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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-10 are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The limitations of the independent claims of determining a reference yaw rate of the vehicle; measuring an actual yaw rate of the vehicle; calculating a difference between said reference yaw rate and said actual yaw rate; and reporting the occurrence of the asymmetry condition if the difference between said reference yaw rate and said actual yaw rate is greater than a first threshold value covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is no device listed in the claim, including a processor. However, even if a processor was recited, these limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than potentially reciting the application of the steps by generic processors and units, nothing is being recited that could not be performed mentally.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only potentially recites the element of a processing device to perform the listed steps. The processing device in all steps is, based on the Specification, recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing device (should it be claimed in future amendments) to perform the listed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Turning to the dependent claims, all dependent claims all recite similar mental steps. As such, they are rejected for the same reasons as the steps in the independent claims above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP0576044B1, hereinafter “Honda”.
Regarding claim 1, Honda discloses a method for determining an occurrence of an asymmetry condition (Abstract discloses a yaw motion control device for a vehicle comprises a yaw rate detecting means (1a) for detecting a yaw rate of said vehicle, a reference yaw rate generating means (2a) for generating a reference yaw rate in response to at least one driving parameter of the vehicle, a yaw motion correcting means (6) for controlling a yaw motion of said vehicle in response to an output from said reference yaw rate generating means (2a) and an output from said yaw rate detecting means (1a). To improve the performance of this control device, the reference yaw rate generating means (2a) is designed for generating a reference yaw rate in response to history of at least one of said driving parameters of the vehicle) in a motor vehicle, comprising:
determining a reference yaw rate of the vehicle (P8 discloses the yaw motion control device comprises a steering angle sensor for detecting a steering angle of a steering wheel, said reference yaw rate generating means generating said reference yaw rate in response to an output from said steering angle sensor. To generate the reference yaw rate, it is therefore only necessary to provide a steering angle sensor. For improving the accuracy of reference yaw rate determination, said reference yaw rate generating means is designed for generating said reference yaw rate in response to an output from a vehicle speed detector (in combination with the output of said steering angle sensor));
measuring an actual yaw rate of the vehicle (P22 discloses an actual yaw rate);
calculating a difference between said reference yaw rate and said actual yaw rate (P22 discloses when the actual yaw rate y has approached the reference yaw rate yb by reducing the engine output, that is, when the absolute value |yb - yn| becomes smaller than the reference value Δy, the reduction in the engine output is released, and a normal engine output control is restored); and
reporting the occurrence of the asymmetry condition if the difference between said reference yaw rate and said actual yaw rate is greater than a first threshold value (P22 discloses the absolute value |yb - yn| becomes smaller than the reference value. As above, the reduction in engine output is a reporting of the occurrence. Reporting is a broad term, so any indication that this comparison has occurred and an action taken is considered reporting. The threshold of being smaller than the reference value is the threshold).
Regarding claim 7, P8 discloses the reference value and correcting for accuracy, which is the same as no asymmetry.
Allowable Subject Matter
The next closest piece of prior art is:
KR256 which discloses a braking control apparatus for a vehicle and a method thereof are disclosed. A braking control apparatus for a vehicle according to the present invention includes a braking device for detecting braking force, a wheel speed sensor for detecting each wheel of the vehicle, a steering angle sensor for detecting a turning angle of the steering wheel, It is determined whether the braking will of the vehicle, the braking in the partial braking region, the braking will in the straight state, and the asymmetry of the vehicle through the input values from the braking sensor, the wheel speed sensor, the steering angle sensor and the yaw rate sensor And a controller for determining a wheel to be controlled and calculating a braking pressure of the wheel, and an actuator for driving the wheel with the braking pressure calculated for the wheel determined by the controller.
Neither Honda nor KR256 disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 2 includes allowable subject matter and all other claims besides 1 and 7 addressed above are dependent on claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
