DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: (Fig. 2) 53, 55, 57, and 59. (Fig. 3) 25.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because although “T” is a label in Fig. 1, the figure fails to show that “T” is a trajectory, as described in the specification in paragraph [0038]. Rather, “T” looks to be pointing to what is otherwise described and labeled as “autonomous unit 314”. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0036]: “a plurality of brake cylinders 306” should be “a plurality of brake cylinders 306 (306a, 306b, 306c, and 306d).
[0036]: “wheels 308” should be “wheels 308 (308a, 308b, 308c, and 306d)”
[0043]: Is “the desired yaw rate DoF4” correct or should this be “the desired yaw rate DoF3”?
[0049}: “the vehicle 200” should be “the vehicle 300”.
[0059]: “determining 19 of the performance discrepancy” should be “determining 19 of the performance discrepancy 3”.
[0062]: “the brake system 3” should be “the brake system 304”
[0067]: “the vehicle 200” should be “the vehicle 300”.
[0068]: “the current vehicle configuration 31” should be “the current vehicle configuration 301”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “…degree of a freedom of movement..” should be “…degree of freedom of movement…” (lines 3, 5)
Claim 1: “…degree of the freedom of movement..” should be “…degree of freedom of movement…” (multiple instances)
Claim 6: “…degree of a freedom of movement tolerance band…” should be “…degree of freedom of movement tolerance band…”
Claim 10: “…wherein the degree of freedom is or includes…” should be “…wherein the degree of freedom comprises…”
Claim 16: lines 18-19: “a degree of the freedom of movement tolerance”. Shouldn’t this be “the degree of freedom of movement tolerance”?
Claim 17: lines 24-25: “a degree of the freedom of movement tolerance”. Shouldn’t this be “the degree of freedom of movement tolerance”?
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed toward abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 determining a performance discrepancy (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 determining a performance discrepancy between a target performance and an actual performance of a vehicle actuator of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle actuator is configured to influence at least one degree of a freedom of movement of a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining a target degree of a freedom of movement value for the vehicle [mental process/step];
determining an expected manipulated variable value [mental process/step] for achieving the target degree of the freedom of movement value;
determining an actual degree of the freedom of movement value for the vehicle [mental process/step], wherein the actual degree of the freedom of movement value corresponds to the target degree of the freedom of movement value;
determining an actual manipulated variable value which is provided at the vehicle actuator for achieving the actual degree of the freedom of movement value [mental process/step];
obtaining a maximum manipulated variable value of the vehicle actuator; and
determining the performance discrepancy of the vehicle actuator (mental process/step) if: the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of a freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value is lower than the maximum manipulated variable value (requirements, can be done in by estimating);
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of a freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value is lower than the maximum manipulated variable value (requirements, can be done in by estimating);
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of the freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value, an expected manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value, and the actual manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value (requirements, can be done in by estimating); or
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value corresponds to the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value required for achieving the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a manipulated variable tolerance around the expected manipulated variable value; and, determining an updated maximum degree of the freedom of movement value of the vehicle [mental process/step] on a basis of the determined performance discrepancy. (requirements, can be done in by estimating)
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, “evaluating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
Claim 1:
A method for determining a performance discrepancy between a target performance and an actual performance of a vehicle actuator of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle actuator is configured to influence at least one degree of a freedom of movement of a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining a target degree of a freedom of movement value for the vehicle [mental process/step];
determining an expected manipulated variable value [mental process/step] for achieving the target degree of the freedom of movement value;
determining an actual degree of the freedom of movement value for the vehicle [mental process/step], wherein the actual degree of the freedom of movement value corresponds to the target degree of the freedom of movement value (definition);
determining an actual manipulated variable value which is provided at the vehicle actuator for achieving the actual degree of the freedom of movement value [mental process/step];
obtaining a maximum manipulated variable value of the vehicle actuator (data gathering); and
determining the performance discrepancy of the vehicle actuator (mental process/step) if: the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of a freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value is lower than the maximum manipulated variable value (requirements, can be done in by estimating);
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of a freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value is lower than the maximum manipulated variable value (comparison requirements, can be done in by estimating);
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of the freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value, an expected manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value, and the actual manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value (comparison requirement, can be done by estimating); or
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value corresponds to the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value required for achieving the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a manipulated variable tolerance around the expected manipulated variable value (comparison requirement, can be done by estimating); and, determining an updated maximum degree of the freedom of movement value of the vehicle on a basis of the determined performance discrepancy. [mental process/step]
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 limitation of “obtaining a maximum manipulated variable value of the vehicle actuator “ the examiner submits that this limitation is a data receiving step and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitations of “the actual degree of the freedom of movement value…”, these are comparison requirements which can be done by mental estimating.
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. Outside of the “determining….” steps which are considered mental process steps, he additional element of obtaining a particular piece of data is an insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, this additional activity amounts to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-15 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. Claim 2 contains further conditions on the comparison. Claims 3 through 9 contain further “determining…” steps which can be considered mental steps. Claim 10 defines “degree of the freedom of movement” further. Claim 11 defines “vehicle actuator” further. Claim 12 defines the location of determining the performance discrepancy. Claims 13 and 14 both mention providing a warning signal but this is considered equivalent to providing results of a mental step on a display and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 15 can be considered defining gathering particular data which is called insignificant activity. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 16:
101 Analysis – Step I:
Claim 16 is directed to an actuator monitoring system (i.e., a manufactured product). Therefore, claim 16 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)
Claim 16: An actuator monitoring system for monitoring a performance characteristic of a vehicle actuator configured to influence at least one degree of a freedom of movement of a vehicle,
the actuator monitoring system comprising:
a state signal receiving unit which is connectable to a network of the vehicle in order to receive state signals that represent an actual degree of a freedom of movement value of the vehicle, and which is connectable to the vehicle actuator in order to receive an actual manipulated variable value;
a target degree of a freedom of movement value determining unit configured to determine a target degree of the freedom of movement value for the vehicle [mental process/step] and an expected manipulated variable value of the vehicle actuator for achieving the target degree of the freedom of movement value;
a performance discrepancy determining unit configured to determine a performance discrepancy of the vehicle actuator [mental process/step] if:
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of a freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value is lower than a maximum manipulated variable value;
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of the freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value, the expected manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value, and the actual manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value; or,
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value corresponds to the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value required for achieving the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a manipulated variable tolerance around the expected manipulated variable value; and,
said performance discrepancy determining unit being configured to determine an updated maximum degree of the freedom of movement value of the vehicle [mental process/step] on a basis of the determined performance discrepancy.
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, “to determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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. 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”):
Claim 16: An actuator monitoring system for monitoring a performance characteristic of a vehicle actuator configured to influence at least one degree of a freedom of movement of a vehicle,
the actuator monitoring system comprising:
a state signal receiving unit which is connectable to a network of the vehicle in order to receive state signals that represent an actual degree of a freedom of movement value of the vehicle, and which is connectable to the vehicle actuator in order to receive an actual manipulated variable value (data gathering) ;
a target degree of a freedom of movement value determining unit (unit that carries out abstract idea) configured to determine a target degree of the freedom of movement value for the vehicle [mental process/step] and an expected manipulated variable value of the vehicle actuator for achieving the target degree of the freedom of movement value (data gathering);
a performance discrepancy determining unit (unit to carry out abstract idea) configured to determine a performance discrepancy of the vehicle actuator [mental process/step] if:
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of a freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value is lower than a maximum manipulated variable value (comparison requirements, can be done in by estimating);
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of the freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value, the expected manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value, and the actual manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value (comparison requirements, can be done in by estimating); or,
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value corresponds to the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value required for achieving the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a manipulated variable tolerance around the expected manipulated variable value (comparison requirements, can be done in by estimating); and,
said performance discrepancy determining unit (unit carrying out abstract idea) being configured to determine an updated maximum degree of the freedom of movement value of the vehicle [mental process/step] on a basis of the determined performance discrepancy.
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.”
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 “obtaining a maximum manipulated variable value of the vehicle actuator “ the examiner submits that this limitation is a data receiving step and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Terms such as “a target degree of a freedom of movement value determining unit” are simply units to carry out the associated abstract idea and are considered the equivalent of saying “apply the abstract idea using a computer.” Other terms such as “the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of a freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value is lower than a maximum manipulated variable value” are nothing more than further calculations which are to be carried out as part of the abstract idea and can be estimated in the human mind.
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, independent claim 16 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. Outside of the “to determine….” steps which are considered mental process steps, the additional element of obtaining a particular piece of data (e.g. the “state signal receiving unit…in order to receive state signals” is an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. In addition, this additional activity amounts to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17:
101 Analysis – Step 1A: Claim 17 is directed to a vehicle (i.e., a manufactured product). Therefore, claim 17 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)
Claim 17: A vehicle comprising: a vehicle actuator; a network; an actuator monitoring system for monitoring a performance characteristic of said vehicle actuator configured to influence at least one degree of a freedom of movement of a vehicle,
said actuator monitoring system including a state signal receiving unit, a target degree of a freedom of movement value determining unit, and a performance discrepancy determining unit;
said state signal receiving unit being connectable to said network in order to receive state signals that represent an actual degree of a freedom of movement value of the vehicle, and which is connectable to said vehicle actuator in order to receive an actual manipulated variable value;
said target degree of a freedom of movement value determining unit being configured to determine a target degree of the freedom of movement value for the vehicle [mental process/step] and an expected manipulated variable value of the vehicle actuator for achieving the target degree of the freedom of movement value;
a performance discrepancy determining unit configured to determine a performance discrepancy of the vehicle actuator [mental process/step] if:
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of a freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value is lower than a maximum manipulated variable value;
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of the freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value, the expected manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value, and the actual manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value; or,
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value corresponds to the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value required for achieving the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a manipulated variable tolerance around the expected manipulated variable value; and,
said performance discrepancy determining unit being configured to determine an updated maximum degree of the freedom of movement value of the vehicle [mental process/step] on a basis of the determined performance discrepancy; and
said actuator monitoring system being connected to said network in order to receive actual value data representative of the actual degree of the freedom of movement value.
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, “to determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
Claim 17: A vehicle comprising: a vehicle actuator; a network; an actuator monitoring system for monitoring a performance characteristic of said vehicle actuator configured to influence at least one degree of a freedom of movement of a vehicle,
said actuator monitoring system including a state signal receiving unit, a target degree of a freedom of movement value determining unit, and a performance discrepancy determining unit (all of these are simply units used to carry out the abstract ideas);
said state signal receiving unit being connectable to said network in order to receive state signals that represent an actual degree of a freedom of movement value of the vehicle, and which is connectable to said vehicle actuator in order to receive an actual manipulated variable value (generic unit to carry out data gathering);
said target degree of a freedom of movement value determining unit (another unit used to carry out abstract idea) being configured to determine a target degree of the freedom of movement value for the vehicle [mental process/step] and an expected manipulated variable value of the vehicle actuator for achieving the target degree of the freedom of movement value;
a performance discrepancy determining unit (unit to carry out abstract idea) configured to determine a performance discrepancy of the vehicle actuator [mental process/step] if:
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of a freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value is lower than a maximum manipulated variable value (comparison requirement, can be done by estimating);
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a degree of the freedom of movement tolerance around the target degree of the freedom of movement value, the expected manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value, and the actual manipulated variable value corresponds to the maximum manipulated variable value (comparison requirement, can be done by estimating); or,
the actual degree of the freedom of movement value corresponds to the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value required for achieving the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a manipulated variable tolerance around the expected manipulated variable value (comparison requirement, can be done by estimating); and,
said performance discrepancy determining unit (generic unit) being configured to determine an updated maximum degree of the freedom of movement value of the vehicle [mental process/step] on a basis of the determined performance discrepancy; and
said actuator monitoring system being connected to said network in order to receive actual value data representative of the actual degree of the freedom of movement value (data gathering).
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 limitation of “said actuator monitoring system being connected to said network in order to receive actual value data representative of the actual degree of the freedom of movement value “ the examiner submits that this limitation is a data receiving step and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Other terms such as “performance discrepancy determining unit” and “a target degree of a freedom of movement value determining unit” are units defined only by their titles, which can be considered generic units of their sort, and which are used to carry out the abstract ideas. Finally, terms such as the actual degree of the freedom of movement value corresponds to the target degree of the freedom of movement value and the actual manipulated variable value required for achieving the actual degree of the freedom of movement value lies outside a manipulated variable tolerance around the expected manipulated variable value are doing nothing more than defining further the calculations which are needed to be done in carrying out the abstract idea and which can be done through estimation/judging by humans.
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. Outside of the “to determine….” steps which are considered mental process steps, the additional element of obtaining a particular piece of data is an insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, this additional activity amounts to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 16, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. It is suggested that control steps, supported in the specification, be added to each claim in order to allow the claim to be “practical” and acceptable under Step 2A, Prong II and/or Step 2B.
Claim 2-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is suggested that control steps, supported in the specification, be added to each claim in order to allow the claim to be “practical” and acceptable under Step 2A, Prong II and/or Step 2B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights