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 Status
Claims 1-10 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) is/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:
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
() “”
Independent claim 8 contains similar limitations
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 . 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 , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) ()-() 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 limitation(s) ()-() 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).
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 limitation(s) ()-() 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 element(s) of a(n) do(es) 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)
Furthermore, limitation(s) () constitute(s) insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
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(n) ” 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 or “an apparatus” in Claim 8).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim 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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (CN110562044A) hereinafter Yan and CAO et al. (IDS: Research on Safety Braking Performance of Maglev Train) hereinafter Cao.
Claim 1:
Yan discloses a method for determining an eddy current braking level, comprising: acquiring ideal braking distances corresponding to eddy current braking levels based on a force parameter of a train during a braking process, [¶¶67-70; see underlined portion on pages 4-5 of the translation along with equations in original IDS file; note that the 8 braking levels are intended to be substituted back in to the equations to determine distance] acquiring a target stop position of the train based on the ideal braking distances under the eddy current braking levels and a braking start point; [¶¶67-70; see underlined portion on page 5 of the translation along with equations in original IDS file] acquiring ideal braking levels by comparing the ideal braking distances with a target braking distance, wherein the target braking distance is a distance between the braking start point and the target stop position; acquiring a correspondence between a distance and a speed of the train during an ideal braking process, wherein the ideal braking process is a process of braking using the ideal braking levels; acquiring a control quantity based on a difference between operating positions in the ideal braking process and an actual braking process; and acquiring an actual eddy current braking level for the train based on the control quantity and the ideal braking levels. [Fig. 2; underlined portion of page 6 of the translation]
Yan doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the force parameter comprises: a gravitational component force caused by a gradient of a track in an operating route of the train.
However, Cao does disclose wherein the force parameter comprises: a gravitational component force caused by a gradient of a track in an operating route of the train. [pg. 9, Section 3, gravity component F_g]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the braking level determination of Yan with the force considerations of CAO to improve the accuracy of the forces acting on the train thus improving the accuracy of calculations.
Claim 3:
Yan and Cao, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Yan also discloses wherein the acquiring ideal braking levels by comparing the ideal braking distances with a target braking distance comprises: traversing the eddy current braking levels in a preset order, and determining a first eddy current braking level k encountered first in the traversing that meets a condition and a previous eddy current braking level k-1 of the first eddy current braking level k meeting the condition as the ideal braking levels, wherein the preset order is an ascending order of eddy current braking forces, and the condition comprises an ideal braking distance corresponding to the first eddy current braking level k being less than the target braking distance. [Fig. 2; underlined portion of page 6 of the translation]
Claim 4:
Yan and Cao, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 3.
Yan also discloses wherein the acquiring a correspondence between a distance and a speed of the train during an ideal braking process comprises: acquiring a timing for switching from the ideal braking level k to the ideal braking level k-1; and [Fig. 2; underlined portion of page 6 of the translation] acquiring the correspondence between the distance and the speed during the ideal braking process based on the timing for switching, an initial speed at which braking starts, a time period elapsed during the ideal braking process, and ideal braking forces under the ideal braking levels. [¶¶67-70; see underlined portion on page 5 of the translation along with equations in original IDS file]
Claim 5:
Yan and Cao, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Yan also discloses wherein the acquiring a timing for switching from the ideal braking level k to the ideal braking level k-1 comprises: acquiring distances between positions during a braking process under the ideal braking level k and the target stop position; searching among the distances for a distance which is equal to a reference braking distance, to obtain a target distance, wherein the reference braking distance is a braking distance obtained assuming that the train, under the ideal braking level k-1, uses a speed at the target distance as an initial speed; and determining a time instant when the train travels to the target distance as the timing for switching. [¶¶67-70; see underlined portion on page 5 of the translation along with equations in original IDS file; Fig. 2; underlined portion of pages 7-8 of the translation]
Claim 6:
Yan and Cao, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Yan also discloses wherein the acquiring an actual eddy current braking level for the train based on the control quantity and the ideal braking levels comprises: determining a sum of the ideal braking level k and the control quantity as the actual eddy current braking level before the timing for switching, and determining a sum of the ideal braking level k-1 and the control quantity as the actual eddy current braking level after the timing for switching. [¶¶67-70; see underlined portion on page 5 of the translation along with equations in original IDS file; Fig. 2; underlined portion of pages 7-8 of the translation]
Claim 7:
Yan and Cao, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Yan doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the gravitational component force caused by the gradient of the track in the operating route of the train is acquired based on a mass of the train and the gradient, and the gradient is an angle between a slope in the operating route and a horizontal plane.
However, Cao does disclose wherein the gravitational component force caused by the gradient of the track in the operating route of the train is acquired based on a mass of the train and the gradient, and the gradient is an angle between a slope in the operating route and a horizontal plane. [pg. 9, Section 3, equation 5]
Claim 8:
Yan discloses apparatus for determining an eddy current braking level, comprising: a first acquisition module, configured to acquire ideal braking distances corresponding to eddy current braking levels based on a force parameter of a train during a braking process, [¶¶67-70; see underlined portion on pages 4-5 of the translation along with equations in original IDS file; note that the 8 braking levels are intended to be substituted back in to the equations to determine distance] a second acquisition module, configured to acquire a target stop position of the train based on the ideal braking distances under the eddy current braking levels and a braking start point; [¶¶67-70; see underlined portion on page 5 of the translation along with equations in original IDS file] a third acquisition module, configured to acquire ideal braking levels by comparing the ideal braking distances with a target braking distance, wherein the target braking distance is a distance between the braking start point and the target stop position; a fourth acquisition module, configured to acquire a correspondence between a distance and a speed of the train during an ideal braking process, wherein the ideal braking process is a process of braking using the ideal braking levels; and a control module, configured to acquire a control quantity based on a difference between operating positions in the ideal braking process and an actual braking process, and acquire an actual eddy current braking level for the train based on the control quantity and the ideal braking levels. [Fig. 2; underlined portion of page 6 of the translation]
Yan doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the force parameter comprises: a gravitational component force caused by a gradient of a track in an operating route of the train.
However, Cao does disclose wherein the force parameter comprises: a gravitational component force caused by a gradient of a track in an operating route of the train [pg. 9, Section 3, gravity component F_g]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the braking level determination of Yan with the force considerations of CAO to improve the accuracy of the forces acting on the train thus improving the accuracy of calculations.
Claim 9:
Yan and Cao, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Yan also discloses a controller, comprising: a memory, configured to store a computer program; and a processor, configured to perform the method for determining the eddy current braking level, by executing the computer program. [translation pages 11-12, underlined portion]
Claim 10:
Yan and Cao, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Yan also discloses a non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein instructions in the readable storage medium, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform the method for determining the eddy current braking level. [translation pages 11-12, underlined portion]
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan and Cao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (IDS: Contextual Study on Operation Scenarios of Normal Conducting High-Speed Maglev) hereinafter Chen.
Claim 2:
Yan and Cao, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Yan doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the acquiring a target stop position of the train based on the ideal braking distances under the eddy current braking levels and a braking start point comprises: determining, in response to a distance between the braking start point and a first preset stop position arranged first ahead of the train being less than a distance threshold, a second preset stop position arranged second ahead of the train as the target stop position, wherein the distance threshold is an ideal braking distance corresponding to an eddy current braking level with a maximum braking force; and determining, in response to the distance between the braking start point and the first preset stop position being greater than the distance threshold, the first preset stop position as the target stop position.
However, Chen does disclose wherein the acquiring a target stop position of the train based on the ideal braking distances under the eddy current braking levels and a braking start point comprises: determining, in response to a distance between the braking start point and a first preset stop position arranged first ahead of the train being less than a distance threshold, a second preset stop position arranged second ahead of the train as the target stop position, wherein the distance threshold is an ideal braking distance corresponding to an eddy current braking level with a maximum braking force; and determining, in response to the distance between the braking start point and the first preset stop position being greater than the distance threshold, the first preset stop position as the target stop position. [pages 55-58; discloses not exceeding a maximum speed based on track conditions while factoring in braking and distance]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the braking level determination of Yan and Cao with the speed and control characteristics of Chen to improve the safety characteristics of a train in different driving conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anwar (US 2003/0168911 A1) discloses a closed loop control algorithm for an eddy current braking system.
Anwar et al. (US 2004/0070269 A1) discloses a method an apparatus for power management of a braking system.
Stenbratt et al. (US 2024/0017623 A1) disclose a braking arrangement for heavy duty vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights