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 .
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(s) 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.
In sum, claim(s) 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 analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of Claim for purposes of evaluation under 35 USC § 101 as follows:1
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
() “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility 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 Eligibility 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 a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One 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.
Abstract Ideas:
With respect to Independent Claim , claim limitations ()-() recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mathematical Concepts – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I):
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation.
Specifically, the claim limitations invoke the functions of . The Instant Specification fails to attribute special definitions to the language used in limitation(s) ()-(). Consequently, the words and phrases of the limitation(s) have been given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
These steps are common computer processing functions that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known generic computers were capable of performing and would have associated with generic computers. .
“A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols . . . [t]here is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”) citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), and Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., 741 Fed. Appx. 777, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“using a formula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural numbers”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two 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 MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) ()-() constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, limitation(s) (), “estimating the behavior of the vehicle” constitute(s) insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant post-solution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the 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 a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two 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; 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 rejected 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. None of the rejected 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; 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 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), 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 (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) 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. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim .
NOTE: Claim 7 recites: “wherein the control unit activates a warning device provided in the vehicle in accordance with the estimated behavior of the vehicle”. The additional method step “activates a warning device provided in the vehicle in accordance with the estimated behavior of the vehicle” when considered in combination with the parent limitations of Claim 1 in sufficient to transform the abstract idea of Claim 1 into a practical application.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takimoto et al. (JP2000108919A). Takimoto discloses “To obtain optimum steering feeling corresponding to vehicle behavior such as understeering or oversteering even in the case of low passage by multiplying a correcting quantity from a vehicle behavior judging means by a friction correcting coefficient to output a torque correction signal, and correcting a target torque signal by the correction signal. SOLUTION: When a steering wheel 2 is operated, a motor 8 is driven corresponding to a steering torque signal, motor torque is boosted to act on a steering shaft 3, and steering force of a driver is reduced. At this time, a control means 13 judges whether the vehicle behavior is in understeering, oversteering, or countersteering, by comparing the direction of angle difference of slip angles of front and rear wheels, the direction of a yaw angular speed signal Y, and the direction of a steering torque signal, with each other.” (Abstract)
Regarding Claim 1, Takimoto discloses:
A vehicle behavior estimation method (¶0019; “the control means 13 determines whether the vehicle's state (vehicle behavior)
is in the understeer, oversteer, or countersteer region by comparing”) executed by a control unit (Fig. 1, control means 13; ¶0017) mounted in a vehicle (Fig. 1, vehicle, ¶0013), the vehicle including a motor (Fig. 1, motor 8); Abstract) that applies steering torque to road wheels (Fig. 1, ‘front wheels 7’; ¶0015) of the vehicle via a movable member (¶0015, Fig. 1, rack and pinion mechanism 5), the vehicle behavior estimation method executed by the control unit comprising:
calculating a normative running state (Fig. 3, ¶0029-0031; “front wheel slip angle”) of the vehicle from steering operation information of a driver of the vehicle (¶0029, “based on the vehicle speed signal V, the yaw angular velocity signal Y, the steering angle signal δ corresponding to the steering angle of the front wheels, and the vehicle's dimensional parameters (for example, wheelbase L) set in the memory”);
comparing the normative running state with a running state that actually occurs in the vehicle (¶0029; rear wheel slip angle) and outputting a first deviation (“angle difference”; ¶0029);
calculating a normative axial force (¶0025+, corrected Target Torque Signal IMH; torque applied thru the pinion gear results in axial force generated in the steering rack to control the angle of the road wheels); generated in the movable member from a first physical amount related to a running speed of the vehicle (¶0024; Fig. 5, vehicle speed) and a second physical amount related to a steering angle of the road wheels (assist torque is only generated in response to driver input steered angle)
calculating an estimated axial force generated in the movable member from a third physical amount related to a current value of the motor (¶0025; “motor torque signal IMF supplied from the motor current detection means 15,”) ; comparing the normative axial force with the estimated axial force and outputting a second deviation (¶0025; “The difference calculation means 22 has a subtraction function and calculates the difference ΔI (= IMH - IMF) between the target torque signal IMH supplied from the correction means 25 and the motor torque signal IMF supplied from the motor current detection means 15, and supplies the difference signal ΔI (= IMH - IMF) to the drive control means 23.”);
and estimating the behavior of the vehicle by comparing the first deviation with the second deviation. (¶0019; “Furthermore, the control means 13 determines whether the vehicle's state (vehicle behavior) is in the understeer, oversteer, or countersteer region by comparing the direction (P) of the angle difference (angle difference signal) between the front wheel slip angle and the rear wheel slip angle, the direction (N) of the yaw angular velocity signal Y, and the direction (S) of the steering torque signal T.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Takimoto further discloses wherein the control unit calculates an estimated axial force (motor torque applied thru the pinion gear results in axial force generated in the steering rack) generated in the movable member from the third physical amount (¶0025; “motor torque signal IMF supplied from the motor current detection means 15,”) and a fourth physical amount (PWM Voltage) related to a rotation speed of the motor (¶0021-0022, “outputs a PWM (pulse width modulated) motor voltage VM based on the motor control signal VO, and drives the motor 8 in forward or reverse rotation using PWM.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Takimoto further discloses wherein the control unit activates a warning device provided in the vehicle in accordance with the estimated behavior of the vehicle (¶0068; “the steering reaction force corresponding to the vehicle state of understeer or oversteer and the road surface friction coefficient is transmitted to the driver via the steering wheel, and steering characteristics suitable for the driver's steering can be provided”)
Regarding Claim 8, Takimoto further discloses A steering system (Fig. 1) comprising the vehicle behavior detection apparatus (Fig. 1, control means 13; ¶0017), of claim 7, the movable member (¶0015, Fig. 1, rack and pinion mechanism 5), and the motor. (¶0015, Fig. 1, motor 8)
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takimoto et al. (JP2000108919A) in view of Yuda et al. (U.S. 2006/0208564A1). Yuda discloses “An understeer suppressing apparatus for a vehicle includes an electric power steering device S for suppressing steering when the vehicle is in the understeer state, an alarm device A for informing a driver that the vehicle is in the understeer state, and a braking force distribution device B for generating moment of the vehicle by applying braking forces different from each other to the left and right wheels. As the degree of understeer is increased, the electric power steering device S, the alarm device A, and the braking force distribution device B are operated in this order.” (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, the Takimoto discloses all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated but does not explicitly teach: wherein the control unit calculates a normative yaw rate as the normative running state from the steering operation information and the first physical amount, and compares the normative yaw rate with a yaw rate that actually occurs in the vehicle to output the first deviation.
Yuda teaches: wherein the control unit calculates a normative yaw rate (¶0037; “standard yaw rate .gamma..sub.b ) as the normative running state from the steering operation information and the first physical amount (¶0037, based on steering angle and vehicle speed), and compares the normative yaw rate with a yaw rate that actually occurs (¶0037, yaw rate detected by yaw rate sensor) in the vehicle to output the first deviation. (¶0037; “A process of determining the auxiliary reaction torque will be briefly described with reference to a block diagram shown in FIG. 3. A standard yaw rate .gamma..sub.b is calculated on the basis of the output signals output from the steering angle sensor 17 and the vehicle speed sensor 19, and then a deviation G (yaw rate deviation) between the standard yaw rate .gamma..sub.b and the yaw rate .gamma. detected by the yaw rate sensor 18 is obtained (G=.gamma..sub.b-.gamma.y). Here, the standard yaw rate .gamma..sub.b is a yaw rate to be a reference, which is predetermined on the basis of the vehicle speed V and the steering angle SA. When the yaw rate deviation G is a positive value, it is an understeer state in which the standard yaw rate .gamma..sub.b is larger than the actual yaw rate .gamma.. Accordingly, the magnitude of the yaw rate deviation G shows a degree of understeer.”) in order that “the driver can easily and reliably perceive that the vehicle is in the understeer state” (¶0017)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle behavior estimation system of Takimoto to incorporate the teachings of Yuda to include wherein the control unit calculates a normative yaw rate as the normative running state from the steering operation information and the first physical amount, and compares the normative yaw rate with a yaw rate that actually occurs in the vehicle to output the first deviation in order that “the driver can easily and reliably perceive that the vehicle is in the understeer state” (¶0017).
Regarding Claim 4, Takimoto further discloses wherein the control unit provides a predetermined threshold for the second deviation (¶0017; control means 13 is configured to compare the deviation to “0” and controls the drive of the motor so that the difference between the target torque and motor torque becomes zero).
Regarding Claim 5, Takimoto further discloses wherein the control unit determines whether or not the vehicle is understeering or oversteering based on the first deviation (¶0019; “Furthermore, the control means 13 determines whether the vehicle's state (vehicle behavior) is in the understeer, oversteer, or countersteer region by comparing the direction (P) of the angle difference (angle difference signal) between the front wheel slip angle and the rear wheel slip angle, the direction (N) of the yaw angular velocity signal Y, and the direction (S) of the steering torque signal T.”) and when the second deviation is beyond the predetermined threshold, determines that the first deviation is caused by a disturbance. (when the second difference is greater than zero, feedback torque steering assist is occurring, which is recognized by the control unit as necessary to mitigate a vehicle behavior condition such as understeer, oversteer, etc.; i.e a disturbance).
Regarding Claim 6, Takimoto further discloses: wherein when the second deviation is not beyond the predetermined threshold (when the second difference is not greater than zero, there is no feedback torque assist actively occurring), the control unit determines whether or not the vehicle is understeering or oversteering based on the first deviation. (¶0019; “Furthermore, the control means 13 determines whether the vehicle's state (vehicle behavior) is in the understeer, oversteer, or countersteer region by comparing the direction (P) of the angle difference (angle difference signal) between the front wheel slip angle and the rear wheel slip angle, the direction (N) of the yaw angular velocity signal Y, and the direction (S) of the steering torque signal T.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mose et al. (U.S. 2016/0221572A1) discloses “A vehicle behavior information acquisition device includes: a neutral characteristic setting unit in which a vehicle velocity-neutral yaw rate characteristic where a behavior of a user's vehicle is supposed to be in a neutral state is previously set based on a vehicle velocity and a steering angle of the vehicle; and a behavior information acquisition unit for acquiring behavior information including an understeer state of the vehicle based on an actual yaw rate, a vehicle velocity, a steering angle, and a vehicle velocity-neutral yaw rate characteristic previously set in the neutral characteristic setting unit. The behavior information acquisition unit acquires behavior information indicating that the vehicle is in an understeer state in a case where a deviation between the actual yaw rate and a neutral yaw rate based on the vehicle velocity, the steering angle, and the vehicle velocity-neutral yaw rate characteristic exceeds a predetermined deviation threshold.” (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
