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 § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method at a sensor apparatus affixed to a chassis of a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle comprising a cargo area, the method comprising:
detecting a trigger condition at the sensor apparatus;
taking a number of samples of a displacement-related value of the motor vehicle over time;
computing a variance of the samples;
determining that the variance of the samples exceeds a first threshold;
analyzing a frequency property based on the samples, wherein the analyzing the frequency property comprises:
finding a frequency domain representation for the samples; and
determining a peak frequency value within the frequency domain;
finding that the motor vehicle is loaded when the peak frequency is less than a second threshold; and
finding that the motor vehicle is unloaded when the peak frequency is greater than a third threshold; and
transmitting a loading status of the motor vehicle to a server.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that covers mental processes — concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. This process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
The abstract idea of the claim also falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). These limitations are further underlined such as “computing a variance of the samples, determining …a variance of the samples, finding a frequency domain representation for the samples”.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 10 and 19.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a sensor apparatus affixed to a chassis of a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle comprising a cargo area, taking a ... samples of a displacement-related value of the vehicle over time; transmitting a loading status of the motor vehicle to a server;
In Claim 10: A sensor apparatus affixed to a transportation asset, the transportation asset comprising a cargo area, the sensor apparatus comprising: a processor; and a communications subsystem, wherein the sensor apparatus is configured to: ... take ... samples of a displacement- related value of the transportation asset over time; transmit a loading status of the motor vehicle to a server;
In Claim 19: A non transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable code for execution by a processor of a sensor apparatus, taking … samples of displacement related value of the motor vehicle over time; transmitting a loading status of the motor vehicle to a server.
The additional elements in the preambles such as a “a sensor apparatus affixed to a chassis of a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle comprising a cargo area” are not qualified for a meaningful limitation because they only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The displacement-related value sensors represent a mere data gathering activity step and only add an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Taking samples of a displacement-related value of the vehicle over time using the sensors represents mere data gathering step and it is not meaningful as generically recited. All uses of the judicial exception require collecting such data. A generically-recited communication subsystem, computer readable medium, and a processor (generic processor) are generally recited and are not meaningful and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record (Watanabe, Shoess, Savaresi).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9 and 11-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims and, therefore, these claims are not eligible lacking a practical application and/or significantly more additional elements.
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-19 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
However, in regards to Claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Watanabe, HISAYUKI, Schoess, and Savaresi, either singularly or in combination, because the references fail to anticipate or render obvious finding a frequency domain representation for the samples; and determining a peak frequency value within the frequency domain; finding that the motor vehicle is loaded when the peak frequency is less than a second threshold; and finding that the motor vehicle is unloaded when the peak frequency is greater than a third threshold, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue (p.10): Specifically, claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended to recite transmitting a loading status of the transportation asset to a server…
The present claims are submitted to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by analogy with Example 4 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
… The programmed CPU acts in concert with the recited features of the mobile device to enable the mobile device to determine and display its absolute position through interaction with a remote server and multiple remote satellites. The meaningful limitations placed upon the application of the claimed mathematical operations show that the claim is not directed to performing mathematical operations on a computer alone… the claim is found to be eligible when the effects of these limitations are viewed in combination because the effect of the combined limitation is to determine and display the location of the device.
Similarly, the limitations of the present claims, when viewed in combination, have the effect of determining a loading status of a motor vehicle and transmitting that loading status to a server. Therefore, the present claims are not directed to performing mathematical operations on a generic computing device, but to determine useful information about a motor vehicle, namely its loading status, with minimal memory requirements.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the step of transmitting a loading status is a meaningful limitation. This step represents insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting results of the analysis (MPEP 2106.05(g): … the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting).
The Examiner also disagrees that the combination of additional elements (a sensor attached to a chassis of a motor vehicle) represents significantly more. It is also an insignificant extra-solution activity (field of use limitation: MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner additionally disagrees with the alleged similarity to Example 4. No additional elements in the instant application are recited similarly to a CPU that “acts in concert with the recited features of the mobile device to enable the mobile device to determine and display its absolute position through interaction with a remote server and multiple remote satellites”.
The Examiner submits that the claims are similar to Electric Power Group that are found ineligible as reciting collecting data, analyzing the data, and outputting results of the collection and analysis.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 4/13/2026, with respect to Claim 1 (10, 19) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 1 (10, 19) has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights