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
The amendment filed June 13, 22 has been entered. Claims 14-31 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non‐Final Office Action mailed May 13, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 13, 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
[1] Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
(i) Applicant argued that independent claim 14 explicitly requires the use of physical axle load sensors integrated with the vehicle to detect and process real-time load data, which are not mentally performable. "...the vehicle comprising at least two vehicle axles, on each of which at least one axle load sensor is arranged..." A human cannot detect axle loads or calculate axle load ratios mentally or manually without the use of such sensors. This aligns with the Federal Circuit's reasoning in SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., where the court held that detecting suspicious activity using computer network monitors was not a mental process because the human mind is not equipped to perform those tasks unaided.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The axle load sensors provides data for axle loads for safe parking. Such data is rather static and does not vary over time. Axle load sensor are known in prior art (Rogness ‘899). What a human mind does in simply reading the static data provided by the axle load sensors. As explained in the office action, detecting the axle loads with the aid of the axle load sensors is a simple pre-solution activity (data gathering). The example mentioned in SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. is not related to the present invention since simple detecting of the axle loads does not have the complexity of detecting suspicious activity using computer network monitors.
(ii) A claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application when it improves a technology or a technical field. Here, the claimed method directly improves vehicle safety technology, specifically safe parking stability by using real-time axle load measurements to determine load distribution and trigger a warning if the distribution is unsafe. Respectfully, the Examiner incorrectly asserts the method is a "mere pre-solution activity (data gathering)" and lacks control. However, outputting a safety warning based on precise load calculations is not an abstract concept. It is a concrete preventative safety action, much like those found eligible in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States (850 F.3d 1343), where sensor fusion for positioning was deemed patent-eligible. Moreover, as shown in the USPTO's Example 47, Claim 1 (2024 Guidance Examples), a system using physical architecture and data processing to inform safety-related decisions can constitute a technical improvement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Outputting a warning if the determined axle load ratio is below a predetermined limit value is a result of the mental activity of determining an axle load ratio for at least one of the vehicle axles based on the detected axle loads. Determining the axle ratio is a simple mathematical concept and the outputting safety warning is a direct result of an unsafe axle ratio, which is a single numerical value. Such warning in known in prior art (Rogness ‘212 in view of Burt). There is no improvement in safe vehicle parking technology. The example mentioned in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States is not related to the present invention since outputting warning based on the determined axle load ratio does not have the complexity of sensor fusion for positioning.
(iii) Even under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims recite significantly more than a judicial exception: Physical elements: axle load sensors, specific axles, and vehicle configuration. Specific condition-based control logic: conditional warning output based on calculated load ratios. Field-specific safety improvement: applicability to heavy-duty or commercial vehicle safe parking on slopes. These are not generic computer implementations or well-understood, routine, conventional activities as characterized by the Examiner. No evidence or official notice was provided by the Examiner to substantiate that the claimed arrangement of sensors and warning logic is routine or conventional. According to Berkheimer v. HP Inc., such assertions must be supported by evidentiary findings.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the office action under 103, all of the elements are specifically rejected citing relevant prior arts. In the office action under 101, all of the elements are specifically rejected as mental activities, simple pre-solution activity or mere post-solution activity.
As explained above, Examiner respectfully disagrees Applicant’s arguments and rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are maintained.
[2] Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
(i) Rogness '899 is not directed to a "method for safely parking a vehicle". Rogness '899 merely discloses a weight indicator for a vehicle that provides loading guidance and does not directly disclose any claimed parking process of the vehicle.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Rogness '899 discloses managing and improving vehicle load (paragraph [0018], [0027]). Burt teaches safely parking a vehicle in [0006]: provides a secure method of parking, with determining weight (load) distribution ([0017]). Together, Rogness '899 and Burt teach a method for safely parking in the preamble of claim 1.
(ii) Even if Rogness '212 may disclose displaying warning and/or alerts to the driver, these warning and/or alerts relate to the trailer, which is not present in Rogness '899 and Burt. In other words, the warning and/or alerts of Rogness '212 have nothing to do with ensuring safe parking and cannot suggest the claimed modification. In addition, the teaching does not suggest to output a warning and/or alert when an axle load ratio "is below a predetermined limit value". Instead, Rogness '212 only discloses/suggests that a warning and/or alert is displayed when a "threshold is exceeded', see Rogness '212 paragraph [0023]. Consequently, Rogness '212 discloses a different teaching compared to the claimed solution, and there is no objective evidence that would have prompted the skilled person to adapt Rogness '212 exactly in the claimed way.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Rogness ‘212 teaches outputting a warning under preterminal conditions in [0023]. [0023] teaches that the conditions are based on total vehicle weight, front axle weight , trailer
weight , etc. That is, Rogness ‘212’ teaches warning related to vehicle axle loads. Burt teaches safe parking based on determined value of axle load ratio. As explained in the office action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined condition of Rogness ‘212 as the determined axle load ratio being below a predetermined limit value, which indicates non-secure parking and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to warn the driver that the weight distribution of the vehicle causes non-safe parking.
(iii) None of the references-alone or in combination-disclose or suggest determining a specific axle load ratio as a proxy for evaluating parking safety:
" Rogness '899 is concerned with load monitoring for cargo distribution, and not safe parking conditions based on axle weight thresholds.
" Burt relates to braking on inclines but does not determine a ratio or evaluate parking stability based on a numerical threshold.
" Rogness '212 issues general warnings based on vehicle configurations or unsafe conditions, but does not quantify safe/unsafe axle ratios.
There is no motivation or teaching in the cited prior art to compute a threshold-based axle load ratio and tie it directly to parking safety.
The rejection merely pieces together disparate elements of unrelated systems with differing objectives-load monitoring for cargo (Rogness '899), braking management on inclines (Burt), and generic warnings (Rogness '212)-to try and reconstruct Applicant's claimed method.
Absent Applicant's disclosure, there is no clear path in the cited art that leads to the claimed invention. Thus, the present rejection is also improper for being based on impermissible hindsight and gleaning from Applicant's present application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the office action, a reasoning is provided about computing a threshold-based axle load ratio and tie it directly to parking safety citing paragraphs [0041], [0043], [0004], [0006] of Burt.
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 14-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 is directed to method for safely parking a vehicle (i.e., a method). Therefore, claim 14 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below with the category of abstract idea bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 14 recites:
A method for safely parking a vehicle,
the vehicle comprising at least two vehicle axles, on each of which at least one axle load sensor is arranged, the method comprising the steps:
- detecting of the axle loads occurring on the at least two vehicle axles with the aid of the axle load sensors;
- determining an axle load ratio for at least one of the vehicle axles based on the detected axle loads [mental process/step]; and
- outputting a warning if the determined axle load ratio is below a predetermined limit value [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The axle load ratio determining process and warning outputting process are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer. This invention relates to check load distribution state of a vehicle, which is safe for parking. There is no control of the vehicle being carried out. The axle load ratio determining process and warning outputting process can be performed mentally or in a computer.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for safely parking a vehicle,
the vehicle comprising at least two vehicle axles, on each of which at least one axle load sensor is arranged, the method comprising the steps:
- detecting of the axle loads occurring on the at least two vehicle axles with the aid of the axle load sensors [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
- determining an axle load ratio for at least one of the vehicle axles based on the detected axle loads; and
- outputting a warning if the determined axle load ratio is below a predetermined limit value.
The examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application because detecting of the axle loads is a simple pre-solution activity (data gathering). There is no practical application as only data is provided to the mental process. .
Claim 14 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim(s) 15-31 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 mere extra-solution activities, such as, intended use of parking, contents of warning, time of carrying out method, detecting parking signal, outputting the signal, content of the axle ratio, limit value standard, axle load sensor type, axle related to axle load ratio determination, gradient as a factor, load amount as a factor, that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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) 14-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogness et al. (US 20200117899 A1), which was cited by Applicant (hereinafter Rogness ‘899), in view of Burt et al. (US 20190084536 A1) and Rogness et al. (US 20200317212 A1), which was cited by Applicant (hereinafter Rogness ‘212).
Regarding 14, Rogness ‘899 discloses:
A method for safely parking a vehicle, the vehicle comprising at least two vehicle axles, on each of which at least one axle load sensor is arranged, the method comprising the steps {[0016] discloses two vehicle axles, axle load sensors arranged on the axles}:
detecting of the axle loads occurring on the at least two vehicle axles with the aid of the axle load sensors {[0016] discloses detecting axle loads}.
Rogness ‘899 does not disclose:
[1] determining an axle load ratio for at least one of the vehicle axles based on the detected axle loads.
Burt teaches determining the axle load ratio in paragraph [0041], which teaches determining a weight distribution for the vehicle, [0043] teaches determining the weight distribution from information from suspension height sensors (that is, axle load sensors). Examiner notes that because a vehicle’s weight is supported by wheels, therefore axles of the vehicle, weight distribution based on axle load sensor data means how the weight distributed over the axles, that is, the axle load ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the axle load ratio determining feature of Burt with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to provide the ratio as an indicator for safe parking.
[2] outputting a warning if the determined axle load ratio is below a predetermined limit value.
Rogness ‘212 teaches outputting a warning under predetermined conditions in [0023].
Burt teaches in [0004] and [0006], in parking state, the park brake lock rear wheels. [0004] also teaches that when the vehicle is inclined, the weight distribution moves toward the non-locked front wheels, which may cause sliding. Examiner notes that therefore, in order to secure safe parking the axle load ratio should indicate that more weight is supported by the rear axle, which implies that the determined axle load ratio should be above a preterminal limit value in relation to rear and front axle load ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined condition of Rogness ‘212 as the determined axle load ratio being below a predetermined limit value, which indicates non-secure parking and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to warn the driver that the weight distribution of the vehicle causes non-safe parking.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 14, Burt teaches: wherein the method is for safely parking a vehicle on a slope {[0003] teaches improving braking for a vehicle parked on an incline}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the slope parking related feature of Burt with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to take actions for safe parking on a slope.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 14, Burt teaches: wherein the warning indicates that safe parking of the vehicle is not possible and/or another parking position should be taken and/or the vehicle should be additionally secured {[0004] teaches that when the vehicle is inclined, the weight distribution moves toward the non-locked front wheels, which may cause sliding}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-safe parking indicating feature of Burt with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to prevent non-safe parking.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 14, Burt teaches: wherein the method is carried out only when after the vehicle is parked {[0004]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the parking brake feature of Burt with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to satisfy the intended purpose of the invention, safely parking a vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 14, Burt teaches: wherein the method is carried out only immediately after the vehicle is parked {[0004]. Examiner notes that a parking brake provides braking force immediately after the vehicle is parked}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the parking brake feature of Burt with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to satisfy the intended purpose of the invention, safely parking a vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 17, Burt teaches: wherein by detecting at least one signal indicating that the vehicle has been parked, and wherein the further steps of the method being carried out as a function of the detected at least one signal {[0023] teaches receiving signal of park brake applying}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the parking brake signal feature of Burt with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to facilitate checking timing of action.
Regarding claim 20, which depends from claim 19, Burt teaches: wherein the signal is outputted when the engine is switched off and/or when the ignition key is removed {[0023]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parking brake signal feature of Burt to be outputted when the engine is switched off since parking brake is intended to be used when the engine is off and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to provide the warning when it is meaningful.
Regarding claim 21, which depends from claim 14, Burt teaches: wherein the axle load ratio indicates the ratio of the axle load on the at least one vehicle axle to the sum of the axle loads on the at least two vehicle axles {[0041]: weight distribution, [0006]: in parking state, the park brake lock rear wheels. Burt teaches the axle load on the rear axle (at least one vehicle axle) is important the weight distribution of the vehicle, which implies the ratio of the axle load on the at least one vehicle axle to the sum of the axle loads on the at least two vehicle axles}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the axle load ratio feature of Burt with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to facilitate safe parking.
Regarding claim 22, which depends from claim 14, Rogness ‘212 teaches: wherein the predetermined limit value a) is a limit value dependent on a vehicle model; and/or b) is a limit value that is independent of a current loading condition of the vehicle {[0033] teaches that build parameters are specific to a make and model of a vehicle, which affects braking under a certain weight distribution}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the model specific feature of Rogness ‘212 with the described invention of modified Rogness ‘899 in order to consider a vehicle model as a factor.
Regarding claim 23, which depends from claim 14, Rogness ‘899 discloses: wherein the at least one axle load sensor comprises a strain gauge and/or a displacement sensor {[0017]: a strain gauge}.
Regarding claim 24, which depends from claim 14, Rogness ‘899 discloses: wherein the at least one vehicle axle for which a determination of the axle load ratio takes place, a) comprises a parking brake device; and/or b) is a rear axle of the vehicle {[0031]] discloses load associated with the rear axle of the vehicle}.
Regarding claim 25, which depends from claim 14, Burt teaches: wherein determining of the predetermined limit value taking into account parking tests on slopes with known gradient {[0045] teaches driving history to ascend various gradient, then the gradient of a particular road segment is known}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known gradient feature of Burt with the described invention of modified Rogness ‘899 in order to consider the gradient as a factor.
Regarding claim 26, which depends from claim 25, Rogness ‘899 teaches: wherein the parking tests are carried out with the lowest possible load and/or the lowest possible tank content of the vehicle {[0035] teaches weight indicators for the front and rear axles}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight indicator of Rogness ‘899 to check lowest possible load state of a vehicle, and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of modified Rogness ‘899 in order to consider the lowest load state as a factor for deciding safe parking.
Regarding claim 27, which depends from claim 26, Rogness ‘899 teaches: wherein the lowest possible load is no load and/or the lowest possible tank contest is an empty tank {[0035]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight indicator of Rogness ‘899 to check vacant cargo space and an empty tank of a vehicle, and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of modified Rogness ‘899 in order to consider the lowest load state as a factor for deciding safe parking.
Regarding claim 28, modified Rogness ‘899 teaches: a warning device for a vehicle, wherein the warning device is configured to perform a method according to claim 14 {Rogness ‘899, [0016], Burt, [0041], [0043], [0004], [0006], Rogness ‘212, [0023]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the axle load ratio determining feature of Burt with the described invention of Rogness ‘899, and to modify the predetermined condition of Rogness ‘212 as the determined axle load ratio being below a predetermined limit value, which indicates non-secure parking and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Rogness ‘899 in order to provide the ratio as an indicator for safe parking and to warn the driver that the weight distribution of the vehicle causes non-safe parking.
Similar logic applies to claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, which depends from claim 29, Rogness ‘899 discloses: wherein the vehicle is a commercial vehicle {[0014]: the vehicle 104 can be a commercial truck}.
Regarding claim 31, which depends from claim 30, Rogness ‘899 discloses: wherein the commercial vehicle is a semitrailer truck {[0014]: vehicle load manager 102 that can be used with a commercial truck, or any other vehicle}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eckert (US20190315324A1) discloses adjusting brake in relation to axle load ratio.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights