DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 3/25/25, wherein:
Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/091373. Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. V. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Claim Interpretation
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 (from claim 10):
a pressure build-up duration monitoring unit, configured to monitor a pressure build-up duration . . . ;
an operating condition degradation unit, configured to acquire an operating condition degradation duration based on the pressure build-up duration . . . ; and
a prediction result acquisition unit, configured to subtract a degradation duration from a calibrated remaining service life of the urea pump to obtain a prediction result of the remaining service life of the urea pump . . .
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 § 101, Signal Per Se
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims include “a readable storage medium”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a transitory wave can be considered to be a readable storage medium. A transitory, propagating signal is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter. See MPEP § 2106. Since the specification has failed to exclude transitory signals from being a readable storage medium (Examiner specifically reviewed the entirety of the Specification), a rejection under 35 USC 101 has been provided. In order to overcome the rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to state that the readable storage medium is non-transitory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, Alice
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claim 10 recites an apparatus, and therefore, also falls into a statutory category. Despite the analysis that claim 12 was not found to fall into a statutory category, the claims are reanalyzed under the full 2-step process alongside the other dependent claims, including dependent claim 11, for purposes of compact prosecution. Claim 1 is used as the exemplary claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered mental processes:
monitoring a pressure build-up duration, wherein the pressure build-up duration is a duration of a successful pressure build-up process during a latest driving cycle of an engine provided with the urea pump, and the successful pressure build-up process is a process during which a pump pressure value of the urea pump increases from a first preset value to a second preset value;
acquiring an operating condition degradation duration based on the pressure build-up duration, wherein the operating condition degradation duration is positively correlated with the pressure build-up duration; and
subtracting a degradation duration from a calibrated remaining service life of the urea pump to obtain a prediction result of the remaining service life of the urea pump, wherein the calibrated remaining service life is obtained by subtracting an operating duration of the urea pump from a calibrated service life of the urea pump, and the degradation duration comprises the operating condition degradation duration.
These limitations constitute monitoring, acquiring data, and performing calculations that can be performed mentally in order to predict a remaining service life of a urea pump, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Claim 1 does not include any claim elements precluding the steps from practically being performed in the mind. As to claim 10, other than reciting that the claim is directed to an apparatus which includes a pressure build-up duration monitoring unit, an operating condition degradation unit, and a prediction result acquisition unit, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements, while claim 10 recites the additional elements of a pressure build-up duration monitoring unit, an operating condition degradation unit, and a prediction result acquisition unit. It is not clear what structure is being claimed through the various “units” (see rejection under 35 USC 112, below). For purposes of further examination, in the interests of compact prosecution, the various units are interpreted as generic computer devices. The units are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the 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 when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer components (in claim 10) to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components (as in claim 10) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claim 11 further recites the additional elements of a memory and a processor, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim 12 further recites the additional elements of a readable storage medium and a processor, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 limitations “a pressure build-up duration monitoring unit, configured to monitor a pressure build-up duration . . . ; an operating condition degradation unit, configured to acquire an operating condition degradation duration based on the pressure build-up duration . . . ; and a prediction result acquisition unit, configured to subtract a degradation duration from a calibrated remaining service life of the urea pump to obtain a prediction result of the remaining service life of the urea pump . . . ” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Examiner reviewed the entirety of the Specification and failed to find any corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1-12.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is Song et al. (CN 110284953). Song discloses the urea flow rate of the pump at each pressure is compared with the pre-established reference value of the urea flow rate of the pump at each pressure to determine the degree of aging of the pump (Song ¶14). The comparison includes determining the difference between the pump urea flow rate corresponding to each pressure and the pre-established reference value of the pump urea flow rate corresponding to each pressure (Song ¶19). The percentage of urea pump aging corresponding to each pressure is determined based on the difference and the pre-established flow rate benchmark value corresponding to each pressure (Song ¶20).
Zhou et al. (US 20210048807) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Zhou discloses a method of modeling a multi-mode degradation process and predicting a remaining useful life (abstract).
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of record neither anticipates not fairly and reasonable teach a method for predicting a remaining service life of a urea pump, comprising: monitoring a pressure build-up duration, wherein the pressure build-up duration is a duration of a successful pressure build-up process during a latest driving cycle of an engine provided with the urea pump, and the successful pressure build-up process is a process during which a pump pressure value of the urea pump increases from a first preset value to a second preset value; acquiring an operating condition degradation duration based on the pressure build-up duration, wherein the operating condition degradation duration is positively correlated with the pressure build-up duration; and subtracting a degradation duration from a calibrated remaining service life of the urea pump to obtain a prediction result of the remaining service life of the urea pump, wherein the calibrated remaining service life is obtained by subtracting an operating duration of the urea pump from a calibrated service life of the urea pump, and the degradation duration comprises the operating condition degradation duration.
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art. Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 and contains similar subject matter distinguished from prior art. The remaining claims are dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Si, Xiao-Sheng, et al. "Remaining useful life estimation–a review on the statistical data driven approaches." European journal of operational research 213.1 (2011): 1-14. Si reviews the recent modeling developments for estimating the remaining useful life of an asset (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights