Ex Parte Donald et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201813713076 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/713,076 12/13/2012 Henry F. Donald III 83225209 9030 28395 7590 01/25/2018 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER SHUDY, ANGELINA M 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing @brookskushman. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HENRY F. DONALD, III, RYAN SKAFF, CHRISTOPHER ADAM OCHOCINSKI, SERGEY GENNADIEVICH SEMENOV, and PAUL STEPHEN BRYAN Appeal 2016-008059 Application 13/713,0761 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING This is a decision on Appellants' Request for Rehearing of our Decision on Appeal mailed September 5, 2017. We reconsider our Decision in light of Appellants' Request, but decline to change the decision for the reasons provided, infra. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-008059 Application 13/713,076 BACKGROUND2 Appellants have filed a paper under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 requesting we reconsider our Decision affirming the Examiner's rejection of claims 1—20 under § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.3 Request 2. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS Appellants contend: The claims of the present application define a specific way to solve a problem, in particular, the problem of travel range estimation in electric vehicles. Further, an interface is defined for presenting the range estimation. The estimated travel range is based on a product of a short-term estimated travel range and a short-term weighting factor, and a product of a long-term estimated travel range and a long-term weighting factor. The claims define "a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." See pages 2-3 of November 2, 2016 Memorandum. The Examiner does not present evidence that the claimed features do not solve the problem as described. As the claims define a particular way of estimating travel range for an electric vehicle, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Request 3. Appellants further contend our Decision concluding "calculating an estimated travel range of a vehicle based on one or more measured or 2 Our Decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Oct. 6, 2015); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 23, 2016); Request for Reconsideration ("Request," filed Sept. 5, 2017); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 23, 2016); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 4, 2015); our Decision on Appeal ("Decision," mailed July 5, 2017); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Dec. 13, 2012). 3 "Appellant respectfully disagrees with the Board's affirmation of the rejections under 35 U.S .C. § 101." Request 2. 2 Appeal 2016-008059 Application 13/713,076 estimated system parameters represents longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet," and which could be carried out by a human with pen and paper (Decision 8—9) failed to consider the additional limitations of the claim. In particular, Appellants allege: For example, the specific features of the travel range estimation that requires it to be based on a product of a short-term estimated travel range and a short-term weighting factor, and a product of a long-term estimated travel range and a long-term weighting factor. The Board also does not consider the specific inputs that are received. The Board has overgeneralized and simplified the claims by ignoring these additional claimed features and merely states that the simplified claims represent long-standing conduct. No evidence is provided that the travel range estimation, as claimed with all of the claimed features, is long-standing conduct that existed before computers. The Board further fails to consider the specific inputs that are claimed and merely considers a system with any set of generic inputs. For example, claim 1 requires that the controller receive input indicative of available electric energy of a storage device, actual electric power usage of a climate control system, and thermal requests. The claim further requires the controller to generate output indicative of the estimated travel range in response to the input. The Board provides no evidence that the claimed inputs or travel range estimation are non-conventional. Request 4. Citing to Thales4 (Request 4—5), Appellants conclude their arguments by alleging the appealed claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they "specify a particular configuration of non-conventional inputs (at least with respect to travel range estimations) and a particular method of estimating a travel range in order to more accurately estimate the travel range using the non-conventional inputs." Request 5. 4 Thales Visionixv. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 3 Appeal 2016-008059 Application 13/713,076 RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS We have only considered those timely arguments actually made by Appellants in deciding this Request. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) ("Arguments not raised, and Evidence not previously relied upon, pursuant to §§ 41.37, 41.41, or 41.47 are not permitted in the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section."). We have not misapprehended the Examiner's rejection in our Decision. Claim 1 recites: A vehicle system comprising: a controller configured to receive input indicative of available electric energy of a storage device, actual electrical power usage of a climate control system, and thermal requests, calculate an estimated travel range based on a product of a short-term estimated travel range and a short-term weighting factor, and a product of a long-term estimated travel range and a long term weighting factor, and generate output indicative of the estimated travel range in response to the input; and an interface communicating with the controller and configured to display a range indicator based on the estimated travel range. We reiterate that our reviewing court has held claims ineligible as directed to an abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by humans. Of particular relevance to the present claims on Appeal is our reviewing court's holding in Electric Power Group: 4 Appeal 2016-008059 Application 13/713,076 The claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims "directed to" a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims ... 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 ... 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 .... [Similarly,] 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 .... 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 .... Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353—54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). We find the claims on appeal are similar in key respects (i.e., gathering and analyzing information of a specific content, and then e.g., utilizing mathematical relationship s/formulae in an algorithm for calculating 5 Appeal 2016-008059 Application 13/713,076 an estimated travel range of a vehicle) to those found to be directed to an abstract idea in Electric Power Group. Appellants further argue the claims "specify a particular configuration of non-conventional inputs (at least with respect to travel range estimations) and a particular method of estimating a travel range in order to more accurately estimate the travel range using the non-conventional inputs. As such, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea." Request 5. In response, we conclude merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea ... to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non abstract."); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093—94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of abstract ideas). Accordingly, in agreement with the Examiner and confirming our Decision, we conclude under Alice Step 1, the claims on appeal are directed to an abstract idea. See Decision 7—9. In applying step two of the Alice analysis, our reviewing court guides we must "determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method", and thus transform the abstract idea into patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We look to see whether there are any "additional features" in the claims that constitute an "inventive concept," thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an 6 Appeal 2016-008059 Application 13/713,076 abstract idea. Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBankInt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 (2014). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Lab., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1291 (2012). Reevaluating representative claim 1 under step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, we again agree with the Examiner and confirm our conclusion that it lacks an "inventive concept" that transforms the abstract idea of calculating an estimated travel range into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea. See Ans. 4; and see Decision 10. As in Alice, we reiterate that the recitation of a computer processor that calculates, or "a controller configured to . . . calculate" (claim 1) a value using an algorithm is simply not enough to transform the patent-ineligible abstract idea here into a patent- eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 ("[CJlaims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). Therefore, based upon the findings and legal conclusions above, and on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's conclusion that the appealed claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter, nor are we persuaded of error in our Decision to affirm the Examiner's rejection. CONCLUSION We have considered all of the arguments timely raised by Appellants in the Request. However, Appellants have not persuasively shown we misapprehended or overlooked any points regarding the Examiner's rejection, or that our Decision should otherwise be modified. 7 Appeal 2016-008059 Application 13/713,076 DECISION Accordingly, while we have granted Appellants' Request to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, that request is denied with respect to making any changes therein. Our decision is final for purposes of judicial review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation