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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “perform a vehicle state determination logic configured to determine a map information reception state and a vehicle steering state based on vehicle driving information and a yaw rate measurement value obtained through the sensor and the input/output interface”, perform a target deceleration setting logic configured to obtain a first target deceleration based on a distance between vehicles or a second target deceleration based on map information using at least one of the map information, the vehicle driving information, and the yaw rate measurement value depending on whether the map information is receivable”, and perform a target torque setting logic configured to determine a smaller value between the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration and set the smaller value as target deceleration, and determining target torque for regenerative braking based on the target deceleration.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes in the form of judgements and/or evaluations capable of being performed in the human mind. Mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond being generally linked to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim includes additional elements of a “processor”, “an input/output interface electrically connected to the processor”, and “a memory connected to the processor and storing instructions”. These elements, recited at a high level of generality, amount to generic computer components. The invocation of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim also recites an additional element of “a sensor electrically connected to the processor”. The use of a sensor, in its known manner, to gather information for analysis in use in an abstract idea has been held as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g); see also Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350-1356 (Fed. Circ. 2016)).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “a vehicle state determination operation of determining a map information reception state and a vehicle steering state based on vehicle driving information and a yaw rate measurement value obtained through a sensor and an input/output interface electrically connected to the processor; a target deceleration setting operation of obtaining and setting a first target deceleration based on a distance between vehicles or a second target deceleration based on map information using at least one of the map information, the vehicle driving information, and the yaw rate measurement value depending on whether the map information is receivable; and a target torque setting operation of determining a smaller value among the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration as target deceleration, and obtaining and setting a target torque for regenerative braking based on the target deceleration.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes in the form of judgements and/or evaluations capable of being performed in the human mind. Mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond being generally linked to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim recites an additional element of a “processor”. The invocation of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1. Claims 12-20 depend from claim 11. Claim 1 recites the following (emphasis added):
An apparatus for controlling smart regenerative braking based on yaw rate, the apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a sensor electrically connected to the processor;
an input/output interface electrically connected to the processor; and
a memory connected to the processor and storing instructions,
wherein, based on that an instruction stored in the memory is executed by the processor, the processor is configured to perform a vehicle state determination logic configured to determine a map information reception state and a vehicle steering state based on vehicle driving information and a yaw rate measurement value obtained through the sensor and the input/output interface,
the processor is configured to perform a target deceleration setting logic configured to obtain a first target deceleration based on a distance between vehicles or a second target deceleration based on map information using at least one of the map information, the vehicle driving information, and the yaw rate measurement value depending on whether the map information is receivable, and
the processor is further configured to perform a target torque setting logic configured to determine a smaller value between the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration and set the smaller value as target deceleration, and determining target torque for regenerative braking based on the target deceleration.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations to those of claim 1.
The prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted limitations of the claim in the context of the entirety of the claim.
McGrory et al. (US 2023/0064300 A1) [hereinafter “McGrory”] teaches a system and method for controlling a target deceleration torque based at least on a predicted yaw rate (see [0065]-[0066]). However, McGrory does not teach also determining that the target deceleration “based on map information using at least one of the map information, the vehicle driving information, and the yaw rate measurement value depending on whether the map information is receivable.” Additionally, McGrory does not teach “the processor is further configured to perform a target torque setting logic configured to determine a smaller value between the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration and set the smaller value as target deceleration, and determining target torque for regenerative braking based on the target deceleration.”
These differences between McGrory and the claimed invention are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any evidence in the prior art.
Oyama (US 2020/0064839 A1) generally teaches a travel control system for a vehicle for setting a vehicle speed (see Abstract). Oyama teaches that the method of determining the vehicle speed to be set may be based on whether or not map data is available (see [0062]-[0063]). In differing from the claimed invention, Oyama uses this information to determine a vehicle speed to be set. That is, Oyama does not teach determining that the target deceleration “based on map information using at least one of the map information, the vehicle driving information, and the yaw rate measurement value depending on whether the map information is receivable” and does not cure the deficiencies of McGrory.
Accordingly, claims 2-10 and 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sakata (US 2005/0216164 A1) generally teaches:
An automatic slowdown control apparatus for a vehicle is disclosed wherein automatic slowdown control can be ended appropriately and automatic slowdown is prevented from being performed excessively on a road of an ascending gradient. The automatic slowdown control apparatus starts automatic slowdown control of rendering a braking mechanism operative to slow down the vehicle when the stability of the posture and/or behavior of the vehicle upon turning is deteriorated. A control end threshold value is set such that the stability of the vehicle is displaced to the instability side as the ascending gradient of the uphill road increases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights