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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 8/1/2025. Accordingly, claims 1- 15 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 & 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims are independent claims written in dependent format. 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- 15—in particular Independent claims 1 & 13—are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite obtaining and determining data. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the processing device/circuitry and/or memory/media language, the claims encompass a user simply comparing the collected data to a predetermined/configurable threshold in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and memory does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the elements of obtaining and determining and that a generic computer performs these steps. The obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting and storing data for use in the determining step), and as such they amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining step. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the obtaining and determining steps were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claims 2-12 and 14-15 all depend on claims 1 and 13, and as such are rejected for having the same deficiencies as those presented above with respect to claims 1 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 -15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henderson et al. (hereinafter Henderson, WO 2022/207080).
Henderson discloses:
1: A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to handle wheel slip of at least one wheel of a vehicle, the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain road properties for one or more road segments of a road travelled or to be travelled by the vehicle, the road properties being indicative of a curvature of the one or more road segments (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14; path curvature, steering angle and lateral and longitudinal acceleration),
for each of the one or more road segments, determine a longitudinal slip limit based on the road properties for the respective road segment, the longitudinal slip limit indicating a maximum allowed longitudinal slip for the at least one wheel in the respective road segment (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14; slip limit value, and setting the slip limit value).
2: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: when detecting that the vehicle is traveling in a respective road segment out of the one or more road segments, control a wheel slip of the at least one wheel to be below the maximum allowed longitudinal slip for the respective road segment (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
3: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the wheel slip of the at least one wheel to be below the maximum allowed longitudinal slip for the respective road segment by adjusting a torque of the at least one wheel to meet the maximum allowed longitudinal slip (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
4: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: when detecting that the vehicle is traveling in a respective road segment out of the one or more road segments or prior to entering said respective road segment, control a regenerative brake of the at least one wheel based on the maximum allowed longitudinal slip for the respective road segment (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
5: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the longitudinal slip limit based on the road properties of the respective road segment by using predefined heuristics or by mapping the road properties to the longitudinal slip limit (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
6: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine an expected lateral motion of the at least one wheel when the vehicle is travelling in the one or more road segments, and to determine the longitudinal slip limit based on the expected lateral motion (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
7: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the expected lateral motion by obtaining a motion of the vehicle, and to determine the expected lateral motion based on the road properties and a kinematic model considering the motion of the vehicle (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
8: wherein the road properties comprises friction of the one or more road segments, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the longitudinal slip limit based on the respective friction for the one or more road segments (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
9: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the longitudinal slip limit prior to entering each respective road segment (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
10: wherein the road properties of the one or more road segments are at least partly predefined (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
11: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain at least part of the road properties by measuring the road properties for a respective road segment using sensors of the vehicle, prior to entering the respective road segment (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
12: A vehicle comprising and/or controlled by the computer system according to claim 1 (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
13: A computer-implemented method for handling wheel slip of at least one wheel of a vehicle, the method comprising: by processing circuitry of a computer system, obtaining road properties for one or more road segments of a road travelled or to be travelled by the vehicle, the road properties being indicative of a curvature of the one or more road segments (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14; path curvature, steering angle and lateral and longitudinal acceleration),
by the processing circuitry, for each of the one or more road segments, determining a longitudinal slip limit based on the road properties for the respective road segment, the longitudinal slip limit indicating a maximum allowed longitudinal slip for the at least one wheel in the respective road segment (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14; slip limit value, and setting the slip limit value).
14: A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 13 (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
15: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 13 (see Henderson at least fig. 1- 6 and Abstract & Summary & pg. 12- 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-9:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
MACEEH . ANWARI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights