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 .
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 § 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 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2011/241377 A1 to Rogers that was filed in 2011.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1 and claim 15, Rogers discloses “…1. A system for controlling at least one active aerodynamic appendage (12) of a road vehicle (1), comprising an
actuation control unit (14) configured to implement a predictive control of said active aerodynamic appendage ( 12) , (See FIG. 11-12 where the aerodynamic appendage 95 can be moved to adjust the airflow and also the trailer has a second appendage to adjust the airflow to provide a more aerodynamic vessel based on the pressure readings and see paragraph 68-85)
based on an estimation, performed dynamically while the road vehicle (1) is in motion, of an aerodynamic load demand of the road vehicle (1) in at least one route section subsequent to one currently
travelled”. (see paragraph 68-85 where aerodynamic vehicle devices can also be adjusted based on measured wind speeds and/or wind directions. A vehicle can include an apparatus for measuring the speed and/or direction of wind (air) at one or more locations remote from the vehicle.
[0069]
Based on such measurements, the aerodynamic devices can be proactively and/or predictively adjusted prior to the vehicle encountering the upcoming wind conditions. Such predictive measurement and adjustment can allow for greater optimization of aerodynamic drag. The air motion measuring apparatus, or air meter, can also be used to generate a database of measurements from which a running average of wind conditions can be calculated and used in adjusting vehicle aerodynamic devices.
[0070]
The air meter can comprise any suitable ranged wind motion detection technology, with one desirable embodiment comprising a laser meter. An exemplary laser meter can use fiber optics to project one or more laser beams in a direction of desired measurement and measure the velocity of the air at a desired location by detecting reflections of the projected laser beams that return to the laser meter. In some embodiments, the projected laser beams can be pulsed at certain frequencies to enhance wind speed measurement.)
Rogers discloses “…2. The system according to claim 1, wherein said actuation
control unit (14) is configured to estimate a forthcoming zone
of limited grip associated with said subsequent route section
and to implement, in advance of the occurrence of said zone of
limited grip, an adjustment of said active aerodynamic appendage
15 (12) designed to determine an increase in aerodynamic load for
said road vehicle (1)” (See paragraph 65-85 where in certain sections of the road a larger downforce and traction can be desired in advance and the foils can be adjusted to provided that downforce at that particular section).
Rogers discloses “…3. The system according to claim 2, wherein said actuation
control unit (14) is configured to determine a distance from the
forthcoming zone of limited grip and a corresponding time
20 interval, as a function of a speed of said road vehicle (1);(see paragraph 78) sand
to further determine a time advance referred to said time
interval, so as to take into account an actuation time required
for actuating said active aerodynamic appendage (12)”. (See paragraph 65-85 where in certain sections of the road a larger downforce and traction can be desired in advance and the foils can be adjusted to provided that downforce at that particular section).
Rogers discloses “…4. The system according to claim 3, wherein said actuation control unit (14) is configured to determine actuation of the
active aerodynamic appendage (12) at a time instant that is a
function of said time advance. (See paragraph 65-85 where in certain sections of the road a larger downforce and traction can be desired in advance and the foils can be adjusted to provided that downforce at that particular section).
Rogers discloses “…5. The system according to claim 2, wherein said actuation control unit (14) is configured to maintain a set adjustment of said active aerodynamic appendage (12) for a holding interval,
such that a desired aerodynamic load configuration is ensured
throughout a duration of said zone of limited grip. . (See paragraph 77 where a road section ahead will be adverse and require a stronger downforce based on the pressure measurements and then the foils can be adjusted and set to provide a downforce adjustment and more traction and see paragraph 65-85 where in certain sections of the road a larger downforce and traction can be desired in advance and the foils can be adjusted to provided that downforce at that particular section).
Rogers discloses “…6. The system according to claim 2, wherein said zone of limited grip corresponds to a subsequent braking section or a
10 subsequent cornering section of said route. (see paragraph 6 and 46 where the coordination of the aerodynamic section can correspond with braking at that same section)
Rogers discloses “…7. The system according to claim 6, wherein said actuation control unit ( 14) is configured to: estimate a first spatial
distance (~S) with respect to a subsequent braking point (PS)
associated with said subsequent braking section and a
15 corresponding first time distance (~T) based on the speed of the
road vehicle ( 1) ; and determine a first time advance (Ant)
referred to said first time distance (~T), which takes into
account an actuation time of the active aerodynamic appendage” . (see paragraph 6 and 46 where the coordination of the aerodynamic section can correspond with braking at that same section) . (See paragraph 77 where a road section ahead will be adverse and require a stronger downforce based on the pressure measurements and then the foils can be adjusted and set to provide a downforce adjustment and more traction and see paragraph 65-85 where in certain sections of the road a larger downforce and traction can be desired in advance and the foils can be adjusted to provided that downforce at that particular section).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2011/241377 A1 to Rogers that was filed in 2011 and in view of Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN114162228A to SAC VW.
Rogers is silent but SAC VW teaches “…8. The system according to claim 7, wherein said actuation
control unit (14) is further configured to estimate a second
spatial distance (~S') with respect to a central point (Apex)
associated with said subsequent cornering section and a second
time distance (~T') based on the speed of the road vehicle (1);
25 and determine a second time advance (Ant') related to said second
time distance (~T'), which takes into account the actuation time
of the active aerodynamic appendage (12) and also a time interval
between an initial point (In) of said cornering section and the
central point (Apex) of said cornering section”. (See FIG. 18 where the active spoilers can be controlled during the cornering of the vehicle and to enhance the turning of the vehicle; FIG. 18 schematically illustrates a top view analysis of a vehicle having an active under spoiler system according to the present disclosure for damping roll of the vehicle during high speed cornering by means of an under spoiler assembly.
When the automobile turns at a high speed, the automobile body inclines towards the outer side of the turning curve due to the action of centrifugal force; if the opening angle of the under spoiler bodies 2 of the front and rear under spoilers close to the inner side of the turning curve is enlarged a little and the opening angle of the under spoiler bodies 2 of the front and rear under spoilers close to the outer side of the turning curve is controlled to be small, it can be ensured that the under spoiler body 2 close to the inner side of the turning curve receives FxAnd FzLarger, lower spoiler body 2 closer to the outside of the turning curve is subjected to FxAnd FzAnd is smaller.
At this time, the difference between the downward air acting force applied to the inner side and the outer side of the vehicle body and the downward air acting force applied to the lower spoilers contributes to inhibiting the vehicle body from rolling and increasing the adhesive force between the inner side tire and the ground; the difference of the backward air acting force on the inner side and the outer side of the automobile body is beneficial to enabling the inner side wheels to bear larger resistance than the outer side wheels, and the problem of the automobile under-steering at high speed is restrained.
It should be noted that, in general, when the automobile steers at a high speed, the steering system is more desirable to have the characteristic of understeer; after the automobile adopts the active lower spoiler system and the control scheme thereof, the opening angle and the steering system rotation angle of the lower spoiler body 2 of each lower spoiler assembly can be adjusted and controlled after comprehensive calculation and analysis by the control device. Meanwhile, after the power-assisted steering provided by the lower spoiler body 2, the external force and impact on the steering system when the automobile turns at high speed are reduced to a certain extent.
FIG. 19 schematically illustrates a top view analysis of a vehicle having an active under spoiler system according to the present disclosure for inhibiting yaw of the vehicle from lateral wind via an under spoiler assembly.
When the automobile normally runs in a straight line at a high speed and is subjected to lateral wind, the automobile body can incline, and the tires can deviate laterally. At this time, the operator can control the lower spoiler bodies 2 of the lower spoiler assemblies on the left and right sides of the vehicle body to be independent of each otherDifferent angles are opened to ensure the air acting force F on the lower spoiler body 2 of the lower spoiler component on the windward side of the vehicle bodyxAnd FzAnd the other side is subjected to air force FxAnd FzRelatively smaller.
Through the control, the vehicle body can be effectively restrained from inclining, and the wheels on the windward side can be subjected to larger running resistance, so that the side deviation trend of the automobile tires is restrained.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of VW with the disclosure of ROGERS with a reasonable expectation of success to provide spoilers that can be adjustable and provide a first movement to a first extended position when cornering from a second restrained position. This can provide an increase yaw control and yaw prevention when cornering by the extension of the spoilers to provide an increased amount of traction to prevent a yawing of the vehicle. When the automobile normally runs in a straight line at a high speed and is subjected to lateral wind, the automobile body can incline, and the tires can deviate laterally. At this time, the operator can control the lower spoiler bodies 2 of the lower spoiler assemblies on the left and right sides of the vehicle body to be independent of each other angles are opened to ensure the air acting force F on the lower spoiler body 2 of the lower spoiler component on the windward side of the vehicle. See FIG. 18-19.
Rogers discloses “…9. The system according to claim 8, wherein said actuation control unit ( 14) is configured to determine the instant of
actuation of said active aerodynamic appendage (14) as a
function of a resultant time distance (~g) with respect to said
zone of limited grip, given by the minimum between said first
10 and second time distances decreased by the corresponding first
and second time advances, based on the following expression:
PNG
media_image2.png
80
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” (see paragraph 80-87)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of VW with the disclosure of ROGERS with a reasonable expectation of success to provide spoilers that can be adjustable and provide a first movement to a first extended position when cornering from a second restrained position. This can provide an increase yaw control and yaw prevention when cornering by the extension of the spoilers to provide an increased amount of traction to prevent a yawing of the vehicle. When the automobile normally runs in a straight line at a high speed and is subjected to lateral wind, the automobile body can incline, and the tires can deviate laterally. At this time, the operator can control the lower spoiler bodies 2 of the lower spoiler assemblies on the left and right sides of the vehicle body to be independent of each other angles are opened to ensure the air acting force F on the lower spoiler body 2 of the lower spoiler component on the windward side of the vehicle. See FIG. 18-19.
Rogers is silent but Sac Vw teaches “…10. The system according to claim 6, wherein said actuation
control unit (14) is configured to determine whether said
15 subsequent cornering section corresponds to said zone of limited
grip, if a lateral acceleration (Ace lat) on said road vehicle
( 1) at the center point (Apex) of said cornering section is
greater than a lateral acceleration threshold (Th lat) (See FIG. 18 where the active spoilers can be controlled during the cornering of the vehicle and to enhance the turning of the vehicle; FIG. 18 schematically illustrates a top view analysis of a vehicle having an active under spoiler system according to the present disclosure for damping roll of the vehicle during high speed cornering by means of an under spoiler assembly.
When the automobile turns at a high speed, the automobile body inclines towards the outer side of the turning curve due to the action of centrifugal force; if the opening angle of the under spoiler bodies 2 of the front and rear under spoilers close to the inner side of the turning curve is enlarged a little and the opening angle of the under spoiler bodies 2 of the front and rear under spoilers close to the outer side of the turning curve is controlled to be small, it can be ensured that the under spoiler body 2 close to the inner side of the turning curve receives FxAnd FzLarger, lower spoiler body 2 closer to the outside of the turning curve is subjected to FxAnd FzAnd is smaller.
At this time, the difference between the downward air acting force applied to the inner side and the outer side of the vehicle body and the downward air acting force applied to the lower spoilers contributes to inhibiting the vehicle body from rolling and increasing the adhesive force between the inner side tire and the ground; the difference of the backward air acting force on the inner side and the outer side of the automobile body is beneficial to enabling the inner side wheels to bear larger resistance than the outer side wheels, and the problem of the automobile under-steering at high speed is restrained.
It should be noted that, in general, when the automobile steers at a high speed, the steering system is more desirable to have the characteristic of understeer; after the automobile adopts the active lower spoiler system and the control scheme thereof, the opening angle and the steering system rotation angle of the lower spoiler body 2 of each lower spoiler assembly can be adjusted and controlled after comprehensive calculation and analysis by the control device. Meanwhile, after the power-assisted steering provided by the lower spoiler body 2, the external force and impact on the steering system when the automobile turns at high speed are reduced to a certain extent.
FIG. 19 schematically illustrates a top view analysis of a vehicle having an active under spoiler system according to the present disclosure for inhibiting yaw of the vehicle from lateral wind via an under spoiler assembly.
When the automobile normally runs in a straight line at a high speed and is subjected to lateral wind, the automobile body can incline, and the tires can deviate laterally. At this time, the operator can control the lower spoiler bodies 2 of the lower spoiler assemblies on the left and right sides of the vehicle body to be independent of each otherDifferent angles are opened to ensure the air acting force F on the lower spoiler body 2 of the lower spoiler component on the windward side of the vehicle bodyxAnd FzAnd the other side is subjected to air force FxAnd FzRelatively smaller.
Through the control, the vehicle body can be effectively restrained from inclining, and the wheels on the windward side can be subjected to larger running resistance, so that the side deviation trend of the automobile tires is restrained.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of VW with the disclosure of ROGERS with a reasonable expectation of success to provide spoilers that can be adjustable and provide a first movement to a first extended position when cornering from a second restrained position. This can provide an increase yaw control and yaw prevention when cornering by the extension of the spoilers to provide an increased amount of traction to prevent a yawing of the vehicle. When the automobile normally runs in a straight line at a high speed and is subjected to lateral wind, the automobile body can incline, and the tires can deviate laterally. At this time, the operator can control the lower spoiler bodies 2 of the lower spoiler assemblies on the left and right sides of the vehicle body to be independent of each other angles are opened to ensure the air acting force F on the lower spoiler body 2 of the lower spoiler component on the windward side of the vehicle. See FIG. 18-19.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2011/241377 A1 to Rogers that was filed in 2011.
Rogers discloses “…11. The system according to claim 1, wherein said actuation
20 control unit (14) is configured to determine a forthcoming
condition in which a reduction in aerodynamic drag of said road
vehicle ( 1) is required and to implement, in advance of the
occurrence of said condition, an adjustment of said active
aerodynamic appendages such that a decrease in aerodynamic drag
25 of said road vehicle (1) is determined”. (See abstract and paragraph 6-10 and paragraph 65-85 where a pressure can indicate that a section of road has high pressure and then the downforce can be provided or if a pressure is low and then the truck is more aerodynamic for fuel savings)
Rogers discloses “…12. The system according to claim 1, wherein said actuation
control unit (14) is configured to implement, in synergy with
the predictive control of said active aerodynamic appendage
(12), an optimization strategy for managing a powertrain (4) of
5 said road vehicle (1), aimed at performance driving assistance;
wherein said optimization strategy comprises managing an
additional power delivered by said powertrain (4) based on the
position of said road vehicle (1) along said route. (See paragraph 46 and abstract and paragraph 6-10 and paragraph 65-85 where a pressure can indicate that a section of road has high pressure and then the downforce can be provided or if a pressure is low and then the truck is more aerodynamic for fuel savings)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2011/241377 A1 to Rogers that was filed in 2011 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20180162400A1 to Abdar.
Rogers is silent but Abdar teaches “…13. The system according to claim 12, wherein said
10 powertrain (4) comprises a main engine and at least one auxiliary
engine ( 5) configured to provide a selective power increase
under certain operating conditions; and wherein said actuation
control unit ( 14) is configured to implement an adjustment of
said active aerodynamic appendage (12) such that it results in
15 a decrease in the aerodynamic load of said road vehicle (1) at
least in the case in which said optimization strategy results
in a limited power output from said powertrain ( 4) , in the
absence of said power increase”. (See paragraph 26 and 50-55 where the speed can be reduced based on the increased aerodynamic quality of the vehicle and see claims 1-14 where the device includes an engine and a motor and the drag can provide an adjustment in the motor and engine and provide less drag and an increased downforce of the vehicle)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of ADBAR with the disclosure of ROGERS with a reasonable expectation of success since ABDAR teaches that the vehicle can include a hybrid configuration with an engine and an electric motor and the downforce of the vehicle can provide more traction when needed but also reduce the drag and to increase the fuel efficiency. In this manner, the motor and engine power can be reduced for the same amount of speed or the speed can be reduced as desired. See paragraph 26-55.
Rogers discloses “…14. A road vehicle ( 1) comprising at least one active aerodynamic appendage (12) and further comprising a system for controlling said active aerodynamic appendage ( 12) , according
to claim 1. (See paragraph 65-85)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 112b as the phrase “designed to” is vague and indefinite.
Claims 1-15 are also rejected as the claim is not understood. The claim provides a predictive control done in advance but this is done subsequently to the road being travelled. It would seem that there is a route and the device can determine in advance that the route provides different traction parameters or aerodynamic profiles to adjust the spoiler. However, the claim recites that this is done only subsequently to the road immediately being travelled like 5 -10 meters ahead. The claim appears to contradict itself. Therefore the prediction is only limited to the road section immediately before the vehicle however this is not explained in the claim and the claim appears to be vague an indefinite.
Also the independent claims recite a single means and are rejected.
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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 101.
Claim 1 is directed to a controller. The controller has a control unit software module that provides a predictive control. This is based on 1. A route section 2. When a vehicle can be moving and 3. Subsequently to the one being travelled. This is a transitory signal and is not statutory.
Claim 15 recites a method of predictive control. This is based on 1. An estimation 2. While a vehicle is moving and 3. In a road section subsequent to the one being traveled. There is not even a computer recited and this is rejected as being directed to a transitory signal.
Step 1: Are the claims are directed to an article, machine, manufacturing an article or a process. No.
This is a not statutory class of subject matter.
Step 2: The claims recited an abstract idea. Abstract ideas can be grouped as a mathematical concept, a mental process, and certain methods of organizing human activity can be an abstract idea. The claims recite determining a first or a vehicle state and outputting a message when there is a difference in a state. This is an abstract idea. A human can determine that a vehicle is stopped or a runway vehicle and then provide an alert.
Step 2a: Do the claims have an integration into a practical application, or an additional element or combination that imposes a meaningful limit of the judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. These can include improvements to a technology, reducing or transforming an article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05c), applying or using the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond linking the use to a particular technological environment such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05€ and Vanda memorandum). Also limitations that are not indicative include adding the words apply it, or more mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity or a general linking or a field of use or a technological environment. The claims do not recite any practical application.
Step 2b is the combination of the steps unconventional? Limitations of an inventive concept include improvements to the functioning of a computer, applying using a machine with the judicial exception, reducing the article to a different thing, applying the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
Improvements can pertain to improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or a computer functionality.
Well understood, routine and conventional changes are excluded under step 2a. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Improvements can be found in McRo where animation tasks were held to be improvements v. Affinity labs. The feature that leads to the improvement must be in the claim.
A claim limitation can integrate a judicial exception by implementing the exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(b). A generic computer that is specifically programmed does not automatically overcome the exception and it must integrate the judicial exception.
A claim limitation can integrate a judicial exception by using or applying the judicial exception beyond general linking the use to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the invention.
(For Example 37 of the USPTO Guidance: A method rearranging icons on a GUI by tracking the icons are selected or the amount of memory allocated to the icon, and then ranking the icons, and then placing those icons that are the most used next to or closest to the start icon of the computer based on the amount of use. Step 1 does this claim fall into a statutory category? Yes, the claim recites a method and a series of steps and is a process. Step 2A prong 1: is there a judicial exception recited and the specific limitations and if they are within the groupings of abstract ideas within the claim. Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, of a method of organizing human activity or a mental process or a process of a concept in the human mind. The nominal recitation of a processor does not take it out of the mental process grouping. Step 2A prong 2. Is the judicial exception or combination provided claimed in a manner that provides meaningful limits on the judicial exception that is more than an attempt to draft around the judicial exception. Are they integrated into a practical application of the improvement. Yes, as a whole the mental process is integrated into a practical application of the mental process. Therefore, the claim is eligible versus performing Step 2B as there is no inventive concept recited).
For example, Example 38, organizing patient records, Step 1: the claim is directed to a process and a series of steps; Step 2A it recites an abstract idea of organizing activity. Step 2A prong two: Is there any additional element or combination of elements that recite more than the judicial exception or is more than an attempt to draft around the judicial exception. The claims recite 1. Storing, 2. Remote access, 3. Converting by a content server, automatically generating a message, and transmitting data. This combination of additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the combination of elements recite an improvement over the prior art systems by allowing remote systems to share information in real time in a standardized format. Step 2A is no and the claim is eligible).
For example, example 38 claim 2 step 2a prong one the claims recite 1. Storing providing access and messaging. This is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite performance of claim limitations using generic computer components but does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity; this claim 2 recites an abstract idea; Step 2a, prong 2; are there any additional elements that apply on or rely on the judicial exception in a manner that provides meaningful limitations? The claims recite storing information on a memory in a network based storage devices. The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea as the components are at a high level of generality. Step 2B are there elements or combination of elements that are more than the abstract of idea. The claims recite networked memory. This is implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. Step 2B is no the claim does not provide the inventive concept and is not significantly more than the abstract idea and the claim is not eligible).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to the general idea of tracking a position of two objects. The method is directed to tracking a position of a user and then tracking a position of a vehicle and then determining when they are within a predetermined distance and then selecting a driver for the user based on the location data. This is a mere abstract idea that is being applied on a general purpose computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only elements found are general purpose computers which is not significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to a movement vector and a second movement vector and then a matching of the coordinates to select one vehicle from another. This is an abstract idea. This may be performed mathematically or using a pen and paper and using the x, y, z, coordinates of the user and then a number of x, y, z coordinates of a number of vehicles and then seeing which is the closest based on a movement of each. Then a selection may be made based on the distance and time and speed.
The next step is to determine what elements are significantly more than the abstract idea. The only element found is a general purpose computer that displays a map. The arrival time data is input into is part of a general purpose computer in claim 8, and 15 and in claim 1 there is not even a general purpose computer being claimed (it is in the premable). See Alice and Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016) that recites “the claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by claim 12 quoted above, is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. We need not define the outer limits of “abstract idea,” or at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea— and hence require stage-two analysis under § 101.
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, 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. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights