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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-10 have been canceled by the Applicant in the preliminary amendment to the claims filed 05/06/2025. Claims 11-19 are currently pending and addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“vehicle dynamics control system” provided in claim 18
The specification and drawings were used to define the generic placeholder specified above (item a):
Specification – “The vehicle dynamics control system can be an electrical device comprising at least one computing unit for processing signals or data… the program product or
program is executed on a computer …”
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
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 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 11 and 18-19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), a vehicle dynamics control system (i.e., a machine), and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 11 and 18-19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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 claims 11 and 18-19 include limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Independent claims 11 and 18-19 recite the following information:
A method of vehicle dynamics control for a vehicle/vehicle dynamics control system configured to execute a method of vehicle dynamics control/non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for vehicle dynamics control, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform steps, comprising the following steps:
parameterizing a feedforward algorithm using a model behavior of a virtual analogous model of the vehicle;
comparing the model behavior of the analogous model with a real-life behavior of the vehicle; and
adapting the analogous model when the model behavior deviates from the real- life behavior.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea of a mental process that develops and parameterizes a model for control of a vehicle, gathers information obtained by observation and sensors related to the operation of a vehicle to compare the sensor measured values with anticipated values from the model, and makes adjustments to the model when the anticipated values from the vehicle control model deviate from the measured values.
Each of the limitations can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to develop and parameterize a model for control of a vehicle, gather information based on visual observation of displayed vehicle operation measured data captured by vehicle sensors, compare the sensor measured values with anticipated values from the model, and adjust the model when the anticipated values from the vehicle control model deviate from the measured values.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. 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.”
Claims 11 and 18-19 do contain additional elements of a vehicle dynamics control system and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for vehicle dynamics control, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform steps. However, these additional elements do not add to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of a vehicle dynamics control system and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for vehicle dynamics control, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform steps, the examiner submits that these limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control system environment. The vehicle dynamics control system and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for vehicle dynamics control, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the parameterizing of a feedforward algorithm, behavior comparing, and model adapting components of the system. The examiner submits that these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., describe general means of the feedforward algorithm parameterizing, behavior comparing, and model adapting steps) and therefore amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claims 11 and 18-19 do 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, the additional elements of a vehicle dynamics control system and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for vehicle dynamics control, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform steps amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process.
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. The additional limitations of gathering/transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 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. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-17 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims further narrow the scope of independent claims 11 and 18-19, however, the identified additional limitations and elements still do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, dependent claims 12-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 11 and 18-19. Therefore, claims 11-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. US 20230009744 A1 (“Kong”).
For claim 11, Kong discloses a method of vehicle dynamics control for a vehicle (See at least [0005] of Kong – “… a vehicle cruise control method and apparatus, to resolve a problem of relatively large energy consumption during vehicle cruise control…”), comprising the following steps:
parameterizing a feedforward algorithm using a model behavior of a virtual analogous model of the vehicle (See at least [0059]-[0071] of Kong – “… The processor determines a feedforward torque of the vehicle based on the target vehicle speed… the feedforward torque may include at least one of a rolling resistance torque, a wind resistance torque, and a gradient resistance torque… determines a steady-state torque based on the feedforward torque… the processor triggers adjustment of the feedback torque, and controls the vehicle based on both the feedforward torque and the feedback torque… the feedback torque may be adjusted by using a calibration algorithm… a PID algorithm…”);
comparing the model behavior of the analogous model with a real-life behavior of the vehicle (See at least [0076] of Kong – “… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v2 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque. If the v2 is the same as the target vehicle speed, an accumulated torque of the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque is determined as the steady-state torque …”); and
adapting the analogous model when the model behavior deviates from the real- life behavior (See at least [0076] of Kong – “… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v2 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque… If the v2 is different from the target vehicle speed, the processor calculates a feedback torque 2 by using the PID algorithm based on the actual vehicle speed v2 at the moment 2 and the target vehicle speed. The feedback torque 2 is used to control cruise of the vehicle at a moment 3 together with the feedforward torque…”).
For claim 12, Kong discloses wherein the real-life behavior is observed using at least one current measured variable detected on the vehicle (See at least [0066] of Kong – “… the speed sensor may measure the actual vehicle speed at which the vehicle drives in real time, and send the measured actual vehicle speed to the processor in real time…”).
For claim 13, Kong discloses wherein at least one model state of the analogous model is adapted using a state correction for the model state (See at least [0076]-[0077] of Kong – “… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v2 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque … If the v2 is different from the target vehicle speed, the processor calculates a feedback torque 2 by using the PID algorithm based on the actual vehicle speed v2 at the moment 2 and the target vehicle speed. The feedback torque 2 is used to control cruise of the vehicle at a moment 3 together with the feedforward torque… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v3 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 2 and the feedforward torque, and determines whether the v3 is the same as the target vehicle speed. The preceding operations are performed until the actual vehicle speed at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on the feedback torque and the feedforward torque is the same as the target vehicle speed…”).
For claim 14, Kong discloses wherein a maximum of two model states are adapted simultaneously (See at least [0076]-[0077] of Kong – “… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v2 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque … If the v2 is different from the target vehicle speed, the processor calculates a feedback torque 2 by using the PID algorithm based on the actual vehicle speed v2 at the moment 2 and the target vehicle speed. The feedback torque 2 is used to control cruise of the vehicle at a moment 3 together with the feedforward torque… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v3 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 2 and the feedforward torque, and determines whether the v3 is the same as the target vehicle speed. The preceding operations are performed until the actual vehicle speed at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on the feedback torque and the feedforward torque is the same as the target vehicle speed…”).
For claim 15, Kong discloses wherein the state correction is limited to a predefined value range around the model state (See at least [0038] of Kong – “… this application provides a vehicle cruise control method and apparatus, to effectively reduce energy consumption during a vehicle cruise. The method includes: determining whether a current vehicle speed exceeds a target range during a vehicle cruise; if the current vehicle speed is within the target range, controlling the vehicle to cruise at a predetermined target value of a cruising torque…”).
For claim 16, Kong discloses wherein the value range is set depending on a driving situation of the vehicle (See at least [0038] of Kong – “… this application provides a vehicle cruise control method and apparatus, to effectively reduce energy consumption during a vehicle cruise. The method includes: determining whether a current vehicle speed exceeds a target range during a vehicle cruise; if the current vehicle speed is within the target range, controlling the vehicle to cruise at a predetermined target value of a cruising torque; and if the current vehicle speed exceeds the target range, adjusting the target value, so that a vehicle speed after a current moment is within the target range. In this way, when an actual vehicle speed of the vehicle is within the target range, the vehicle does not need to frequently accelerate or decelerate, thereby reducing energy consumption and increasing a cruising range…”).
For claim 17, Kong discloses wherein the state correction is limited to physically reasonable values (See at least [0085] of Kong – “… the processor determines the target range of the vehicle driving speed based on the target vehicle speed, a tolerance range of the target vehicle speed, and a speed limit range of a road on which the vehicle is located…”).
For claim 18, Kong discloses a vehicle dynamics control system, the vehicle dynamics control system being configured to execute and/or implement and/or actuate a method of vehicle dynamics control (See at least [0005] of Kong – “… a vehicle cruise control method and apparatus, to resolve a problem of relatively large energy consumption during vehicle cruise control…”), the method comprising:
parameterizing a feedforward algorithm using a model behavior of a virtual analogous model of the vehicle (See at least [0059]-[0071] of Kong – “… The processor determines a feedforward torque of the vehicle based on the target vehicle speed… the feedforward torque may include at least one of a rolling resistance torque, a wind resistance torque, and a gradient resistance torque… determines a steady-state torque based on the feedforward torque… the processor triggers adjustment of the feedback torque, and controls the vehicle based on both the feedforward torque and the feedback torque… the feedback torque may be adjusted by using a calibration algorithm… a PID algorithm…”);
comparing the model behavior of the analogous model with a real-life behavior of the vehicle (See at least [0076] of Kong – “… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v2 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque. If the v2 is the same as the target vehicle speed, an accumulated torque of the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque is determined as the steady-state torque …”); and
adapting the analogous model when the model behavior deviates from the real- life behavior (See at least [0076] of Kong – “… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v2 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque… If the v2 is different from the target vehicle speed, the processor calculates a feedback torque 2 by using the PID algorithm based on the actual vehicle speed v2 at the moment 2 and the target vehicle speed. The feedback torque 2 is used to control cruise of the vehicle at a moment 3 together with the feedforward torque…”).
For claim 19, Kong discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for vehicle dynamics control, the computer program, when executed by a processor (See at least [0014] of Kong – “… the vehicle cruise control apparatus includes a memory and one or more processors… memory is configured to store computer instructions. The processor is configured to invoke the computer instructions, to perform any method …”), causing the processor to perform the following steps:
parameterizing a feedforward algorithm using a model behavior of a virtual analogous model of the vehicle (See at least [0059]-[0071] of Kong – “… The processor determines a feedforward torque of the vehicle based on the target vehicle speed… the feedforward torque may include at least one of a rolling resistance torque, a wind resistance torque, and a gradient resistance torque… determines a steady-state torque based on the feedforward torque… the processor triggers adjustment of the feedback torque, and controls the vehicle based on both the feedforward torque and the feedback torque… the feedback torque may be adjusted by using a calibration algorithm… a PID algorithm…”);
comparing the model behavior of the analogous model with a real-life behavior of the vehicle (See at least [0076] of Kong – “… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v2 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque. If the v2 is the same as the target vehicle speed, an accumulated torque of the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque is determined as the steady-state torque …”); and
adapting the analogous model when the model behavior deviates from the real- life behavior (See at least [0076] of Kong – “… the processor obtains an actual vehicle speed v2 at which the vehicle is controlled to cruise based on both the feedback torque 1 and the feedforward torque… If the v2 is different from the target vehicle speed, the processor calculates a feedback torque 2 by using the PID algorithm based on the actual vehicle speed v2 at the moment 2 and the target vehicle speed. The feedback torque 2 is used to control cruise of the vehicle at a moment 3 together with the feedforward torque…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights