DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is made FINAL. Claims 1-12 and 14-24 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 15, 19, 21, and 24 have been amended; and claim 13 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment, Examiner withdraws the § 112(b) rejections for lack of antecedent basis for claims 6-12, 19, 21, and 24; withdraws the previous § 101 and § 102 rejection of claim 13; maintains the previous § 112(f) interpretations; maintains the previous § 112(b) rejections based on the lack of supporting structure for “receiving unit,” “evaluation unit,” and “action recommendation unit”; maintains the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 4 and 17 for their use of “and/or”; maintains the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-24; and maintains the previous § 102 rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the alleged clarification on the use of “and/or” in amended claim 1 renders the claim definite. Remarks at pp. 10-11. However, Applicant’s assertion that claims 1, 4, 15, and 17 were rejected under § 112(b) for their use of “and/or” is incorrect. Examiner rejected only claims 4 and 17 for their use of “and/or.” Applicant’s “clarification” is with respect to amended claim 1, which includes the limitation previous presented in claim 13. Claim 13 was not rejection under § 112(b) and, therefore, did not need clarification. Applicant’s failure to address the rejected claims 4 and 17 renders Applicant’s argument unpersuasive and moot. As such, Examiner maintains the § 112(b) rejection of claims 4 and 17, and will continue to interpret the claims as being satisfied by the presence of any single one of the limitations listed in the claims due to every limitation being claimed in the alternative because of the use of “and/or” throughout the claims.
Second, with respect to the § 112(b) of the terms “a receiving unit,” “evaluation unit,” and “action recommendation unit,” Applicant “is of the opinion that the written description implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts performing the claimed function.” Remarks at p. 11. To support this argument, Applicant block quotes ¶¶ [0048], [0049], reproduced below:
Figure 2 shows components of a maintenance system according to a preferred embodiment of the invention. The maintenance system includes the indirect vision system 2 according to Figure 1, a receiving unit 6 for receiving data from a vehicle sensor 7 and from an environmental sensor 8. The vehicle sensor 7 comprises one or more sensors present in the vehicle 1. The vehicle sensor 7 can also be a control unit of the vehicle 1, which transmits relevant data to the receiving unit 6 of the maintenance system. The at least one vehicle sensor 7 acquires vehicle data that is relevant for the service life of the vehicle 1 and for the service life of the indirect vision system 2, its optical sensor unit 3, display unit 4 and/or processing unit 9 and their subcomponents.
According to the preferred embodiment example, the maintenance system can be used for an indirect vision system 2, which comprises several optical sensor units 3, display units 4 and processing units 9. The processing unit 9 can be a separate component of the indirect vision system 2 or part of the optical sensor unit 3 and/or the display unit 4. The processing unit 9 is primarily used to process image data captured by the optical sensor unit 3 and to display it on the display unit 4. Alternatively, the captured image data can be displayed unprocessed on the display unit 4.
Noticeably missing from the quoted paragraphs is any mention of an “evaluation unit” or an “action recommendation unit.” For that reason alone, Applicant’s argument with respect to theses terms is unpersuasive, and Examiner maintains the § 112(b) rejection.
Furthermore, Applicant contends the recitation of “a receiving unit 6 for receiving data from a vehicle sensor 7 and an environmental sensor 8” implicitly or inherently discloses the structure for “receiving unit.” Examiner disagrees. Para. 48 merely describes the receiving unit in terms of its function, not in terms of its structure. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the § 112(b) rejection.
Third, Applicant argues that claims 1 and 15 should not be subject to a § 101 rejection because “[t]aken as a whole, applicant's claimed system would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be limited to a useful practical application, i.e., to determine whether components or an entire indirect vision system are useable and for how long, or should undergo maintenance or be replaced. Applicant thus contends that amended independent claim 1 and its dependent claims amount to significantly more than a mere abstract idea.” Remarks at pp. 12 and 13 (emphasis in original). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). For more information on how to evaluate whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2).”
Applicant failed to address whether the additional elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, Applicant asserted a conclusory statement that the claim as a whole is limited to a useful practical application. That is not a proper analysis under Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two. For that reason alone, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Furthermore, as addressed below, the additional elements of “an optical sensor unit” and a “display unit” is mere use of the judicial exception in a particular field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), and the processing unit is mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by using a general processor and computer system to perform the process. In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and Examiner maintains the § 101 rejection for that reason.
Fourth, Applicant argues that Lin “do[es] not teach that a subcomponent, an optical unit, a processing unit, or a display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system, comprises a memory for storing information relating to the remaining service life.” Remarks at p. 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees. To note, as presently written, the claims do no require the memory to store information relating to the remaining service life since that is claimed in the alternative to information relating to whether the one of the units is currently still usable. In other words, the memory only need to store information indicating whether the component is currently working, or has suffered a fault. Nonetheless, Lin expressly teaches at least the entire indirect vision system comprising a memory that stores information relating to faults and other health characteristics of the various subcomponents of the system. In fact, Applicant block quoted the support for such teaching in Lin’s ¶¶ [0030] and [0031] where it expressly describes the sensor reports from the subcomponents that comprises test results based on health characteristics of the evaluated subcomponent, and stores the test results in the memory when faults and potential faults are indicated in the reports. Furthermore, ¶ [0012] describes those health characteristics that the reports are based on as being a “pass/fail or a remaining useful life” of the subcomponent, all of which is stored in the memory.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and the ¶ 102 rejections are maintained.
Applicant did not submit independent arguments for dependent claims 2-12, 14, and 16-24. Therefore, the ¶ 102 rejection of claims 2-12, 14, and 16-24 is maintained for the same reasons as above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one display unit on which the image data…are displayed…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found in ¶ [0016], a monitor with circuit board with voltage regulator, power supply unit, memory modules, processors, resistors, etc., a monitor holder for mechanically fixing the monitor to the vehicle, seals, housing);
“a receiving unit for receiving data…” (claim 1; no supporting structure found in the specification, see § 112 rejection below);
“an evaluation unit which…generates a maintenance signal…” (claim 1; no supporting structure found in the specification, see § 112 rejection below);
“an action recommendation unit which receives the maintenance signal…” (claim 10; no supporting structure found in the specification, see § 112 rejection below);
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (4) recited above use the generic placeholder “unit” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitations of “unit” in (1)-(4) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(4) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “unit” in (1)-(4) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 17 are 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 1 recites the limitations “a receiving unit” and “an evaluation unit,” and claim 10 recites the limitation “an action recommendation unit,” which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
While the limitations are recited throughout the specification, the description is unattached to any supporting structure. For example, the specification states that “the receiving unit may be part of the evaluation unit, the display unit, and/or the optical sensor unit, and/or may be designed as a separate component” in ¶ [0009], but provides no definitive description of the structure. Likewise, the specification states that “the evaluation unit of the maintenance system may further comprise a processing unit” in ¶ [0014], but a processing unit alone isn’t sufficient structure because a processor alone cannot perform the function. Furthermore, the specification states that “the action recommendation unit 12 comprises a database” in ¶ [0067], but a mere database isn’t sufficient structure because a database alone cannot perform the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-9 11, 12, and 14 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 4 recites “and/or” three times while listing a number of elements. It is unclear which elements are intended to be required to satisfy the claim and which elements are intended to actually be claimed in the alternative. The entirety of the claim recites:
4. The maintenance system according to claim 2, wherein the vehicle data includes information about kilometers driven by the vehicle, kilometers driven by the vehicle during operation of the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the optical sensor unit, the processing unit and the display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system, operating time of the vehicle, operating time of the at least one subcomponent, of the at least one of the optical sensor unit, the processing unit and the display unit and/or the entire indirect vision system during operation of the vehicle, and/or errors occurred in vehicle components.
Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim to be satisfied by the presence of any one of the elements listed in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “and/or” three times while listing a number of elements. It is unclear which elements are intended to be required to satisfy the claim and which elements are intended to actually be claimed in the alternative. The entirety of the claim recites:
17. The method according to claim 16, wherein the vehicle data comprises information about kilometers driven by the vehicle, kilometers driven by the vehicle during operation of the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the optical sensor unit, the processing unit and the display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system, operating time of the vehicle, operating time of the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the optical sensor unit, the processing unit and the display unit and/or the entire indirect vision system, during operation of the vehicle and/or errors occurred in vehicle components.
Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim to be satisfied by the presence of any one of the elements listed in the claim.
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 1-12 and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-12 and 14 recite a system, therefore claims 1-12 and 14 are a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 15-24 recite a method, therefore claims 15-24 is a process, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A maintenance system for an indirect vision system of a vehicle, the indirect vision system having
at least one optical sensor unit for acquiring image data of the environment of the vehicle,
at least one processing unit for processing the image data acquired by the optical sensor unit, and
at least one display unit on which the image data processed by the processing unit are displayed,
wherein at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit includes at least one subcomponent;
wherein the maintenance system comprises:
a receiving unit for receiving data; and
an evaluation unit which, based on the data received by the receiving unit, generates a maintenance signal indicating how long and/or whether the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system is still usable, wherein
the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system comprises a memory in which the information contained in the maintenance signal is stored, which indicates how long and/or whether the subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system is still usable.
These limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as in the mind (or on paper). For example, “receiving data…,” and “generat[ing] a maintenance signal…,” encompass a human viewing an image and determining whether the sensor that took the image is usable. Thus, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims of similar scope of claim 1 also recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A maintenance system for an indirect vision system of a vehicle, the indirect vision system having
at least one optical sensor unit for acquiring image data of the environment of the vehicle,
at least one processing unit for processing the image data acquired by the optical sensor unit, and
at least one display unit on which the image data processed by the processing unit are displayed,
wherein at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit includes at least one subcomponent;
wherein the maintenance system comprises:
a receiving unit for receiving data; and
an evaluation unit which, based on the data received by the receiving unit, generates a maintenance signal indicating how long and/or whether the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system is still usable, wherein
the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system comprises a memory in which the information contained in the maintenance signal is stored, which indicates how long and/or whether the subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system is still usable.
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.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for viewing an image and determining whether the sensor that took the image is usable, 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 (MPEP§ 2106.05).
The additional elements of “an optical sensor unit” and a “display unit” is mere use of the judicial exception in a particular field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), and the processing unit is mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by using a general processor and computer system to perform the process. In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, the limitation of receiving data is mere insignificant extra solution activities. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, the additional limitations do 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 2019 PEG, 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 a processor unit viewing an image and determining whether the sensor that took the image is usable amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions cannot provide an inventive concept.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitation of “receiving data…” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that involve mere data gathering. Additionally, the remaining elements have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. data gathering… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1 and 15 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14, and 16-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Specifically, claims 2, 3, and 16 recite additional data gathering and storing (“at least one vehicle sensor transmits vehicle data to the receiving unit…”), claims 4-11, 14, 17-23 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (“wherein the vehicle data includes…,” “wherein the environmental data comprises,” “the evaluation unit further comprises…,” “a plurality of maintenance signals…,” “wherein the evaluation unit comprises…,” “the evaluation unit generates…,” “generates an action signal based on the value…,” “comparing the receiving data…,” “generating the maintenance signal based on the value….), and claims 12, and 24 are directed to merely applying the judicial exception to a generic computer (“comprising a memory storing the data received…,” “at least one processing unit…comprises a memory…,” “storing the received data…”). Therefore, dependent claims 2-14 and 16-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 15.
Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-24 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0109988 to Lin et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. discloses:
A maintenance system for an indirect vision system of a vehicle, the indirect vision system having
at least one optical sensor unit for acquiring image data of the environment of the vehicle (¶¶ [0027], [0028] describing optical sensor unit that acquirees images of the environment of a vehicle),
at least one processing unit for processing the image data acquired by the optical sensor unit (¶ [0030] describing processing the image data), and
at least one display unit on which the image data processed by the processing unit are displayed (¶ [0029] describing the display that display the images),
wherein at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit includes at least one subcomponent (¶ [0027] describing subcomponents of systems);
wherein the maintenance system comprises:
a receiving unit for receiving data (¶ [0026] describing receiving data); and
an evaluation unit which, based on the data received by the receiving unit, generates a maintenance signal indicating how long and/or whether the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system is still usable (¶¶ [0027] – [0030] describing evaluating the received data to determine whether the optical sensor is still viable; ¶ [0047] describing generating a maintenance signal based on the received data), wherein
the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system comprises a memory in which the information contained in the maintenance signal is stored, which indicates how long and/or whether the subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system is still usable (¶¶ [0030], [0031] describing evaluating the received sensor data to determine usability that is used to generate the maintenance signal, and the memory that stores all the data from the entire CDM, or vision system).
Regarding claim 2, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lin et al. further discloses:
further comprising at least one vehicle sensor which transmits vehicle data to the receiving unit which data is relevant for the service life of the vehicle, the at least one subcomponent and/or the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit (¶ [0026] describing a sensor transmitting the data to the receiving unit of the camera diagnostic module (CDM), the data is relevant to the service life of the camera), and/or
at least one additional sensor which transmits environmental data to the receiving unit, which data is independent of the vehicle and depends on environmental factors (NOTE: This limitation is not required to satisfy the claim because it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 3, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit, the at least one display unit and/or the at least one subcomponent comprises the at least one additional sensor (¶ [0028] describing having multiple camera on the vehicle).
Regarding claim 4, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the vehicle data includes information about kilometers driven by the vehicle, kilometers driven by the vehicle during operation of the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the optical sensor unit (¶ [0035] describing the data including information about the cameras and entire system), the processing unit and the display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system, operating time of the vehicle, operating time of the at least one subcomponent, of the at least one of the optical sensor unit, the processing unit and the display unit and/or the entire indirect vision system during operation of the vehicle, and/or errors occurred in vehicle components (NOTE: These limitations are not required to satisfy the claim because they are claimed in the alternative. See also § 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 5, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the environmental data comprises information about temperature, air humidity, air pressure, UV exposure, dust, fine dust (particular matter), and/or mechanical load, to which the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the optical sensor unit, the processing unit and the display unit and/or the entire indirect vision system, is subjected (NOTE: This limitation is satisfied by Lin et al. because the limitation of transmitting environmental data is claimed in the alternative in claim 1. Therefore, the presence of environmental data is not required to satisfy claim 5. However, for purposes of compact prosecution Examiner will address this claim; ¶ [0032] describing the system detecting outside temperature and evaluating the viability of the temperature sensor; ¶ [0035] describing the environmental data being weather).
Regarding claim 6, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the evaluation unit further comprises a calculation unit which subjects at least a part of the vehicle data and/or environmental data received from the receiving unit, the at least one vehicle sensor and/or the at least one additional sensor to a calculation function or calculation matrix and generates the maintenance signal based on the calculated value, wherein the calculation function or the calculation matrix comprises at least part of the received vehicle data and/or environmental data as a function parameter or matrix element (¶ [0040] describing calculating a low or high possibility that a given subsystem is faulty based on the received data, and generating the maintenance signal based on that calculation; see also ¶ [0053] describing calculating a value that is representative of the quality of the images received in determining the usability of the camera).
Regarding claim 7, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein a plurality of maintenance signals is used and calculated, and the resulting maintenance signal indicates how long the at least one sub-component, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system is still usable (¶ [0055] describing using a plurality of maintenance signals from a fleet of vehicle to determine usability of the cameras; see also ¶¶ [0056] – [0071] describing in detail the process of determining the prognosis of the cameras and predicting how long the cameras will still be usable).
Regarding claim 8, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the evaluation unit comprises a counter and a comparison unit, wherein the data and/or calculated/processed data received by the receiving unit is compared with a threshold value and the counter increments when the threshold value is exceeded (¶ [0031] describing comparing the received data to threshold values in determining the usability of the camera and saving that crossed threshold value in the database (i.e., increasing the count)).
Regarding claim 9, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the evaluation unit generates the maintenance signal based on the value of the counter (¶ [0047] describing the maintenance signal being generated, which would be when the threshold value is exceeded and when the counter increases).
Regarding claim 10, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Lin et al. further discloses:
an action recommendation unit which receives the maintenance signal from the evaluation unit, generates an action signal based on the value of the counter and transmits it to the at least one display unit, diagnostic device and/or to a cloud for output (¶ [0030] describing sending a control action signal based on the evaluated health characteristics of the camera to a remote server (i.e., cloud).
Regarding claim 11, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the maintenance signal generated by the evaluation unit is transmitted to the at least one display unit diagnostic device and/or cloud for output (¶ [0030] describing transmitting the maintenance signal to a remote server; ¶ [0047] describing sending the maintenance signal to a back office for further diagnostics).
Regarding claim 12, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lin et al. further discloses:
further comprising a memory storing the data received from the receiving unit, the data calculated by the calculation unit, the maintenance signal, the action signal and/or the threshold value (¶ [0031] describing the memory that stores the all the data, including the received data).
Regarding claim 14, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the receiving unit and/or the evaluation unit are part of the indirect vision system (¶ [0027] describing that the receiving unit and the evaluation unit are part of the CDM).
Regarding claim 15, Lin et al. discloses:
A method for generating a maintenance signal for an indirect vision system of a vehicle, comprising at least one optical sensor unit, at least one processing unit and/or at least one display unit (¶¶ [0027] - [0030] describing optical sensor unit that acquirees images of the environment of a vehicle, the processing unit, and the display) , comprising the steps of
receiving data (¶ [0026] describing receiving data); and
generating a maintenance signal based on the received data which signal indicates how long at least one subcomponent of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and/or the at least one display unit, and/or the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system is still usable (¶¶ [0027] – [0030] describing evaluating the received data to determine whether the optical sensor is still viable; ¶ [0047] describing generating a maintenance signal based on the received data),
wherein the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system comprises a memory which stores information contained in the maintenance signal in the memory of the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit and/or the entire indirect vision system, and determining from said information contained in the maintenance signal how long and/or whether the subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system is still usable (¶¶ [0030], [0031] describing evaluating the received sensor data to determine usability that is used to generate the maintenance signal, and the memory that stores all the data from the entire CDM, or vision system).
Regarding claim 16, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the received data comprises vehicle data which is detected by at least one vehicle sensor, and which is relevant for the lifetime of the vehicle, the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the indirect vision system (¶ [0026] describing a sensor transmitting the data to the receiving unit of the camera diagnostic module (CDM), the data is relevant to the service life of the camera), and/or the received data comprises environmental data obtained from at least one additional sensor, which data is independent of the vehicle and depend on environmental factors (NOTE: This limitation is not required to satisfy the claim because it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 17, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the vehicle data comprises information about kilometers driven by the vehicle, kilometers driven by the vehicle during operation of the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the optical sensor unit (¶ [0035] describing the data including information about the cameras and entire system), the processing unit and the display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system, operating time of the vehicle, operating time of the at least one subcomponent, the at least one of the optical sensor unit, the processing unit and the display unit and/or the entire indirect vision system, during operation of the vehicle and/or errors occurred in vehicle components (NOTE: These limitations are not required to satisfy the claim because they are claimed in the alternative. See also § 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 18, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the environmental data comprises information about temperature, air humidity, air pressure UV exposure, dust, particulate matter, and/or mechanical stress (load), to which the at least one subcomponent, at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the indirect vision system is exposed (NOTE: This limitation is satisfied by Lin et al. because the limitation of transmitting environmental data is claimed in the alternative in claim 16. Therefore, the presence of environmental data is not required to satisfy claim 5. However, for purposes of compact prosecution Examiner will address this claim; ¶ [0032] describing the system detecting outside temperature and evaluating the viability of the temperature sensor; ¶ [0035] describing the environmental data being weather).
Regarding claim 19, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Lin et al. further discloses:
calculating a function value, wherein the calculation function comprises at least a part of the received vehicle data and/or the environmental data as parameters; and generating the maintenance signal based on the function value (¶ [0040] describing calculating a low or high possibility that a given subsystem is faulty based on the received data, and generating the maintenance signal based on that calculation; see also ¶ [0053] describing calculating a value that is representative of the quality of the images received in determining the usability of the camera).
Regarding claim 20, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Lin et al. further discloses:
combining a plurality of maintenance signals; and using the resulting maintenance signal that indicates how long the at least one sub-component, at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one display unit, and/or the entire indirect vision system can still be used (¶ [0055] describing using a plurality of maintenance signals from a fleet of vehicle to determine usability of the cameras; see also ¶¶ [0056] – [0071] describing in detail the process of determining the prognosis of the cameras and predicting how long the cameras will still be usable).
Regarding claim 21, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 19. Lin et al. further discloses:
further comprising comparing the received data and/or the calculated data with a threshold value; and incrementing a counter when the threshold value is exceeded (¶ [0031] describing comparing the received data to threshold values in determining the usability of the camera and saving that crossed threshold value in the database (i.e., increasing the count)).
Regarding claim 22, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Lin et al. further discloses:
further comprising generating the maintenance signal based on the value of the counter, and outputting the maintenance signal to the at least one display unit, diagnostic device and/or cloud (¶ [0047] describing the maintenance signal being generated, which would be when the threshold value is exceeded and when the counter increases; ¶ [0030] describing sending the maintenance signal to the cloud).
Regarding claim 23, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Lin et al. further discloses:
further comprising generating an action signal based on the value of the counter, and outputting the action signal to the at least one display unit, diagnostic device and/or cloud (¶ [0030] describing sending a control action signal based on the evaluated health characteristics of the camera to a remote server (i.e., cloud).
Regarding claim 24, Lin et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Lin et al. further discloses:
further comprising storing the received data, the calculated data, the threshold value and/or the maintenance signal in at least the subcomponent, at least one of the at least one optical sensor unit, the at least one processing unit and the at least one reproducing unit, and/or in the indirect vision system (¶ [0031] describing the memory that stores the all the data, including the received data).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0163021 to Frazzoli et al. teaches determining whether a subcomponent of an indirect vision system has failed (¶¶ [0184], [0366]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0071281 to Wu et al. teaches use of an optical sensor to determine whether vehicle subcomponents have failed (¶¶ [0014], [0015]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
8/21/26
Prosecution Insights