for different element? Or is the set point in steps a – h referring to the set point in step a? Clarification is required.
Also the term “state” in the independent claim 1 causes same issues due to similar reason above.
Claims 2 – 8 recites substantially similar issues as above.
The Examiner further notes that it is impossible to determine the exact scope of the claims for prior art rejections due to numerous errors and unclear claim limitations.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 , as best understood by the Examiner, is directed to a computer system that analyzes the fuel consumption and pollution level and variable state variable of the vehicle such as speed and acceleration to optimize the vehicle fuel consumption. Therefore, claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 recites:
A method, implemented in a computer embedded within a motor vehicle, for optimizing a criterion relating to the vehicle among the group consisting of: a pollution level, an energy consumption, a state of health and a duration of a predetermined route, the vehicle comprising a fuel or hydrogen tank, an electric battery and/or super- capacitors capable of supplying electrical energy, an internal combustion engine powered by the fuel tank or a fuel cell powered by the hydrogen tank, at least one electric machine powered by electrical energy supplied by the battery and/or super-capacitors, at least one device relating to the internal combustion engine or to the fuel cell, at least one device relating to the electric machine, and at least one device relating to the electric battery or to the super-capacitors, the computer being configured to manage the powertrain of the motor vehicle on a predetermined route and being capable of controlling the internal combustion engine or fuel cell, electric machine and/or devices through transmission of a set of setpoints, the internal combustion engine or the fuel cell, the electric machine, and the devices each being characterized by at least one state variable, each state variable making it possible to describe the operating state of the device that it characterizes, the set consisting of the internal combustion engine or fuel cell, of the electric machine, and of the devices being represented by a system of state equations modeling the dynamics of the vehicle, said state equations being dependent at least on instantaneous setpoint values and the state variables, the criterion to be optimized being represented by a criterion equation dependent at least on instantaneous setpoint values and the state variables, the vehicle further comprising means for measuring the one or more states described by the or each state variable and means for measuring the criterion to be optimized, said method being implemented during a period divided into constant sampling times, the method being characterized in that comprising, at each sampling time, the steps of:
a) determining an applicable setpoint range containing a set of values for each setpoint,
b) computing, for each setpoint and in the determined applicable setpoint range, all the state gradients possible for said setpoint, using at least the state equations,
c) computing, for each setpoint and in the determined applicable setpoint range, all the values possible for the criterion to be optimized, using at least the criterion equation,
d) computing, for each setpoint and in the determined applicable setpoint range, all the possible values of a Hamiltonian function of said setpoint, using the state-gradient values and the values possible for the criterion to be optimized determined for said setpoint,
e) determining the value of each setpoint, in the determined applicable setpoint range, for which said Hamiltonian function is lowest,
f) computing, for each of the setpoints, depending on said determined value of the setpoint, the state-gradient value for said setpoint, and/or computing, for each of the setpoints, depending on said determined value of the setpoint, the value of the criterion to be optimized for said setpoint,
g) integrating as a function of time the computed state-gradient value, so as to provide an estimated state value, and/or integrating as a function of time, for the criterion to be optimized, the computed value of that criterion, so as to provide an estimated overall criterion value,
h) comparing the estimated state value with a measured state value, the difference between the two values providing a first correction term, the first correction term thus determined being provided as input to computing step b) at the next sampling time and being used in said computing step b), and/or comparing the estimated overall criterion value with a measured criterion value, the difference between the two values providing a second correction term, the second correction term thus determined being provided as input to computing step c) at the next sampling time and being used in said computing step c).
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a combination of “mental process” and “mathematical equation” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind utilizing mathematical equations. The limitations, “computing…, ” “determining …,”, “integrating …,” and “comparing …, “ in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement utilizing mathematical equations. Accordingly, the claim recites the combination of multiple abstract ideas.
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, implemented in a computer embedded within a motor vehicle, for optimizing a criterion relating to the vehicle among the group consisting of: a pollution level, an energy consumption, a state of health and a duration of a predetermined route, the vehicle comprising a fuel or hydrogen tank, an electric battery and/or super- capacitors capable of supplying electrical energy, an internal combustion engine powered by the fuel tank or a fuel cell powered by the hydrogen tank, at least one electric machine powered by electrical energy supplied by the battery and/or super-capacitors, at least one device relating to the internal combustion engine or to the fuel cell, at least one device relating to the electric machine, and at least one device relating to the electric battery or to the super-capacitors, the computer being configured to manage the powertrain of the motor vehicle on a predetermined route and being capable of controlling the internal combustion engine or fuel cell, electric machine and/or devices through transmission of a set of setpoints, the internal combustion engine or the fuel cell, the electric machine, and the devices each being characterized by at least one state variable, each state variable making it possible to describe the operating state of the device that it characterizes, the set consisting of the internal combustion engine or fuel cell, of the electric machine, and of the devices being represented by a system of state equations modeling the dynamics of the vehicle, said state equations being dependent at least on instantaneous setpoint values and the state variables, the criterion to be optimized being represented by a criterion equation dependent at least on instantaneous setpoint values and the state variables, the vehicle further comprising means for measuring the one or more states described by the or each state variable and means for measuring the criterion to be optimized, said method being implemented during a period divided into constant sampling times, the method being characterized in that comprising, at each sampling time, the steps of:
a) determining an applicable setpoint range containing a set of values for each setpoint,
b) computing, for each setpoint and in the determined applicable setpoint range, all the state gradients possible for said setpoint, using at least the state equations,
c) computing, for each setpoint and in the determined applicable setpoint range, all the values possible for the criterion to be optimized, using at least the criterion equation,
d) computing, for each setpoint and in the determined applicable setpoint range, all the possible values of a Hamiltonian function of said setpoint, using the state-gradient values and the values possible for the criterion to be optimized determined for said setpoint,
e) determining the value of each setpoint, in the determined applicable setpoint range, for which said Hamiltonian function is lowest,
f) computing, for each of the setpoints, depending on said determined value of the setpoint, the state-gradient value for said setpoint, and/or computing, for each of the setpoints, depending on said determined value of the setpoint, the value of the criterion to be optimized for said setpoint,
g) integrating as a function of time the computed state-gradient value, so as to provide an estimated state value, and/or integrating as a function of time, for the criterion to be optimized, the computed value of that criterion, so as to provide an estimated overall criterion value,
h) comparing the estimated state value with a measured state value, the difference between the two values providing a first correction term, the first correction term thus determined being provided as input to computing step b) at the next sampling time and being used in said computing step b), and/or comparing the estimated overall criterion value with a measured criterion value, the difference between the two values providing a second correction term, the second correction term thus determined being provided as input to computing step c) at the next sampling time and being used in said computing step c).
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. There is no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
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, since there is no additional elements, there is no additional elements that add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. However, since there is no additional elements, the evaluation is mooted.
Dependent claims 2 – 4 and 8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 4 and 8are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 – 4 and 8 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 7 is directed to a computer program and fail to claim the "program" recorded on an appropriate computer readable medium or processed by an appropriate processor so as to be structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium or the processor and permit the function of descriptive material to be realized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beidl et al. (US 2022/0118965 A1) discloses method for operating a vehicle with a hybrid drive train.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
