DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 1-8, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Coombs (US 2018/0186208) in view of Sim (US 2021/0248396), and Pape (US 2022/0381603)
As to claim 1 Coombs discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a computing system, a first condition associated with a vehicle at a first time (Paragraph 54 “Block S120 can include Block S122, which includes: determining a first load arrangement based on the set of fluid pressures, which functions to determine how the cargo (e.g., load, mass) is distributed within the trailer. In one variation, the first load arrangement includes a coordinate mapping between a first discrete portion of the vehicle load and a first location within a cargo compartment of the vehicle. Block S122 functions to compute the distribution of the load within the cargo compartment based on the fluid pressures at points distributed around the vehicle chassis (e.g., between the cargo compartment and the axles of the vehicle). In this variation, each fluid manifold and/or pressure sensor is mapped to a predetermined vehicle position (e.g., trailer position), wherein the mass for each trailer position can be calculated from the respective pressure sensor measurement. In a second variation, the first load arrangement is determined by recording a set of exterior images of the loaded vehicle. The relative suspension heights can be determined from the distance between the wheel and the wheel well (e.g., extracted from the image using segmentation, feature detection, or other computer vision techniques), the load's mass can be determined based on the change in suspension height, and the load distribution can be determined based on the relative heights of the suspension elements. However, the load arrangement can be otherwise determined.”);
determining, by the computing system, a second condition associated with the vehicle based on height values associated with a plurality of points on the vehicle at the first time and a second time (Paragraph 57 “Block S130 can include Block S131, which includes: determining a second load arrangement based on the set of loading criteria. The second load arrangement can include a second coordinate mapping between a second discrete portion of the vehicle load and a second location within the cargo compartment of the vehicle. Block S131 functions to identify an arrangement for the load within the vehicle that satisfies the set of loading criteria. For example, in cases wherein the set of loading criteria includes a maximum weight borne by each axle, Block S131 can include determining an arrangement of the load (which can be different from or identical to the first arrangement) that results in a load distribution that does not exceed the maximum weight borne by each axle.”, Paragraph 61 “Block S140 includes: transforming the existing state of the vehicle suspension system into the desired state of the vehicle suspension system, which functions to realize the desired vehicle load distribution and/or arrangement. Block S140 is preferably performed immediately subsequent and in response to Block S130, but can additionally or alternatively be performed at any other suitable time in response to any other suitable event (e.g., a trigger event, a user input, etc.).”); and
Coombs does not explicitly disclose executing, by the computing system, without human input a change in navigation of the vehicle when a difference between the first condition and the second condition satisfies a threshold value.
Sim teaches executing, by the computing system, without human input a change in navigation of the vehicle when a difference between the first condition and the second condition satisfies a threshold value (Paragraph 56 “At 306, the method 300 alerts the driver of the vehicle that an item is likely to move or fly out of the vehicle. The method 300 provides the driver with suggestions regarding repositioning the item that is likely to move or fly out of the vehicle. The method 300 provides the driver an alternate route to travel to prevent or minimize the chances of the item moving or flying out of the vehicle. The method 300 adjusts the suspension of the vehicle to rebalance the load in the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Coombs to include the teachings of changing navigation of the vehicle for the purpose of navigating the vehicle to a safe area to take corrective action with regards to the load.
Coombs does not explicitly disclose that the height values are based on distances from a left portion and a right portion at least one axle of the vehicle.
Pape teaches that the height values are based on distances from a left portion and right portion of at least one axle of the vehicle(Paragraph 16-17 “The height level is understood to be the distance of the vehicle and/or the vehicle body from the ground surface and/or from the vehicle wheels and/or from the vehicle axles, preferably in the vertical direction of the vehicle. For example, the height level is given and/or characterized by the distance of the vehicle body from the vehicle wheels and/or from the vehicle axles and/or from the ground surface, preferably in the vertical direction of the vehicle. For example, the height level is given and/or characterized by the spring deflection of the vehicle wheels and/or the vehicle axles. According to a further development, the height-level measuring unit comprises one or at least one height-level sensor or a plurality of height-level sensors, for example two or at least two, or three or at least three or four or at least four height-level sensors. Preferably, each of the height-level sensors is associated with one of the vehicle wheels and/or one of the vehicle axles. In particular, by means of each of the height-level sensors the height level in the area of the vehicle wheel associated with that height-level sensor or the vehicle axle associated with it can be detected.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Coombs to include the teachings of Coombs to include teachings of heigh values based on distances from the axles for the purpose of detecting the load on the vehicle.
As to claim 2 Coombs discloses a computer-implemented method, wherein the first time is prior to movement of the vehicle and the second time is during movement of the vehicle (Paragraph 61).
As to claim 3 Coombs discloses a computer-implemented method, wherein the height values associated with the plurality of points on the vehicle are determined based on sensor data captured by sensors of the vehicle(Paragraph 25, 54).
As to claim 4 Coombs discloses a computer-implemented method, wherein the sensors comprise at least one of a camera, a radar, a lidar, and a tire pressure sensor (Paragraph 25).
As to claim 5 Coombs discloses a computer-implemented method, wherein the plurality of points on the vehicle comprise a highest point of the vehicle above a location on the vehicle(Paragraph 40).
As to claim 6 Coombs discloses a computer-implemented method, wherein the location on the vehicle is a left portion or a right portion of an axle of the vehicle(Paragraph 48).
As to claim 7 Coombs discloses a computer-implemented method, wherein the first condition and the second condition are associated with weight values of the vehicle (Paragraph 54).
As to claim 8 Coombs discloses a computer-implemented method, wherein the weight values are relative weight values(Paragraph 42).
As to claim 11 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 14 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 15 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 19 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
Claims 9, 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coombs (US 2018/0186208) in view of Sim (US 2021/0248396), and Pape (US 2022/0381603) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee (US 2021/0370985)
As to claim 9 Lee teaches a computer-implemented method, wherein the change in navigation operation of the vehicle is associated with a switch from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode after a driver of the vehicle performs a series of tasks(Paragraph 29, 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Engelhard to include the teaching of a changing operation to change from the autonomous to manual mode for the purpose of allowing the driver to take control of the vehicle.
As to claim 10 Lee teaches a computer-implemented method wherein the change in navigation of the vehicle is associated with prevention of a switch from a first operating mode to a second operating mode different from the first mode(Paragraph 51,145).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the applicants arguments applicants argue that does not disclose “determining, by the computing system, a second condition associated with the vehicle resulting from vehicle operation based on height values associated with a plurality of points on the vehicle at the first time and a second time, the height values based on distances from a left portion and right portion of at least one axle of the vehicle.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments. The applicant is reminded that the examiner interprets the claim with the broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case Pape discloses of determining the height values associated with a plurality of points in the vehicle using height level sensors around multiple points along the vehicle (Paragraph 35 “According to a further development, the height-level measuring unit comprises one or at least one height-level sensor or a plurality of height-level sensors, for example two or at least two, or three or at least three or four or at least four height-level sensors. Preferably, each of the height-level sensors is associated with one of the vehicle wheels and/or one of the vehicle axles. In particular, by means of each of the height-level sensors the height level in the area of the vehicle wheel associated with that height-level sensor or the vehicle axle associated with it can be detected. For example, with each of the height-level sensors the distance of the vehicle body from the vehicle wheel associated with it or the vehicle axle associated with it can be detected. Advantageously, with each of the height-level sensors the deflection of the associated vehicle wheel and/or the associated vehicle axle can be detected.”). The height level sensors are located on left and right portions of the vehicle. As shown in Figure 1 the height-level sensors measure the heights of the left and right portions of at least one axle of the vehicle (Paragraph 45 “IGS. 1 to 3 show different schematic views of a vehicle 1 with a load detection device 2 according to an embodiment, wherein the load detection device 2, which can also be seen in FIG. 4, comprises a height-level measuring unit 3 with a plurality of height-level sensors 4, 5, 6 and 7,”)
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 2/26/2026