DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Inventorship
2. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Each of Claims 1-11 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, Claims 1 and 9-11 are similar.
Independent claim 1 recites method of starting a motor vehicle, comprising:
initiating a starting operation as soon as a requested torque is preset on the driver's side when the motor vehicle is at a standstill [observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG];
closing a starting element in a closing operation in a drive train of the motor vehicle in the course of the starting operation [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG], in the course of which:
establishing a drive connection via the starting element between an internal combustion engine of the drive train, which is connected to a drive side of the starting element, and an output of the drive train, which is connected to an output side of the starting element [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG]; and
adjusting an output speed prevailing at the output side of the starting element is adjusted to an input speed prevailing on the drive side of the starting element [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG]; and
changing a torque gradient, with the aid of which a target torque of the internal combustion engine is adjusted, to a closing gradient until a lower limit value is undershot by a speed difference between the input speed and the output speed [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG];
wherein the closing gradient is configured to be lower than a preset gradient actually defined on the basis of the preset requested torque [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG].
Independent claim 9 recites a control device configured to control a starting operation of a motor vehicle having an internal combustion engine, the control device configured to:
receive a requested torque on the driver's side when the motor vehicle is at a standstill [observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG];
close a starting element in a drive train of the motor vehicle in a closing operation in the course of the starting operation [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG], in the course of which the starting element drives the internal combustion engine of the drive train connected to a drive side of the starting element with an output of the drive train connected to an output side of the starting element [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG]; and thereby
adjusting an output speed prevailing at the output side of the starting element to match an input speed prevailing on the drive side of the starting element [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG]; and
change a torque gradient, with the aid of which an adjustment of a target torque of the internal combustion engine takes place, to a closing gradient during the closing operation of the starting element, until a speed difference between the input speed and the output speed falls below a limit value [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG];
wherein the closing gradient is configured to be lower than a preset gradient actually defined on the basis of the preset requested torque [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG].
Each of the steps of claims 1-11 is executed by a computer (a control device for data processing as in claims 9-10 and a computer program product in claim 11) which are additional elements used as tools to execute the abstract ideas.
Further, dependent Claims 2-8 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims 1-11 recites an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the driver’s side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the course" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “adjusting an output speed prevailing at the output side of the starting element to an input speed prevailing on the drive side of the starting element” renders the claim indefinite; it is not clear that how or by which way this adjustment is able to be performed? And how or by which way the “output speed” and “input speed” is able to be obtained?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the aid" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the basis…" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected as the same as claim 1.
The Applicants are required to clarify or to revise the claimed features.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
9. Claims 2-8 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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 on (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
July 8, 2026
/JHH/
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights