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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 4/4/2025. Accordingly, claims 1- 20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 16- 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are independent claims written in dependent format. Appropriate correction is required.
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- 20—in particular Independent claims 1, 14 & 18—are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining, comparing and reducing data. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the vehicle processing device and vehicle memory language, the claims encompass a user simply comparing the collected data to a predetermined/configurable threshold in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic bus, processor and memory does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the elements of determining, comparing and reducing, and that a generic computer preform these steps. The determining and comparing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting and storing data for use in the reducing step), and as such they amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the determining, comparing and reducing steps is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the comparing and reducing steps. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the determining, comparing and reducing steps were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) 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 (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claims 2-13, 15-17 & 19-20 all depend from claims 1, 14 and 18 and as such are rejected for having the same deficiencies as those presented above with respect to claims 1, 14 & 18.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosh (EP 0721409 B1) in view of Stumpe et al. (US 6234584 B1).
As per claim 1, Bosh discloses: a method for adjusting an application pressure of a vehicle brake of a motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is in motion (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5-6 & ¶1, 28-29), the method comprising:
applying an initial application pressure to the vehicle brake (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5-6 & ¶1, 28-29; brake pressure);
determining a braking effect of the vehicle brake while the initial application pressure is applied to the vehicle brake (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102]-6 & ¶1, 28-29);
comparing the determined braking effect with a limit braking effect (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29; brake pedal position compared to predetermined limit value).
Bosh discloses the invention as detailed above.
However, Bosh does not appear to explicitly disclose reducing the initial application pressure to a reduced application pressure if the determined braking effect exceeds the limit braking effect.
Nevertheless, Stumpe—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses reducing the initial application pressure to a reduced application pressure if the determined braking effect exceeds the limit braking effect (see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c; application pressure is reduced).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention would have been motivated to combine Stumpe’s disclosure of reducing application pressure—brake pressure—with those of Bosh’s method for determining applied vehicle brake pressure in order to ensure consistent and timely braking (i.e., by taking into consideration—and compensating for--the hysteresis of the brakes from a braking force buildup to a braking force reduction).
Motivation to combine Stumpe with Bosh not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from Stumpe (see at least Summary).
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 2: wherein the reduced application pressure is defined as a new initial application pressure, the method further comprising: repeating said applying the initial application pressure, said determining the braking effect, said comparing the determined braking effect with the limited braking effect, and said reducing the initial application pressure until the determined braking effect is less than the limit braking effect (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 3: wherein said determining the braking effect of the vehicle brake is carried out via at least one wheel sensor (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 4: wherein said determining the braking effect of the vehicle brake is carried out on a basis of a torque change of an electric vehicle drive of the motor vehicle (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 5: wherein the limit braking effect is defined such that no measurable braking effect occurs at the vehicle brake (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 6: wherein the initial application pressure is selected before a first run of the method such that an air gap of the vehicle brake is completely or almost completely overcome by applying the initial application pressure (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 8: wherein said reducing the initial application pressure is carried out such that the initial application pressure is reduced by a defined pressure difference (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 10: wherein the method is carried out for several or all vehicle brakes of the motor vehicle (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 11: wherein the method is carried out for all vehicle brakes of one or more axles of the motor vehicle (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 12: wherein said applying the initial application pressure to the vehicle brake is carried out periodically (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 13: wherein the vehicle brake is a commercial vehicle disc brake (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 14: A control unit for a vehicle brake of a commercial vehicle, the control unit comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon for adjusting an application pressure of a vehicle brake of a motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is in motion; said program code being configured, when executed by said processor, to: apply an initial application pressure to the vehicle brake;3 determine a braking effect of the vehicle brake while the initial application pressure is applied to the vehicle brake; compare the determined braking effect with a limit braking effect; and, reduce the initial application pressure to a reduced application pressure if the determined braking effect exceeds the limit braking effect (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c; see claim 1 above).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 15: wherein the control unit is a dedicated control unit or a central control unit (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 16: A computer program product comprising commands stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which, when they are executed on a computer, cause the computer to form the control unit of claim 14 (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c; see claim 1 above).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 17: A computer program product comprising commands stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which, when they are executed on a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c; see claim 1 above).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 18: A motor vehicle comprising: a vehicle brake;4 a control unit having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium; said non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon for adjusting an application pressure of a vehicle brake of a motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is in motion; said program code being configured, when executed by said processor, to: apply an initial application pressure to the vehicle brake; determine a braking effect of the vehicle brake while the initial application pressure is applied to the vehicle brake; compare the determined braking effect with a limit braking effect; and, reduce the initial application pressure to a reduced application pressure if the determined braking effect exceeds the limit braking effect (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c; see claim 1 above).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 19: wherein the motor vehicle is an electrically powered motor vehicle (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bosh and Stumpe disclose claim 20: wherein the motor vehicle is a commercial vehicle (see Bosh at least fig. 1-6 in particular fig. 1 [26], 3 & 5 [steps100-102, 108]-6 & ¶1, 28-29 and see Stumpe at least fig. 1-4c).
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
As per claims 7 & 9, Bosh and Stumpe disclose the invention as detailed above, except for wherein said applying the initial application pressure is carried out for a period of one second to 10 seconds; and wherein the defined pressure difference is 0.05 bar to 0.1 bar. It would have been an matter of design choice to setting the period for the application pressure to be carried out from a period of 1 second to 10 seconds and to define the pressure difference between .05 bar to .1 bar, since applicant has not disclosed that setting the time period and pressure difference to the above stated values solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with period of time an pressure control modules as disclosed by Bosh and/or Stumpe.
Motivation to combine Bosh with Stumpe, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-9:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MACEEH . ANWARI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/MACEEH ANWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights