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 .
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.
In sum, claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
, wherein the method comprises:
”
when it is determined that a majority of the plurality of integration values exceed the integration threshold, determining that the vehicle is rolling over about its longitudinal axis; and
when it is determined that a majority of the plurality of integration values are less than or equal to the integration threshold, determining that the vehicle is not rolling over about its longitudinal axis.
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a Process/Method (claim 1), Machine/Unit/System (claims 9 and 10). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim 1, and similarly claims 9 and 10, mutatis mutandis the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitations ()-(J), as presented with respect to claim 1, fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitations ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (such as determining whether or not that the vehicle is rolling over about an axis)).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Mathematical Concepts: (Mathematical Relationships, Mathematical Formulas or Equations, Mathematical Calculations) - MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)
Claim limitations ()-() fall within the mathematical concept grouping of patent ineligible subject matter.
Specifically, the claim limitations invoke the functions of . The Instant Specification fails to attribute special definitions to the language used in limitation(s) ()-(). Consequently, the words and phrases of the limitation(s) have been given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
These steps are common computer processing functions that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known generic computers were capable of performing and would have associated with generic computers. .
“A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols . . . [t]here is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”) citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), and Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., 741 Fed. Appx. 777, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“using a formula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural numbers”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional elements of a do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) ()-() constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a “” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claims and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and 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. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim (note: claims 9-10 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected on substantially similar grounds as explained with claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as explained above.
Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of Nagao et al. (U.S. 20020099486) teaches systems and methods for controlling a vehicle-occupant protecting apparatus provided on a vehicle such that the apparatus is controlled upon determination that the vehicle has had a rollover motion, the control system including a first detector that determines whether the vehicle has crashed, a second detector that determines whether the vehicle has had a rollover motion, and an invalidating device that invalidates the determination by the second detector that the vehicle has had the rollover motion such that the determination by the second detector is invalidated for a predetermined time after the determination by the first detector that the vehicle has crashed. Furthermore, a controller controls the vehicle-occupant protecting apparatus based on outputs of the second detector and the invalidating device to prevent unnecessary operation of the vehicle-occupant protecting device (abstract). Nagao further teaches a plurality of acceleration sensors (as shown in fig. 15-16) and also determining a time integral of acceleration values determined from the acceleration sensors (as shown in fig. 18 and indicated in [0093 and 0098]) and threshold values (as indicated via. differential regions, as shown in fig. 18 and indicated in [0093]).
However, Nagao fails to further teach
selecting the greater acceleration from the first acceleration and the second acceleration;
determining that a difference between the greater acceleration and the third acceleration exceeds a difference threshold; and
when it is determined that a majority of the plurality of integration values exceed the integration threshold, determining that the vehicle is rolling over about its longitudinal axis; and
when it is determined that a majority of the plurality of integration values are less than or equal to the integration threshold, determining that the vehicle is not rolling over about its longitudinal axis.
The prior art of Lahmann et al. (U.S. 8768572) teaches an apparatus for detecting a rollover event, which includes at least one acceleration sensor in the vertical direction of the vehicle and one acceleration sensor in the horizontal direction of the vehicle. A processor of the apparatus according to the invention will start a rollover algorithm in response to an inertial event, in order, as a function of the signal of the acceleration sensor in the vertical direction to detect the rollover event and as a function of it to trip restraint devices (abstract).
Lahmann further teaches that upon detection of the rollover event, subsequent characteristics in the vertical direction of the vehicle are evaluated in the acceleration. The acceleration must initially be negative in the inertial event; that is, it should point in the direction of the bottom of the vehicle. At the same time, the vertical acceleration of the vehicle must have a positive gradient, since then a slow change takes place from -1 g to 0 g during the rollover. Advantageously, accelerations in the transverse direction of the vehicle may be observed in addition, for instance in order to ascertain, by forming an integral of the acceleration in the Y direction, that no lateral motion is occurring. Such motion would be an indication of a rollover about the X axis. Alternatively or in addition, in the presence of a rotation rate sensor for rotation about the X axis, a rollover about the X axis may be excluded by the evaluation of the signal of that sensor. However, if the vehicle rolls over, then the suitably processed signal of the acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, that is, the X direction, must have a low value of less than 1 g, with only a small proportion of high-frequency oscillation, and with a positive gradient, until the vehicle finally is vertical. From this it may be detected that the vehicle is no longer in an event involving spinning on the roadway ([Col. 1, ln 55-Col. 2, ln 16]).
However, Lahmann fails to further teach
integrating the difference over time during each of a plurality of consecutive time periods to generate a plurality of integration values;
determining whether a majority of the plurality of integration values exceed an integration threshold; and
when it is determined that a majority of the plurality of integration values exceed the integration threshold, determining that the vehicle is rolling over about its longitudinal axis; and
when it is determined that a majority of the plurality of integration values are less than or equal to the integration threshold, determining that the vehicle is not rolling over about its longitudinal axis.
The prior art of Mattes et al. (U.S. 6141604) teaches in order to allow a vehicle rollover to be detected in timely fashion and with high reliability, acceleration sensors are provided which measure the accelerations of the vehicle in the direction of its yaw axis, its roll axis, and its pitch axis. In addition, at least one rotation rate sensor is provided which measures the angular velocity of the vehicle with respect to its roll axis and optionally also with respect to its pitch axis.
However, Mattes fails to further teach
determining that a difference between the greater acceleration and the third acceleration exceeds a difference threshold;
integrating the difference over time during each of a plurality of consecutive time periods to generate a plurality of integration values;
determining whether a majority of the plurality of integration values exceed an integration threshold; and
when it is determined that a majority of the plurality of integration values exceed the integration threshold, determining that the vehicle is rolling over about its longitudinal axis; and
when it is determined that a majority of the plurality of integration values are less than or equal to the integration threshold, determining that the vehicle is not rolling over about its longitudinal axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights