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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action mailed 03/28/2025, Applicant amended Claims 1, 12, and 19. Claims 1-4, 7-16, and 18-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 07/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 as being unpatentable over Okeya (U.S. 2020/0324811) in view of Murray et al. (U.S. 2020/029237) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okeya (U.S. 2020/0324811) in view of Coombs (U.S. 2021/0178846A1) is made as detailed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 07/25/2025, with respect to 112b antecedent basis and formality issues with Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. The rejection and objections to Claim 1 have been withdrawn
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are
A sensing Module (102) (pressure sensor) (see spec., par. [32, 33, 35, 60]).
A human-machine interface module (108) (a display or a voice activated function) (par. [62])
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 8, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okeya (U.S. 2020/0324811) in view of Coombs (U.S. 2021/0178846A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Okeya discloses:
A method (Fig. 1b, and 3) of regulating a vehicle load (¶0039+) of a motor vehicle, the method comprising:
measuring, by way of a sensing module, an onboard loading data of a motor vehicle (Fig. 2, control device 10 receives vehicle load (weight) data);
transmitting, by way of a vehicle bus, the onboard loading data (Fig. 3, S20) measured to a processing unit (control device 10) of a motor vehicle load regulating system (Fig. 2);
receiving, by way of the processing unit, the onboard loading data measured (¶0039);
determining, by way of the processing unit, a centrifugal force of a motor vehicle relative to the onboard loading data measure (Fig. 3, ¶0044);
and executing, by way of the processing unit, a feedback mechanism for regulating a motion of a motor vehicle in response to the centrifugal force determined (¶0045-0048, steering control performed based on centrifugal force).
Okeya does not explicitly disclose: determining, by way of the processing unit, a location of load within a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle: identifying, by way of the sensing module, a shifting of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle while the trailer is in motion;
Coombs discloses “A method for analyzing and managing a vehicle load carried by a vehicle” (Abstract) and teaches: determining, by way of the processing unit (Fig. 8, ¶0064 “ECU), a location of load within a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle (¶0045-0046, S110; “Load arrangements preferably describe (e.g., include data indicative of) the mass (weight) of the load as a function of the position within the cargo compartment of a vehicle”): identifying, by way of the sensing module, a shifting of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle while the trailer is in motion (Fig. 1 and 9, S110/112; ¶0050 and ¶0079 “A second specific implementation of the method 100, as shown in FIG. 9, includes…determining a contextual dataset, in substantially real-time, during vehicle operation S112;”) in order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Coombs to include determining, by way of the processing unit, a location of load within a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle: identifying, by way of the sensing module, a shifting of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle while the trailer is in motion in order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
Regarding Claim 19, Okeya discloses: A computer program comprising instructions (Fig. 1b, and 3), the instructions comprising:
measuring, by the way of a sensing module, an onboard loading data of a motor vehicle (Fig. 2, control device 10 receives vehicle load (weight) data;
transmitting, by way of a vehicle bus, the onboard loading data (Fig. 3, S20) measured to a processing unit of a motor vehicle load regulating system (Fig. 2);
receiving, by way of the processing unit, the onboard loading data measured (¶0039);
determining, by way of the processing unit, a centrifugal force of a motor vehicle relative to the onboard loading data measure (Fig. 3, ¶0044);
and executing, by way of the processing unit, a feedback mechanism for regulating a motion of a motor vehicle in response to the centrifugal force determined (¶0045-0048, steering control performed based on centrifugal force).
Okeya does not explicitly disclose: determining, by way of the processing unit, a location of load within a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle: identifying, by way of the sensing module, a shifting of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle while the trailer is in motion;
Coombs discloses “A method for analyzing and managing a vehicle load carried by a vehicle” (Abstract) and teaches: determining, by way of the processing unit (Fig. 8, ¶0064 “ECU), a location of load within a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle (¶0045-0046, S110; “Load arrangements preferably describe (e.g., include data indicative of) the mass (weight) of the load as a function of the position within the cargo compartment of a vehicle”): identifying, by way of the sensing module, a shifting of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle while the trailer is in motion (Fig. 1 and 9, S110/112; ¶0050 and ¶0079 “A second specific implementation of the method 100, as shown in FIG. 9, includes…determining a contextual dataset, in substantially real-time, during vehicle operation S112;”) in order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Coombs to include determining, by way of the processing unit, a location of load within a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle: identifying, by way of the sensing module, a shifting of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle while the trailer is in motion in order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
Regarding Claim 20, Okeya discloses: further comprising a computer-readable medium (¶0033).
Regarding Claim 8, Okeya discloses monitoring, by way of a steering angle sensor, a radius of a turning curve of the motor vehicle (¶0030)
Claim(s) 2-4, 9, 11-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okeya (U.S. 2020/0324811) in view of Coombs (U.S. 2021/0178846A1) in further view of Murray et al. (U.S. 2020/0292375).
Regarding Claim 12, Okeya discloses: A motor vehicle load regulating system (Fig. 2) comprising:
a sensing module operable to measure an onboard loading data (Fig. 3, S20) of a motor vehicle (Fig. 2, control device 10 receives vehicle load (weight) data);;
and a processing unit comprising: an algorithm operable to determine a centrifugal force (Fig. 3, ¶0044); of a motor vehicle using the onboard loading data (¶0039)measured, wherein the processing unit is further operable to execute a feedback mechanism to a vehicle load regulating system to regulate a motion of a motor vehicle (¶0045-0048, steering control performed based on centrifugal force).
Okeya does not explicitly disclose: wherein the onboard loading data comprises:a change in an amount of pressure pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle;at least two contact points pressing on the floor of the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle; and a movement of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle during operation of the motor vehicle
Coombs teaches: wherein the onboard loading data comprises: a change in an amount of pressure pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle(¶0047, load magnitude and location data pressing on trailer floor based on pressure data of the plurality of fluid springs ¶0055);;; and a movement of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle during operation of the motor vehicle. (Fig. 1 and 9, S110/112; ¶0050 and ¶0079 “A second specific implementation of the method 100, as shown in FIG. 9, includes…determining a contextual dataset, in substantially real-time, during vehicle operation S112;”) in order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Coombs to include wherein the onboard loading data comprises: a change in an amount of pressure pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle; and a movement of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle during operation of the motor vehicle n order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
Okeya does not explicitly disclose: monitoring the onboard loading data relative to a change in an amount of pressure at two contact points pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle using pressure sensors.
Murray teaches monitoring the onboard loading data relative to a change in an amount of pressure at two contact points pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of a motor vehicle using pressure sensors (see par. [63]) (note that Murray discloses one or more pressure sensors installed in or on the surface of a floor to measure pressures at different contact points) as well as a movement of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle (see par. [69, 83]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Okeya by monitoring the onboard loading data relative to a change in an amount of pressure pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment in combination with a movement of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle as taught by Murray for effectively determining the weight of the cargo being transported by the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, Okeya does not explicitly disclose monitoring, by way of the sensing module, the onboard loading data relative to a change in an amount of pressure pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle
Coombs teaches: monitoring, by way of the sensing module, the onboard loading data relative to a change in an amount of pressure pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle (¶0047, load magnitude and location data pressing on trailer floor based on pressure data of the plurality of fluid springs ¶0055);;; in order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Coombs to include monitoring, by way of the sensing module, the onboard loading data relative to a change in an amount of pressure pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle in order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
Regarding Claim 3, Okeya does not explicitly disclose determining, by way of the processing unit, a weight of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle.
Murray teaches: determining, by way of the processing unit, a weight of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle (Murray further teaches determining a weight of load within the compartment of the motor vehicle (see par. [7, 22, 39]) in order to effectively determine the weight of the loads/cargo being transported by the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Murray to include determining, by way of the processing unit, a weight of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle in order to effectively determine the weight of the loads/cargo being transported by the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 4, Okeya does not explicitly discloses: monitoring, by way of the sensing module, the onboard loading data relative to at least two contact points pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle
Murray teaches: monitoring, by way of the sensing module, the onboard loading data relative to at least two contact points pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle
Murray teaches monitoring the onboard loading data relative to a change in an amount of pressure at two contact points pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of a motor vehicle using pressure sensors (see par. [63]) (note that Murray discloses one or more pressure sensors installed in or on the surface of a floor to measure pressures at different contact points) as well as a movement of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle (see par. [69, 83]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Okeya to incoproate the teachings of Murray to include monitoring, by way of the sensing module, the onboard loading data relative to at least two contact points pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of the motor vehicle in order to effectively determining the weight of the cargo being transported by the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9, Okeya does not explicitly disclose notifying, by way of a human-machine-interface module, an operator of a load condition of the motor vehicle in response to measurement of load reaching a pre-determined load limit
Murray teaches notifying, by way of a human-machine-interface module (i.e. a display or a speaker), an operator of a load condition of the motor vehicle in response to measurement of load reaching a pre-determined load limit (see par. [20, 22, 84, 85]).
Murray teaches: notifying, by way of a human-machine-interface module, an operator of a load condition of the motor vehicle in response to measurement of load reaching a pre-determined load limit(see par. [20, 22, 84, 85]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Murray to include notifying, by way of a human-machine-interface module, an operator of a load condition of the motor vehicle in response to measurement of load reaching a pre-determined load limit in order to effectively control the operation of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 11, Okeya does not explicitly disclose wherein regulating the motion of a motor vehicle in response to the centrifugal force determined further comprises: transmitting, by way of the processing unit, the feedback mechanism to an anti-lock braking system; transmitting, by way of the processing unit, the feedback mechanism to a throttle control system, or combination thereof
Murray teaches wherein regulating the motion of a motor vehicle further comprises: transmitting, by way of the processing unit, the feedback mechanism to an anti-lock braking system; (¶0021, ¶0084)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Murray to include wherein regulating the motion of a motor vehicle further comprises: transmitting, by way of the processing unit, the feedback mechanism to an anti-lock braking system; in order to effectively and safely control the operation of the vehicle in response to a detected overload situation by reducing speed to a limit speed.
Regarding Claim 13, Okeya does not explicitly disclose that the weight sensors comprise ‘pressure’ sensors, therefore does not explicitly disclose: wherein the sensing module comprises at least one pressure sensor
Murray teaches: wherein the sensing module comprises at least one pressure sensor (monitoring the onboard loading data relative to a change in an amount of pressure at two contact points pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of a motor vehicle using pressure sensors (see par. [63]) (note that Murray discloses one or more pressure sensors installed in or on the surface of a floor to measure pressures at different contact points) as well as a movement of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle (see par. [69, 83]) in order to effectively determine the weight of the loads/cargo being transported by the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Murray to include wherein the sensing module comprises at least one pressure sensor in order to effectively determine the weight of the loads/cargo being transported by the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18, Okeya does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle load regulating system further comprises: an anti-lock braking system;
Murray teaches: wherein the vehicle load regulating system further comprises: an anti-lock braking system (¶0021, ¶0084) in order to effectively and safely control the operation of the vehicle in response to a detected overload situation by reducing speed to a limit speed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Murray to include wherein the vehicle load regulating system further comprises: an anti-lock braking system (¶0021, ¶0084) in order to effectively and safely control the operation of the vehicle in response to a detected overload situation by reducing speed to a limit speed.
Regarding Claim 16, Okeya does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensing module is embedded within a floor of a trailer compartment
Murray teaches: wherein the sensing module is embedded within a floor of a trailer compartment (monitoring the onboard loading data relative to a change in an amount of pressure at two contact points pressing on a floor of a trailer compartment of a motor vehicle using pressure sensors (see par. [63]) (note that Murray discloses one or more pressure sensors installed in or on the surface of a floor to measure pressures at different contact points) as well as a movement of load within the trailer compartment of the motor vehicle (see par. [69, 83]) in order to effectively determine the weight of the loads/cargo being transported by the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Murray to include wherein the sensing module is embedded within a floor of a trailer compartment in order to effectively determine the weight of the loads/cargo being transported by the vehicle.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9, 11-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okeya (U.S. 2020/0324811) in view of Coombs (U.S. 2021/0178846A1) in further view of Murray et al. (U.S. 2020/0292375) in further view of Breed et al. (U.S. 2006/0167595A1). Breed discloses “Sensors 7 and 76 may represent a plurality of different sensors which measure the pressure or weight applied onto the seat at different portions thereof or for redundancy purposes, e.g., such as by means of an airbag or fluid filled bladder 75 in the seat portion 4. Airbag or bladder 75 may contain a single or a plurality of chambers, each of which may be associated with a sensor (transducer) 76 for measuring the pressure in the chamber. …Although pressure or weight here is disclosed and illustrated with regard to measuring the pressure applied by or weight of an object occupying a seat in an automobile or truck, the same principles can be used to measure the pressure applied by and weight of objects occupying other vehicles including truck trailers and shipping containers. For example, a series of fluid filled bladders under a segmented floor could be used to measure the weight and weight distribution in a truck trailer.” (¶0199) and “Pressure or weight sensors 7, 76 and 97 are also included in the system shown in FIGS. 6 and 6A. Although strain gage-type sensors are schematically illustrated mounted to the supporting structure of the seat portion 4, and a bladder pressure sensor mounted in the seat portion 4, any other type of pressure or weight sensor can be used including mat or butt spring sensors. Strain gage sensors are described in detail in U.S. Pat. No. 6,242,701 as well as herein” (¶0553) and “An alternate method is to put weight sensors in the floor or as a mat on the floor of the vehicle. The mat design can use the bladder principles described above for weighing b vehicle occupants using, in most cases, multiple chambers. Strain gages can also be configured to measure the weight of container contents. An alternate approach is to use inertial sensors such as accelerometers and gyroscopes to measure the motion of the vehicle as it travels.” (¶0884)
Regarding Claim 14, neither Okeya nor Murray explicitly disclose wherein the at least one pressure sensor is an air-filled tube sensor
Breed teaches wherein the at least one pressure sensor is an air-filled tube sensor (¶0199; airbag type pressure sensor)
“The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Here, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the wherein the at least one pressure sensor is an air-filled tube sensor by simple substitution as taught by Breed into the teachings of Okeya because it does no more than yield predictable results of effectively measuring pressure with a known pressure sensor embodiment since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 15, Murray does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one pressure sensor is a force sensitive resistor mat
Breed teaches wherein the at least one pressure sensor is a force sensitive resistor mat(¶0553, 0884; “An alternate method is to put weight sensors in the floor or as a mat on the floor of the vehicle.”, strain gauge sensors)
“The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Here, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include wherein the at least one pressure sensor is a force sensitive resistor mat as taught by Breed into the teachings of Okeya because it does no more than yield predictable results of effectively measuring pressure with a known pressure sensor embodiment since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okeya (U.S. 2020/0324811) in view of Coombs (U.S. 2021/0178846A1) in view of Wilson (U.S. 20030058118A1). Wilson discloses “Vehicle and vehicle tire monitoring system, apparatus and method determine the load-induced deflection or deformation of a vehicle tire and based thereon, deflection-related information, such as tire load, molar air content, total vehicle mass and distribution of vehicle mass, may be provided.” (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Okeya does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises: determining, by way of the processing unit, a frictional force of one or more tires of the motor vehicle.
Wilson teaches the method further comprises: determining, by way of the processing unit, a frictional force of one or more tires of the motor vehicle (See abstract and ¶0014, 0083, 0177-0179, 0188) in order to effectively determine the distribution of mass (cargo) and the overall mass distribution of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Wilson to include the method further comprises: determining, by way of the processing unit, a frictional force of one or more tires of the motor vehicle (See abstract and ¶0014, 0083, 0177-0179, 0188) in order to effectively determine the distribution of mass (cargo) and the overall mass distribution of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 10, Okeya further discloses wherein the feedback mechanism comprises: the weight of load within a trailer compartment determined by the processing unit; the location of load within the trailer compartment determined by the processing unit; and the radius of a turning curve of the motor vehicle (¶0044; “ the adjustment unit 123 calculates a centrifugal force that is applied to the vehicle V, based on the calculated radius of curvature, the weight of the vehicle, the weight of the cargo and the position of the center of gravity, which are the information about the weight specified by the second specifying unit 122, and the speed of the vehicle V. “)
Okeya does not explicitly disclose wherein the feedback mechanism comprises: the movement of the load within the trailer compartment determined by the processing unit; and the frictional force of one or more tires of the motor vehicle
Coombs teaches the movement of the load (¶0045-0046, S110; “Load arrangements preferably describe (e.g., include data indicative of) the mass (weight) of the load as a function of the position within the cargo compartment of a vehicle”) within the trailer compartment (Fig. 1 and 9, S110/112; ¶0050 and ¶0079 “A second specific implementation of the method 100, as shown in FIG. 9, includes…determining a contextual dataset, in substantially real-time, during vehicle operation S112;”) determined by the processing unit (Fig. 8, ¶0064 “ECU”) in order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Coombs to include the movement of the load within the trailer compartment determined by the processing unit in order to avoid “negative outcomes involving vehicles that carry loads are the result of improperly arranged and/or distributed loads within the vehicles. Such outcomes can include crashes (e.g., jack-knifing), poor handling and maneuverability, sub-optimal fuel and/or time efficiency, and other undesirable vehicular operating conditions.” (¶0003)
Wilson teaches determining: the frictional force of one or more tires of the motor vehicle (See abstract and ¶0014, 0083, 0177-0179, 0188) in order to effectively determine the distribution of mass (cargo) and the overall mass distribution of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control system of Okeya to incorporate the teachings of Wilson to include the method further comprises: determining, the frictional force of one or more tires of the motor vehicle (See abstract and ¶0014, 0083, 0177-0179, 0188) in order to effectively determine the distribution of mass (cargo) and the overall mass distribution of the vehicle.
Conclusion
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matoy et al. (U.S. 2016/0272198A1) discloses “A method of controlling drivability of a vehicle detects an overall load acting on the vehicle. A mass of the vehicle or an estimate thereof is obtained. A controller determines whether the vehicle is negotiating a curve during a driving situation. If the vehicle is negotiating a curve during the driving situation, the controller determines whether the vehicle has a tendency to oversteer or to understeer. The load acting on the vehicle is dynamically changed or a suspension stiffness of the vehicle is dynamically adjusted to reduce the tendency of the vehicle to oversteer or to understeer.” (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights