DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application and preliminary amendment each filed on 06/20/2025.
Claims 13-24 have been added.
Claims 1-12 have been canceled.
Claims 13-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 06/28/2025 and 06/20/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claims 13, 23, and 24:
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
13. A method for carrying out settings on at least one first actuator of a motor vehicle, comprising: predefining a first setting for the at least one first actuator, obtaining, based on a first NFT, first data which predefine a second setting, using the obtained data to change the first setting into the second setting. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior following rules or instructions)
23. A method for enabling settings to be changed on at least one actuator of a motor vehicle, comprising: (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior following rules or instructions)
minting at least one NFT that links a file, in particular an .xml file, containing control commands for at least one actuator to further data; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior following rules or instructions)
recording the at least one NFT on a block chain. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior following rules or instructions)
24. A motor vehicle having at least one actuator and an associated control unit which is configured to retrieve, from an internal memory of the motor vehicle, or externally download, at least one file, the at least one file including an .xml file, containing control commands for the at least one actuator via at least one data path determined by an NFT, and to implement the control commands as required. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 14-22 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claims 13, 23, and 24:
… one first actuator of a motor vehicle
…a motor vehicle
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. (USPGP 2023/0176557 A1), hereinafter CELLA, in view of Stefanovski et al. (USPGP 2024/0181987 A1), hereinafter STEFANOVSKI.
Claim 13:
CELLA as shown below discloses the following limitations:
A method for carrying out settings on at least one first actuator of a motor vehicle, comprising:
predefining a first setting for the at least one first actuator, obtaining, based on a first NFT, first data which predefine a second setting, using the obtained data to change the first setting into the second setting.
See at least paragraphs 0003, 0481, 0514, 0517, 0539, 2856, 2857, 3019, 3021; Figure 158 as well as associated and related text. CELLA does not specifically disclose an NFT. STEFANOVSKI, however, in at least paragraphs 0015, 0022, and Figure 1 as well as associated and related text does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CELLA with the technique of STEFANOVSKI because, “Industrial environments, such as environments for large scale manufacturing (such as manufacturing of aircraft, ships, trucks, automobiles, and large industrial machines), energy production environments (such as oil and gas plants, renewable energy environments, and others), energy extraction environments (such as mining, drilling, and the like), construction environments (such as for construction of large buildings), and others, involve highly complex machines, devices and systems and highly complex workflows, in which operators must account for a host of parameters, metrics, and the like in order to optimize design, development, deployment, and operation of different technologies in order to improve overall results. Industrial environments are widely populated with large, complex, heavy machines that are designed to have very relatively long working lifetimes and have ongoing service requirements, including requirements for scheduled maintenance and for often unanticipated repairs. Many of the large industrial machines that require ongoing maintenance, service and repairs are involved in high stakes production processes and other processes, such as energy production, manufacturing, mining, drilling, and transportation, that preferably involve minimal or no interruption. An unanticipated problem, or an extended delay in a service operation that requires a shutdown of a machine that is critical to such a process can cost thousands, or even millions of dollars per day.” (CELLA: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 14-17:
The combination of CELLA/STEFANOVSKI discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. STEFANOVSKI further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first NFT itself contains a file containing control commands for the at least one first actuator.
wherein the first NFT contains a data path to a file containing control commands for the at least one first actuator.
wherein the control commands are stored in the motor vehicle itself and are activated using the first NFT.
wherein the file is or comprises an .xml file.
See at least paragraphs 0097-0101. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CELLA with the technique of STEFANOVSKI because, “Industrial environments, such as environments for large scale manufacturing (such as manufacturing of aircraft, ships, trucks, automobiles, and large industrial machines), energy production environments (such as oil and gas plants, renewable energy environments, and others), energy extraction environments (such as mining, drilling, and the like), construction environments (such as for construction of large buildings), and others, involve highly complex machines, devices and systems and highly complex workflows, in which operators must account for a host of parameters, metrics, and the like in order to optimize design, development, deployment, and operation of different technologies in order to improve overall results. Industrial environments are widely populated with large, complex, heavy machines that are designed to have very relatively long working lifetimes and have ongoing service requirements, including requirements for scheduled maintenance and for often unanticipated repairs. Many of the large industrial machines that require ongoing maintenance, service and repairs are involved in high stakes production processes and other processes, such as energy production, manufacturing, mining, drilling, and transportation, that preferably involve minimal or no interruption. An unanticipated problem, or an extended delay in a service operation that requires a shutdown of a machine that is critical to such a process can cost thousands, or even millions of dollars per day.” (CELLA: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 18-22:
The combination of CELLA/STEFANOVSKI discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. STEFANOVSKI further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the second setting replaces the first setting.
wherein the second setting temporally follows the first setting.
obtaining, based on a second NFT, second data which alone predefine a third setting, and the second data in combination with the first data predefine a fourth setting.
wherein the first setting is also predefined for at least one second actuator, third data which predefine the second setting for the at least one second actuator are obtained based on a third NFT, and the third data are used to change the first setting of the at least one second actuator into the second setting.
wherein a setting of a third actuator is additionally changed.
See at least paragraphs 0016, 0077, 0046, 0052, and 0110. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CELLA with the technique of STEFANOVSKI because, “Industrial environments, such as environments for large scale manufacturing (such as manufacturing of aircraft, ships, trucks, automobiles, and large industrial machines), energy production environments (such as oil and gas plants, renewable energy environments, and others), energy extraction environments (such as mining, drilling, and the like), construction environments (such as for construction of large buildings), and others, involve highly complex machines, devices and systems and highly complex workflows, in which operators must account for a host of parameters, metrics, and the like in order to optimize design, development, deployment, and operation of different technologies in order to improve overall results. Industrial environments are widely populated with large, complex, heavy machines that are designed to have very relatively long working lifetimes and have ongoing service requirements, including requirements for scheduled maintenance and for often unanticipated repairs. Many of the large industrial machines that require ongoing maintenance, service and repairs are involved in high stakes production processes and other processes, such as energy production, manufacturing, mining, drilling, and transportation, that preferably involve minimal or no interruption. An unanticipated problem, or an extended delay in a service operation that requires a shutdown of a machine that is critical to such a process can cost thousands, or even millions of dollars per day.” (CELLA: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 23 and 24:
The combination of CELLA/STEFANOVSKI discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections of the claims above. The Examiner finds that remaining claims 23 and 24 are not patentably distinct from claims 13-22, because the inventions in the claims are directed to related, indistinct products. The related inventions would be distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed were either not capable of use together or could have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions did not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed were not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). Furthermore, the inventions as claimed encompass overlapping subject matter and are obvious variants that do not produce any new, meaningful, synergetic result that would render the claims novel. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the Examiner has grouped the rejections of claims 13-24 accordingly using the same references and citations as above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights