Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, no single prior art reference has been found to anticipate the limitations of this claim, nor combination of references to render the claim obvious, when viewed in the context of the remaining limitations to which the claim depends, and the claim recites changing the state of driving of the vehicle, which thereby integrates the claims into practical application. As such, were dependent claim 8 moved to independent form incorporating each and every intervening limitation, the claim would be allowable.
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 1-7, 9, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 will be treated as a representative claim and reads:
A method for operating a vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting at least one sensor signal that indicates an actuation of an actuator of an X-by-wire device of the vehicle performed by a user of the vehicle;
comparing at least one target value associated with the sensor signal to at least one actual value, which corresponds to an actual behavior of at least one component of the vehicle;
performing at least one measure upon a presence of a predetermined deviation of the actual value from the target value;
transferring the at least one target value and the at least one actual value to a vehicle monitor that is external to the vehicle, the vehicle monitor performing a comparison of the actual value to the target value in order to determine a deviation; and
providing to an at least one internal vehicle device, the at least one measure upon presence of the deviation.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of operating a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is 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. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for operating a vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting at least one sensor signal that indicates an actuation of an actuator of an X-by-wire device of the vehicle performed by a user of the vehicle;
comparing at least one target value associated with the sensor signal to at least one actual value, which corresponds to an actual behavior of at least one component of the vehicle [mental process/step];
performing at least one measure upon a presence of a predetermined deviation of the actual value from the target value;
transferring the at least one target value and the at least one actual value to a vehicle monitor that is external to the vehicle, the vehicle monitor performing a comparison of the actual value to the target value in order to determine a deviation [mental process/step]; and
providing to an at least one internal vehicle device, the at least one measure upon presence of the deviation.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “comparing…” in the context of the claim encompasses a human looking at collected data and forming a simple judgment of the relative arrangement of the collected data. Similarly, “performing a comparison…”, but for the recitation of a computer performing the operation, further encompasses that same person performing a further simple judgment of similarly comparing data.
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. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for operating a vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting at least one sensor signal that indicates an actuation of an actuator of an X-by-wire device of the vehicle performed by a user of the vehicle [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
comparing at least one target value associated with the sensor signal to at least one actual value, which corresponds to an actual behavior of at least one component of the vehicle;
performing at least one measure upon a presence of a predetermined deviation of the actual value from the target value [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)];
transferring the at least one target value and the at least one actual value to a vehicle monitor that is external to the vehicle [well-understood, routine, and conventional activity], the vehicle monitor [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] performing a comparison of the actual value to the target value in order to determine a deviation; and
providing to an at least one internal vehicle device, the at least one measure upon presence of the deviation [insignificant post-solution activity (data transmission)].
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 limitations of “detecting…”, “performing…”, and “providing…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the detecting step is recited at a high level of generality as a general means of gathering data for use in the comparison steps and amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Similarly, the performing of a measure amounts to, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, merely generically displaying the results of the mental process, which is a further form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited “providing…” amounts to merely generally providing the result of the mental process to an internal device for later operation, which is another form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “vehicle monitor” is recited a high-level of generality, as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of comparing information, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Lastly, “transferring…” is recited generically, such that it amounts to mere well-known, routine, and conventional transmission of data between computing units.
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. see 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 of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does 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 element of using a vehicle monitor amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the limitations of “detecting…”, “performing…”, and “providing…” the Examiner submits are extra-solution activities. Further, the “transferring…” amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional data transmission, which has been established by the courts as insufficient to form an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims either recite further data collection or further abstract concepts. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Independent claim 10 recites similar features to independent claim 1, and therefore is found not patent eligible under the same rationale.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood et al. (WO 2018065409) in view of Gujar et al. (US 20240218841).
In regards to claim 1, Greenwood teaches a method for operating a vehicle, the method comprising: (Fig 3.)
detecting at least one sensor signal that indicates an actuation of an actuator of an X-by-wire device of the vehicle performed by a user of the vehicle; (Page 13 lines 8-17, Page 15 lines 5-8, front steering controller of steer-by-wire system determines current to operate steering actuators for front wheels, which adjust rack position for each wheel. Page 16 lines 23-31, current operation of steering actuators is determined through current steering rack positions and compared against expected range of steering rack position. Sensor is used to determine input and transform the electrical input from the steering wheel to operate motors. This provides a sensor signal that indicates actuation of the motors of the steer-by-wire system operating the racks of each wheel from user input.)
comparing at least one target value associated with the sensor signal to at least one actual value, which corresponds to an actual behavior of at least one component of the vehicle; (Page 16 lines 23-31, current steering position with operation of steering actuators adjusting wheel rack positions is compared with expected range of positions, where the current position is the actual behavior of the steer-by-wire system compared to a target position of being within the expected range.)
performing at least one measure upon a presence of a predetermined deviation of the actual value from the target value; (Page 16 lines 33-37, Page 17 lines 1-5, if the comparison indicates that the current position is out of the expected range, then control operations are performed, which is at least one measure. This determines a deviation of the current determination being beyond or below the expected range, which is a predetermined deviation from a target value of any value within the expected range.)
and
providing to an at least one internal vehicle device, the at least one measure upon presence of the deviation. (Page 16 lines 33-37, Page 17 lines 1-5, when deviation is determined, watchdog interrupts flow of electrical power to controller, which provides measure to controller upon presences of deviation.)
Greenwood does not teach:
transferring the at least one target value and the at least one actual value to a vehicle monitor that is external to the vehicle, the vehicle monitor performing a comparison of the actual value to the target value in order to determine a deviation;
However, Gujar teaches a server that performs a comparison between an observed operating characteristic and a target operating characteristic (Claim 4). This requires the transfer of information from the sensors to the server, including the sensed data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Greenwood, by incorporating the teachings of Gujar, such that the measured current steering position with operation of steering actuators adjusting wheel rack positions is transmitted to a server which performs comparison between the measured information and the corresponding expected target range, which is then further used in performing control operations of the steer-by-wire system of Greenwood.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Gujar, this allows for reducing costs by better monitoring operating characteristics, which while explained as particularly relevant to engine and fuel operations, are equally applicable to other vehicle components ([0026]).
In regards to claim 9, Greenwood, as modified by Gujar, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, upon omission of a communication with the vehicle monitor external to the vehicle, a vehicle internal monitor that is internal to vehicle performs the comparison of the actual value to the target value and causes the at least one internal vehicle device to take the at least one measure. (Page 16 lines 4-31, watchdog controllers within vehicle perform comparisons between current value and expected range without requiring external communication.)
In regards to claim 10, Greenwood teaches a vehicle, which is adapted to detect at least one sensor signal, which indicates an actuation of an actuation element of an X-by-wire device of the vehicle performed by a user of the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is adapted to associate a target value with the sensor signal and detects at least one actual value, which corresponds to an actual behavior of at least one component of the vehicle, the vehicle comprising: (Figs 1, 2, 4-6, Page 13 lines 8-17, Page 15 lines 5-8, front steering controller of steer-by-wire system determines current to operate steering actuators for front wheels, which adjust rack position for each wheel. Page 16 lines 23-31, current operation of steering actuators is determined through current steering rack positions and compared against expected range of steering rack position. Sensor is used to determine input and transform the electrical input from the steering wheel to operate motors. This provides a sensor signal that indicates actuation of the motors of the steer-by-wire system operating the racks of each wheel from user input.)
to perform a comparison of the actual value to the target value and to output an instruction to a receiver of the vehicle upon presence of a predetermined deviation of the actual value from the target value, (Page 16 lines 23-31, current steering position with operation of steering actuators adjusting wheel rack positions is compared with expected range of positions, where the current position is the actual behavior of the steer-by-wire system compared to a target position of being within the expected range. Page 16 lines 33-37, Page 17 lines 1-5, if the comparison indicates that the current position is out of the expected range, then control operations are performed, which is at least one measure. This determines a deviation of the current determination being beyond or below the expected range, which is a predetermined deviation from a target value of any value within the expected range.)
wherein the vehicle causes at least one internal vehicle device of the vehicle to take at least one measure based on the instruction. (Page 16 lines 33-37, Page 17 lines 1-5, when deviation is determined, watchdog interrupts flow of electrical power to controller, which provides measure to controller upon presences of deviation.)
Greenwood does not teach:
a transmitter, via which the at least one target value and the at least one actual value are transferred to a vehicle monitor that is external to the vehicle, to perform a comparison of the actual value to the target value and to output an instruction to a receiver of the vehicle upon presence of a predetermined deviation of the actual value from the target value,
However, Gujar teaches a server that performs a comparison between an observed operating characteristic and a target operating characteristic (Claim 4). This requires the transfer of information from the sensors to the server, including the sensed data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Greenwood, by incorporating the teachings of Gujar, such that the measured current steering position with operation of steering actuators adjusting wheel rack positions is transmitted to a server which performs comparison between the measured information and the corresponding expected target range, which is then further used in performing control operations of the steer-by-wire system of Greenwood.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Gujar, this allows for reducing costs by better monitoring operating characteristics, which while explained as particularly relevant to engine and fuel operations, are equally applicable to other vehicle components ([0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kyes et al. (US 20190244445) teaches a remote device comparing vehicle information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights