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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 14-16, 18, 21-33 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 25, 2026 have been fully considered.
[1] Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant’s argument that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into practical application is persuasive and 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections are withdrawn.
[2] Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant argued that Rogness '899 in view of Burt and Rogness (Rogness '212) does not teach the amended clam 14.
In this office action, claim 14 is rejected with Burt in view of Rogness ‘212 and Stefan. Stefan teaches performing parking operation after the engine is switched off, which is the main ground of Applicant’s arguments.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 14-16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt et al. (US 20190084536 A1) in view of Rogness et al. (US 20200317212 A1), which was cited by Applicant (hereinafter Rogness ‘212), and Stefan et al. (US 20210061264 A1).
Regarding 14, Burt 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 {paragraph [0034]: apply a variable braking force, across both axles, through the application of a coupling torque particularly when the vehicle is parked on an incline. [0043] discloses suspension height sensors (axle load sensors)}:
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, {[0041] discloses determining a weight distribution (axel load ratio) for the vehicle, [0043] discloses determining the weight distribution from information from suspension height sensors (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.
Burt does not disclose:
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].
In relation to this limitation, Burt discloses 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 Burt in order to warn the driver that the weight distribution of the vehicle causes non-safe parking.
Burt further discloses:
wherein the method is carried out only when after the vehicle is parked {[0034]},
wherein by detecting at least one signal indicating that the vehicle has been parked, wherein the further steps of the method being carried out as a function of the detected at least one signal {[0023]: receiving a signal indicative of the nature of the terrain on which the vehicle is parked…determining , dependent on the signal , a braking force to be applied to the front wheels to brake the vehicle securely}.
Burt does not disclose:
wherein the signal is outputted when the engine is switched off and/or when the ignition key is removed.
Stefan teaches performing parking operation after the engine is switched off in paragraph [0116]: When the vehicle is parked in the parking space, it automatically switches the engine off and activates an electronic parking brake. Outputting signal is implied since the signal is required for performing subsequent action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the signal outputting feature of Stefan with the described invention of Burt in order to facilitate checking conditions required for safe parking.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 14, Burt discloses: wherein the method is for safely parking a vehicle on a slope {[0003] discloses improving braking for a vehicle parked on an incline}.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 14, Burt discloses: 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] discloses that when the vehicle is inclined, the weight distribution moves toward the non-locked front wheels, which may cause sliding}.
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 14, Burt discloses: 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}.
Regarding claim 21, which depends from claim 14, Burt discloses: 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}.
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 Burt in order to consider a vehicle model as a factor.
Regarding claim 25, which depends from claim 14, Burt discloses: wherein determining of the predetermined limit value taking into account parking tests on slopes with known gradient {[0045] discloses driving history to ascend various gradient, then the gradient of a particular road segment is known}.
Regarding claim 28, Rogness ‘212 teaches: a warning device for a vehicle, wherein the warning device is configured to perform a method according to claim 14 {[0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the warning device feature of Rogness ‘212 with the described invention of modified Burt in order to facilitate safe parking.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 29.
Claim(s) 23, 24, 26, 27, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt in view of Rogness ‘212 and Stefan and in further view of Rogness et al. (US 20200117899 A1), which was cited by Applicant (hereinafter Rogness ‘899).
Regarding claim 23, which depends from claim 14, modified Burt does not teach: herein the at least one axle load sensor comprises a strain gauge and/or a displacement sensor.
Rogness ‘899 teaches a strain gauge in paragraph [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the strain gauge feature of Rogness ‘899 with the described invention of modified Burt in order to facilitate providing an axle load sensor.
Regarding claim 24, which depends from claim 14, Rogness ‘899 teaches: 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]] teaches load associated with the rear axle of the vehicle}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the rear axle load determination feature of Rogness ‘899 with the described invention of modified Burt in order to facilitate determining the axle load ratio.
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 Burt 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 Burt in order to consider the lowest load state as a factor for deciding safe parking.
Regarding claim 30, which depends from claim 29, Rogness ‘899 teaches: wherein the vehicle is a commercial vehicle {[0014]: the vehicle 104 can be a commercial truck}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the commercial vehicle feature of Rogness ‘899 with the described invention of modified Burt in order to facilitate safe parking of commercial vehicle.
Regarding claim 31, which depends from claim 30, Rogness ‘899 teaches: 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}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the any vehicle application feature of Rogness ‘899 with the described invention of modified Burt in order to facilitate safe parking of a semitrailer truck.
Regarding claim 32, which depends from claim 31, Rogness ‘899 teaches: wherein the semitrailer truck is without a semitrailer coupled thereto {[0014]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the any vehicle application feature of Rogness ‘899 with the described invention of modified Burt in order to facilitate safe parking of a semitrailer truck without a semitrailer coupled thereto.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt in view of Rogness ‘212 and Stefan and in further view of Rosen (US 4209276 A).
Regarding claim 33, modified Burt teaches: 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: outputting, only after the vehicle's engine is switched off and/or the vehicle's ignition key is removed, at least one signal indicating the vehicle is a parked vehicle in a first parking position; detecting the at least one signal indicating that the vehicle is the parked vehicle in the first parking position; detecting axle loads occurring on the at least two vehicle axles of the parked vehicle with the aid of the axle load sensors, only after detecting the at least one signal; determining an axle load ratio for at least one of the vehicle axles of the parked vehicle based on the detected axle loads; outputting a warning if the determined axle load ratio is below a predetermined limit value indicating the vehicle is not safely parked in the first parking position {Burt: [0034], [0043], [0041], [0004], [0006], [0023]; Rogness ‘212: [0023]; Stefan: [0116]}.
Rosen teaches: adopting a different second parking position and/or securing the parked vehicle in the first parking position by means of wheel chock, after a warning is outputted in col. 1, lines 22-24: chocks may be fixed to one end of the platform for engagement with wheels of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wheel chock feature of Rosen with the described invention of modified Burt in order to facilitate safe parking with a simple means.
Conclusion
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