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 . Claims 1-8 were originally pending in this application, of which claims 1-8 were cancelled and claims 9-16 were added in the preliminary amendments filed concurrently with the original filing of the application. Thus, claims 9-16 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “tracking a progression of at least one wear indicator, wear vector element, confidence value, averaged wear indicator, wear vector element, or confidence value over a time interval” but should instead recite --tracking a progression of at least one wear indicator, wear vector element, confidence value, averaged wear indicator,
Claim 15 recites “tracking a progression of at least one wear indicator, wear vector element, confidence value, averaged wear indicator, wear vector element, or confidence value over a time interval” but should instead recite --tracking a progression of at least one wear indicator, wear vector element, confidence value, averaged wear indicator, or confidence value over a time interval-- so as to not repeat the term “wear vector element” and to include an “or” in the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 (and similarly claim 16) recites “a wear database containing correlations between data that can be aggregated in the use vector and data that can be aggregated in the environment vector”. Does the “data that can be aggregated in the use vector” and “data that can be aggregated in the environment vector” correspond to separate data that is already in the wear database (for example, from previously collected data from the vehicle or other vehicles)? Or is this referring to the previously claimed limitations “the part of the operating data depending on the driving behavior and a part of the operating data depending on settings of vehicle functions” and “a part of the operating data representing environmental conditions”, respectively? The metes and bounds of the limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to separate aggregated data in the wear database including aggregated data corresponding to use vector(s) and aggregated data corresponding to environment vector(s).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 9 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method or a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified claim 16 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 16 recites the limitations of:
“A system comprising: a vehicle comprising a vehicle-internal computing unit, a plurality of monitoring components, and an interface for wireless data communication; and a vehicle-external central computing unit operatively coupled to the interface of the vehicle to communicate data wirelessly, wherein the vehicle is configured to constantly record, over a lifetime of the vehicle by the monitoring components, operating data, wherein the vehicle is configured to store at least some of the operating data, wherein a part of the operating data is dependent on driving behavior of a person driving the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is configured to aggregate, in a use vector, the part of the operating data dependent on the driving behavior and a part of the operating data dependent on settings of vehicle functions of the vehicle, wherein each use vector element of the use vector is assigned data generated by an individual one of the monitoring components, wherein the vehicle is configured to aggregate, in an environment vector, a part of the operating data representing environmental conditions of the vehicle, wherein each environmental vector element is assigned data generated by an individual one of the monitoring components, wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit, to the vehicle-external central computing unit, the use vector and the environment vector, wherein the vehicle-external central computing unit has access to a wear database containing correlations between data that can be aggregated in the use vector and data that can be aggregated in the environment vector regarding wear behavior of vehicle components, wherein the vehicle-external central computing unit is configured to compare the use vector and the environment vector with content of the wear database, wherein the vehicle-external central computing unit is configured to determine, based on the comparison of the use vector and the environment vector with the content of the wear database, a wear vector, wherein each wear vector element of the wear vector describes a degree of wear of an individual vehicle component; wherein the vehicle-external central computing unit is configured to calculate a wear indicator using the wear vector elements of the wear vector, wherein the vehicle-external central computing unit is configured to exchange at least one of the use vector elements of the use vector for a corresponding, emulated vector element, wherein the vehicle-external central computing unit is configured to determine, based on the exchanged corresponding emulated vector element, an alternative wear vector and an alternative wear indicator, wherein the vehicle-external central computing unit is configured to transmit the wear indicator and the alternative wear indicator to the vehicle, and wherein the vehicle is configured to output, to a person driving the vehicle, the wear indicator and the alternative wear indicator, or a value of at least one of the wear vector elements of the wear vector and the alternative wear vector.”
The limitations of aggregating, assigning, comparing, determining, calculating, exchanging, determining, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the vehicle is configured to” and “the vehicle-external central computing unit is configured to”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “the vehicle is configured to” and “the vehicle-external central computing unit is configured to” language, the limitation “aggregate, in a use vector, the part of the operating data dependent on the driving behavior and a part of the operating data dependent on settings of vehicle functions of the vehicle, wherein each use vector element of the use vector is assigned data generated by an individual one of the monitoring components, wherein the vehicle is configured to aggregate, in an environment vector, a part of the operating data representing environmental conditions of the vehicle, wherein each environmental vector element is assigned data generated by an individual one of the monitoring components” in the context of the claim encompasses a person combining data according to the type of data (part dependent on driving behavior and part representing environmental conditions) and assigning the data according to vehicle settings and monitoring components, respectively. The limitations of “compare the use vector and the environment vector with content of the wear database… determine, based on the comparison of the use vector and the environment vector with the content of the wear database, a wear vector, wherein each wear vector element of the wear vector describes a degree of wear of an individual vehicle component… calculate a wear indicator using the wear vector elements of the wear vector” encompasses a person comparing use vector and environment vector with a wear database (for example a look-up table) and determining a wear vector, and calculating (either a mental step performed by a person using pen and paper or calculator, or a mathematical concept) a wear indicator using the determined wear vector. The limitations of “exchange at least one of the use vector elements of the use vector for a corresponding, emulated vector element… determine, based on the exchanged corresponding emulated vector element, an alternative wear vector and an alternative wear indicator” encompasses a person using a different use vector of the wear vector for comparing/determining/calculating an alternative wear vector similar to the other calculated wear vector. 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. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “the vehicle” and “the vehicle-external central computing unit” to perform the recited steps. The vehicle and vehicle-external central computing unit are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic vehicle and a generic computing unit performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The vehicle-internal computing unit, plurality of monitoring components, and interface for wireless data communication are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic vehicle-internal computing unit, generic monitoring components, and generic wireless interface). The limitation of storing at least some of the operating data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generically storing data) and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of constantly recording, over a lifetime of the vehicle by the monitoring components, operating data, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic data gathering) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of transmitting, to the vehicle-external central computing unit, the use vector and the environment vector and also transmitting the wear indicator and the alternative wear indicator to the vehicle are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic data transmission over a network) and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of outputting, to a person driving the vehicle, the wear indicator and the alternative wear indicator, or a value of at least one of the wear vector elements of the wear vector and the alternative wear vector is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic display output in response to the determining/calculating steps) and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the vehicle and the vehicle central external-computing unit to perform the 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 examiner submits that the additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 limitations of recording data and transmitting data are considered well understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which 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. The limitation of storing data is also considered well understood, routine, and conventional activity, because it is merely storing data in a generic manner. Accordingly, a conclusion that the recording, storing, and transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Thus claim 16 (and similarly 9) is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 10-14 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim 10 recites a step of identifying the person driving the vehicle, which can be considered a mental step of analyzing previously gathered data such as an image, which can be performed by a person. This step could also be considered an additional element recited at a high level of generality (i.e., merely data gathering) which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The step of assigning is merely a decision that can be made by a person. The step of transmitting is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic data transmission over a network) that is an additional element in the form of insignificant extra solution activity, and considered well understood routine and conventional. The step of collecting is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic data gathering) is an additional element in the form of insignificant extra solution activity. The step of determining can be considered a mental step because a person can analyze data and determine a relationship in their mind.
Claim 11 recites a step of taking into consideration relation information for determining a characteristic, and this step can be performed in the human mind because a person can take into account different data when analyzing.
Claim 12 recites a step of determining a confidence value which is a step that can be performed in the human mind because a person can use a wear database to identify or calculate a confidence value. This step could also be considered a mathematical concept.
Claim 13 recites a step of determining which can be considered a mental step because a person can analyze data and determine a relationship in their mind. The step of transmitting is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic data transmission over a network) that is an additional element in the form of insignificant extra solution activity, and considered well understood routine and conventional.
Claim 14 recites a step of tracking at least one of the listed parameters over a time interval, which can be performed in the human mind by looking at data over time. The step of comparing can be performed in the human mind. The step of outputting an alert when the tracked value is over the specified threshold and outputting an alert when the tracked value is below the specified threshold is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic display, audible, or other type of output in response to the comparison) which is an additional element in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Examiner note: Claim 15 recites “reducing a maximum available drive power or changing a control behavior of at least one driver assistance system of the vehicle to defensive behavior when the tracked value is over the respective specified threshold” which integrates the otherwise abstract idea into a practical application (see Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitation of independent claim 9 (and similar limitations of independent claim 16) in its entirety:
“aggregating, by the vehicle in an environment vector, a part of the operating data representing environmental conditions of the vehicle, wherein each environmental vector element is assigned data generated by an individual one of the monitoring components; transmitting, by the vehicle to a vehicle-external central computing unit, the use vector and the environment vector, wherein the vehicle-external central computing unit has access to a wear database containing correlations between data that can be aggregated in the use vector and data that can be aggregated in the environment vector regarding wear behavior of vehicle components; comparing, by the vehicle-external central computing unit, the use vector and the environment vector with content of the wear database; determining, by the vehicle-external central computing unit based on the comparison of the use vector and the environment vector with the content of the wear database, a wear vector, wherein each wear vector element of the wear vector describes a degree of wear of an individual vehicle component; calculating, by the vehicle-external central computing unit, a wear indicator using the wear vector elements of the wear vector; exchanging, by the vehicle-external central computing unit, at least one of the use vector elements of the use vector for a corresponding, emulated vector element; determining, by the vehicle-external central computing unit based on the exchanged corresponding emulated vector element, an alternative wear vector and an alternative wear indicator; transmitting, by the vehicle-external central computing unit to the vehicle, the wear indicator and the alternative wear indicator; and outputting, by the vehicle to a person driving the vehicle, the wear indicator and the alternative wear indicator, or a value of at least one of the wear vector elements of the wear vector and the alternative wear vector”
Grubwinkler (DE 10 2016 221 086 A, cited in the IDS filed 7/11/2025, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon) teaches sensors S1-S3 generating usage data corresponding to different vehicle components K1-K3, transmitting the usage data N to the database unit DBE, and mapping the usage data N to at least one wear indicator V.
Herrou (US 2024/0116515 A1) teaches identifying a driver of the vehicle, determining a driving pattern associated with the driver using sensor, measuring vehicle wear with sensors, identifying a correlation between the driving pattern and an aggregate wear associated with the vehicle, generating a measure of wear associated with the vehicle/vehicle component, and outputting a driver sore representing the driver’s contribution to vehicle wear.
Brook (US 2023/0142401 A1) teaches collecting data from sensors, an aggregate wear score, using vehicle operation behavior to predict wear on the vehicle by the vehicle operator, and outputting a vehicle wear score or a set of wear scores. Brook also teaches providing a note to the user that avoiding hard braking, wear and tear to the brake pads would be decreased by, for example 60%.
Grubwinkler takes into account usage of vehicle components in determining wear, Herrou takes into account driving pattern in determining wear, and Brook provides suggestions for improving wear scores. However, none of the prior art of record teach the specifics of using both a use vector with use vector elements and an environment vector with environment vector elements in combination with a wear database to determine a wear vector with wear vector elements for each individual component. Additionally, none of the prior art teach exchanging at least one use vector element of the use vector with an emulated vector element and using that to determine an alternative wear vector and an alternative wear indicator, and then outputting to a person driving the vehicle both the wear indicator and the alternative wear indicator or the wear vector and the alternative wear vector. The details recited in the claim are much more specific than what is recited in the prior art of record, and therefore it would require impermissible hindsight to modify or combine the prior art of record to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following is a list of the relevant prior art that was cited but not applied: Johnston (US 2021/0350635 A1), Stewart (US 2019/0270347 A1), and De (US 2010/0057479 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
