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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 7-20 are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is Schwendemann et al. (5,086,656) and Gerritzen et al. (WO2021037707).
Regarding Claim 2, while Schwendemann et al. teaches the Claim 1 limitations of a “first total axle load value” and a “second total axle load value” and “at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator” based on a comparison of the “first total axle load value” and a “second total axle load value” (Schwendemann et al.; “The evaluating circuit 15 compares the first and second axle load calculations…If the difference exceeds the predetermined value, then the evaluating circuit 15 generates an error signal…”, see col.5, particularly lines 53-63), Schwendemann et al. does not teach the Claim 2 limitations
“compute a vehicle total mass (m) including cargo from the current vehicle acceleration value (a) and the current drive force value (F) acting on the vehicle as well as a formula m = F/a; and, said computing unit is configured to compute the second total axle load value (GA2) from the vehicle total mass minus a total mass of all vehicle axles mFA”.
While it is known from Gerritzen et al. to estimate mass based on force and acceleration Gerritzen et al. (Gerritzen et al.; “…the mass estimator can iteratively determine axle loads and a center of gravity of the motor vehicle 0 on the basis of detected accelerations and decelerations of the motor vehicle 0 and detected motor drive powers of the motor vehicle 0. In this case, the second Newtonian law (force is mass times acceleration) can be used”, see page 4 of the translated document), and to use this mass estimate in a plausibility check by comparing the mass estimate with determined values for axle load (Gerritzen et al.; “It is likewise possible for the determination of the rear axle load (e.g. rear axle load or rear axle weight force) and/or the front axle load (e.g. front axle load or front axle weight force) to be checked for plausibility by means of the previously mentioned mass estimator…the mass estimator can, for example estimate the rear axle load, the rear axle weight force, the front axle load, and/or the front axle weight force. The estimated values may be compared by the central controller 32 with the determined values for the rear axle load, the rear axle weight force, the front axle load, and/or the front axle weight force. If there are too large deviations, for example, an output can take place via a user interface and/or the method can be restarted”, see page 5 of the translated document), Gerritzen et al. does not specifically teach computing an axle load based on a “vehicle total mass (m) including cargo from the current vehicle acceleration value (a) and the current drive force value (F) acting on the vehicle as well as a formula m = F/a” and “the vehicle total mass minus a total mass of all vehicle axles mFA”. While these limitations of Claim 2 not taught by the prior art may appear to be obvious variations of known calculations for mass, the Examiner could not find a clear motivation in the prior art to modify the prior art to teach all limitations of Claim 2.
Similar reasoning applies to independent Claims 3, 7 and 9. Specifically, for Claim 3, both Schwendemann et al. and Gerritzen et al. fail to teach the specific limitations of “compute a first vehicle mass value (ml) by addition of the first total axle load value (GA1) and a value of a total mass (mFA) of all vehicle axles (m1= GA1+ mFA), said computing unit being configured to compute a second vehicle mass value (m2) including cargo computable via the computing unit from values of a vehicle acceleration (a) and a drive force (F) acting on the vehicle as well as a formula m = F/a”.
For Claim 7, both Schwendemann et al. and Gerritzen et al. fail to teach the specific limitations of “determining a first total axle load value (GA1), which indicates a measured value of a mass that rests on all vehicle axles; b) calculating a vehicle total mass (m) including cargo using the formula m = F/a, wherein the value (a) stands for the current vehicle acceleration and the value (F) stands for the drive force currently acting on the vehicle; c) calculating a second total axle load value using the formula GA2 = (F/a) - mFA, wherein the value mFA stands for the total mass of all considered vehicle axles”.
For Claim 9, both Schwendemann et al. and Gerritzen et al. fail to teach the specific limitations of “calculating a first vehicle mass value (m1) including cargo by adding the first total axle load value (GA1) to a value (mFA) for a total mass of all considered vehicle axles; h) calculating a second vehicle mass value (m2) including cargo using the formula m = F/a, wherein the value (a) stands for the current vehicle acceleration and the value (F) stands for the drive force currently acting on the vehicle”.
For Claims 3, 7 and 9, similar to Claim 2, while these limitations of Claims 3, 7 and 9 not taught by the prior art may appear to be obvious variations of known calculations, the Examiner could not find a clear motivation in the prior art to modify the prior art to teach all limitations of Claims 3, 7 and 9. Therefore, Claims 2, 3 and 7-20 are allowable over the prior art.
However, the Examiner notes that the interpretation of the scope of Claims 2, 3 and 7-20 in view of the prior art may change as a result of any change in scope of the claims caused by any claim amendments, such as amendments to address the Claim Objections, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, and/or claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim limitations “comparator”, “computing unit” and “wirelessly operating transmitting and receiving unit” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “comparator” and “unit” coupled with functional language “compute”, “carry out”, “generate” and “transmittable” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. According to Page 7167 of the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011, Notices), “C. Interpreting Claim Limitations Under § 112, ¶6”, the terms "module" and "unit" are non-structural terms which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: P[0055] of the specification recites “The comparator 24, the computing unit 26, the event memory 44, and the vehicle-bound transmitting and receiving unit 38 of the device 10, which are preferably configured in combined form, can possibly each be configured as hardware and/or software components of the onboard computer of the vehicle 18 (not shown) or the onboard axle load measuring system 16”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 6-8 recite “using the formula m = F/a, wherein the value (a) stands for the current vehicle acceleration and the value (F) stands for the drive force currently acting on the vehicle”. The use of parentheses is improper, as characters included in parentheses do not affect the scope the claim, therefore, the “a” and “F” should not be included in parentheses as the “a” and “F” are directly referred to in the claim limitations when defining the formula “m = F/a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 8-10 recite “using the formula m = F/a, wherein the value (a) stands for the current vehicle acceleration and the value (F) stands for the drive force currently acting on the vehicle”. The use of parentheses is improper, as characters included in parentheses do not affect the scope the claim, therefore, the “a” and “F” should not be included in parentheses as the “a” and “F” are directly referred to in the claim limitations when defining the formula “m = F/a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim lists steps labeled from “f)” to “j)”, however, the first item in a list should start with “a” when using letters to label the steps, not “f”, similar to how a numbered list should start with “1” and not “6”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, the limitation “an axle load measuring system” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what the “axle load measuring system” is and what structure corresponds to the “axle load measuring system”. The “axle load measuring system” is completely undefined in terms of structure in the specification of the present application, and is only shown as a blank box labeled “16” in FIG. 1, with no disclosure of what structure corresponds to this blank box.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 3, the limitation “an axle load measuring system” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what the “axle load measuring system” is and what structure corresponds to the “axle load measuring system”. The “axle load measuring system” is completely undefined in terms of structure in the specification of the present application, and is only shown as a blank box labeled “16” in FIG. 1, with no disclosure of what structure corresponds to this blank box.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 7, the limitation “an axle load measuring system” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what the “axle load measuring system” is and what structure corresponds to the “axle load measuring system”. The “axle load measuring system” is completely undefined in terms of structure in the specification of the present application, and is only shown as a blank box labeled “16” in FIG. 1, with no disclosure of what structure corresponds to this blank box.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 9, the limitation “an axle load measuring system” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what the “axle load measuring system” is and what structure corresponds to the “axle load measuring system”. The “axle load measuring system” is completely undefined in terms of structure in the specification of the present application, and is only shown as a blank box labeled “16” in FIG. 1, with no disclosure of what structure corresponds to this blank box.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
See below.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A device for checking the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system determinable via a sensor system, wherein the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle is determinable as a first total axle load value using the axle load measuring system, the device comprising:
a comparator;
a computing unit;
said computing unit being configured to compute a second total axle load value;
said comparator being configured to have the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value supplied thereto;
said comparator being configured to carry out a comparison between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value; and,
said comparator being configured, if there is a sufficiently large difference between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value, to at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator.
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. Specifically, regarding the “checking the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system” limitation, a user may mentally check the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system. Furthermore, regarding the “wherein the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle is determinable as a first total axle load value” limitation, a user may mentally determine the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle as a first total axle load value, where the Examiner notes that “determinable” is directed to an intended use and does not actually require any determination. Furthermore, regarding the “compute a second total axle load value” limitation, a user may mentally compute a second total axle load value. Furthermore, regarding the “carry out a comparison between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value” limitation, a user may mentally carry out a comparison between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value. Furthermore, regarding the “if there is a sufficiently large difference between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value, to at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator” limitation, a user may mentally, if there is a sufficiently large difference between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value, at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator, where generating an error message encompasses simply creation of an error message, where this may be performed mentally. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A device for checking the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system determinable via a sensor system, wherein the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle is determinable as a first total axle load value using the axle load measuring system, the device comprising:
a comparator;
a computing unit;
said computing unit being configured to compute a second total axle load value;
said comparator being configured to have the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value supplied thereto;
said comparator being configured to carry out a comparison between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value; and,
said comparator being configured, if there is a sufficiently large difference between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value, to at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “determinable via a sensor system”, the “sensor system” is not required as a component of the “device” of the preamble to which the claim is directed, therefore, the “sensor system” merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “sensor system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine values which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “using the axle load measuring system”, the “axle load measuring system” is not required as a component of the “device” of the preamble to which the claim is directed, therefore, the “axle load measuring system” merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “axle load measuring system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine the “first total axle load value” therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, regarding the additional limitation “A device for”, the limitation “for” indicates that the “checking” is an intended use that does not further limit the claim. Regarding the additional limitations “the device comprising” and “a comparator” and “a computing unit”, the “comparator” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to a generic computer to perform the limitation “said comparator being configured to have the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value supplied thereto”, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “comparator” merely automates the “carry out a comparison” limitation and the “at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator” limitation, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional limitation “a comparator” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Furthermore, regarding the additional limitation “a computing unit”, the “computing unit” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the “compute a second total axle load value” limitation, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional limitation “a computing unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation “determinable via a sensor system” merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “sensor system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine values which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional limitation “using the axle load measuring system” merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “axle load measuring system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine the “first total axle load value” therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea, the “comparator” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, and the “computing unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 4-6 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 4-6 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claim.
As per Claim 2, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The limitation “wherein said computing unit is configured to have a current vehicle acceleration value and a current drive force value acting on the vehicle supplied thereto” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, a person may mentally “compute a vehicle total mass including cargo from the current vehicle acceleration value and the current drive force value acting on the vehicle as well as a formula m = F/a” and may mentally “compute the second total axle load value from the vehicle total mass minus a total mass of all vehicle axles mFA”, therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 4, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The “optical signal generator” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the “error message”), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 5, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The “wirelessly operating transmitting and receiving unit” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting the “error message”), and amounts to merely transmission of data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. Furthermore, the limitations “to a wirelessly operating stationary transmitting and receiving unit, which is connected to a vehicle-external computer” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, which is clear from the use of the word “transmittable” which indicates an intended use of the “error message” and the “wirelessly operating transmitting and receiving unit”. Furthermore, the “wirelessly operating stationary transmitting and receiving unit, which is connected to a vehicle-external computer” do not further limit the “device” of the preamble, and therefore at best merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 6, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The “event memory” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data that is also capable of allowing for retrieving the data) and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and where storing data amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 3 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 3 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 3 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 3 recites:
A device for checking the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system determinable via a sensor system, wherein the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle is determinable as a first total axle load value using the axle load measuring system, the device comprising:
a comparator;
a computing unit;
said computing unit being configured to compute a first vehicle mass value by addition of the first total axle load value and a value of a total mass of all vehicle axles,
said computing unit being configured to compute a second vehicle mass value including cargo computable via the computing unit from values of a vehicle acceleration and a drive force acting on the vehicle as well as a formula m = F/a;
said comparator being configured to have the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value supplied thereto and to carry out a comparison between the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value; and,
said comparator being further configured, if there is a sufficiently large difference between the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value, to at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator.
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. Specifically, regarding the “checking the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system” limitation, a user may mentally check the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system. Furthermore, regarding the “wherein the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle is determinable as a first total axle load value” limitation, a user may mentally determine the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle as a first total axle load value, where the Examiner notes that “determinable” is directed to an intended use and does not actually require any determination. Furthermore, regarding the “compute a first vehicle mass value by addition of the first total axle load value and a value of a total mass of all vehicle axles” limitation, a user may mentally compute a first vehicle mass value by addition of the first total axle load value and a value of a total mass of all vehicle axles. Furthermore, regarding the “compute a second vehicle mass value including cargo computable via the computing unit from values of a vehicle acceleration and a drive force acting on the vehicle as well as a formula m = F/a” limitation, a user may mentally compute a second vehicle mass value including cargo computable via the computing unit from values of a vehicle acceleration and a drive force acting on the vehicle as well as a formula m = F/a. Furthermore, regarding the “carry out a comparison between the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value” limitation, a user may mentally carry out a comparison between the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value. Furthermore, regarding the “if there is a sufficiently large difference between the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value, to at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator”, a user may mentally, if there is a sufficiently large difference between the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value, to at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator, where generating an error message encompasses simply creation of an error message, where this may be performed mentally. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A device for checking the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system determinable via a sensor system, wherein the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle is determinable as a first total axle load value using the axle load measuring system, the device comprising:
a comparator;
a computing unit;
said computing unit being configured to compute a first vehicle mass value by addition of the first total axle load value and a value of a total mass of all vehicle axles,
said computing unit being configured to compute a second vehicle mass value including cargo computable via the computing unit from values of a vehicle acceleration and a drive force acting on the vehicle as well as a formula m = F/a;
said comparator being configured to have the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value supplied thereto and to carry out a comparison between the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value; and,
said comparator being further configured, if there is a sufficiently large difference between the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value, to at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “determinable via a sensor system”, the “sensor system” is not required as a component of the “device” of the preamble to which the claim is directed, therefore, the “sensor system” merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “sensor system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine values which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “using the axle load measuring system”, the “axle load measuring system” is not required as a component of the “device” of the preamble to which the claim is directed, therefore, the “axle load measuring system” merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “axle load measuring system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine the “first total axle load value” therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, regarding the additional limitation of a “device” comprising “a comparator” and “a computing unit”, the “comparator” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to a generic computer to perform the limitation “said comparator being configured to have the first vehicle mass value and the second vehicle mass value supplied thereto”, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “comparator” merely automates the “carry out a comparison” limitation and the “at least one of generate an error message and activate a signal generator” limitation, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional limitation “a comparator” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Furthermore, regarding the additional limitation “a computing unit”, the “computing unit” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the “compute a first vehicle mass value” limitation and the “compute a second vehicle mass value” limitation, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional limitation “a computing unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 3 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation “determinable via a sensor system”, merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “sensor system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine values which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional limitation “using the axle load measuring system” merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “axle load measuring system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine the “first total axle load value” therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea, the “comparator” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, and the “computing unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 3 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 7 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 7 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 7 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 7 recites:
A method for checking the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system determinable via a sensor system, using which the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle is determinable as a first total axle load value, having the following method steps:
a) determining a first total axle load value, which indicates a measured value of a mass that rests on all vehicle axles;
b) calculating a vehicle total mass including cargo using the formula m = F/a, wherein the value stands for the current vehicle acceleration and the value stands for the drive force currently acting on the vehicle;
c) calculating a second total axle load value using the formula GA2 = (F/a) - mFA, wherein the value mFA stands for the total mass of all considered vehicle axles;
d) comparing the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value; and,
e) generating an error message if a sufficiently large difference is established between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value.
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. Specifically, regarding the “checking the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system” limitation, a user may mentally check the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system. Furthermore, regarding the “the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle is determinable as a first total axle load value” limitation, a user may mentally determine the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle as a first total axle load value, where the Examiner notes that “determinable” is directed to an intended use and does not actually require any determination. Furthermore, regarding the “determining a first total axle load value, which indicates a measured value of a mass that rests on all vehicle axles” limitation, a user may mentally determine a first total axle load value, which indicates a measured value of a mass that rests on all vehicle axles. Furthermore, regarding the “calculating a vehicle total mass including cargo using the formula m = F/a, wherein the value stands for the current vehicle acceleration and the value stands for the drive force currently acting on the vehicle” limitation, a user may mentally calculate a vehicle total mass including cargo using the formula m = F/a, wherein the value stands for the current vehicle acceleration and the value stands for the drive force currently acting on the vehicle. Furthermore, regarding the “calculating a second total axle load value using the formula GA2 = (F/a) - mFA, wherein the value mFA stands for the total mass of all considered vehicle axles” limitation, a user may mentally calculate a second total axle load value using the formula GA2 = (F/a) - mFA, wherein the value mFA stands for the total mass of all considered vehicle axles. Furthermore, regarding the “comparing the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value” limitation, a user may mentally compare the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value. Furthermore, regarding the “generating an error message if a sufficiently large difference is established between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value” limitation, a user may mentally generate an error message if a sufficiently large difference is established between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value, where generating an error message encompasses simply creation of an error message, where this may be performed mentally. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for checking the plausibility of measured values of an axle load measuring system determinable via a sensor system, using which the axle load resting on all axles of a vehicle is determinable as a first total axle load value, having the following method steps:
a) determining a first total axle load value, which indicates a measured value of a mass that rests on all vehicle axles;
b) calculating a vehicle total mass including cargo using the formula m = F/a, wherein the value stands for the current vehicle acceleration and the value stands for the drive force currently acting on the vehicle;
c) calculating a second total axle load value using the formula GA2 = (F/a) - mFA, wherein the value mFA stands for the total mass of all considered vehicle axles;
d) comparing the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value; and,
e) generating an error message if a sufficiently large difference is established between the first total axle load value and the second total axle load value.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “determinable via a sensor system”, the claim is a method claim and does not require any specific system to perform the method using the “sensor system” as a component, therefore, the “sensor system” merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “sensor system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine values which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “using which”, under the interpretation that this additional limitation is attempting to refer to the “axle load measuring system”, the claim is a method claim and does not require any specific system to perform the method using the “axle load measuring system”, therefore, the “axle load measuring system” merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and additionally, the “axle load measuring system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a generic computer used to determine the “first total axle load value” therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered