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 § 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 8-19 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.
Each of claims 1-30 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1-30 recites at least one step or instruction for an abstract idea, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Claim 1 recites, A control system for determining a reference side area for a vehicle entity,
the vehicle entity being
a vehicle or a vehicle trailer and
having a nominal vehicle entity side area,
the reference side area being adapted
to be multiplied with a side force coefficient for determining a side force parameter proportional to a wind side force load imparted on the vehicle entity and/or
to be multiplied with a lift coefficient for determining a lift parameter proportional to a wind lift load imparted on the vehicle entity and/or
to be combined with a drag coefficient for determining a drag load imparted on the vehicle entity,
the vehicle entity comprising
a load surface adapted to receive a material load such that at least a portion of the material load can be exposed to wind loads,
the load surface being associated with a load surface area and a load surface length;
the vehicle entity having
a longitudinal extension in a longitudinal direction,
a transversal extension in a transversal direction, and
a vertical extension in a vertical direction such that when the vehicle entity is supported by a horizontally extending ground surface,
the vertical direction is parallel to a normal of the horizontally extending ground surface,
the longitudinal direction corresponding to an intended direction of travel of the vehicle entity and
the transversal direction being perpendicular to each one of the longitudinal direction and the vertical direction; and
the load surface area extending in a plane,
the normal of which is parallel to the vertical direction,
the load surface length extending in the longitudinal direction,
each one of the reference side area and the nominal vehicle entity side area extending in a plane,
the normal of which is parallel to the transversal direction,
the control system being adapted to:
receive density information indicative of a density of material loaded onto the load surface;
receive weight information indicative of a weight of material loaded onto the load surface;
use the density information, the weight information, the load surface area and the load surface length in order to determine a material load surface area,
the material load surface area extending in a plane, the normal of which is parallel to the transversal direction; and
use the material load surface area and the nominal vehicle entity side area in order to determine the reference side area.
Here, the steps of
the reference side area being adapted
to be multiplied with a side force coefficient for determining a side force parameter proportional to a wind side force load imparted on the vehicle entity and/or
to be multiplied with a lift coefficient for determining a lift parameter proportional to a wind lift load imparted on the vehicle entity and/or
to be combined with a drag coefficient for determining a drag load imparted on the vehicle entity, and
the control system being adapted to:
receive density information indicative of a density of material loaded onto the load surface;
receive weight information indicative of a weight of material loaded onto the load surface;
use the density information, the weight information, the load surface area and the load surface length in order to determine a material load surface area,
the material load surface area extending in a plane, the normal of which is parallel to the transversal direction
use the material load surface area and the nominal vehicle entity side area in order to determine the reference side area.
as recited in claim 1, comprise pre-solution data gathering as well as the abstract ideas of performing the mathematical operations of calculating/determining estimated/measured values (such as a reference side area) and as such are considered to be an abstract idea (i.e. a mental process), and as such is ineligible subject matter.
Accordingly, each of claims 1 and 18 recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A control system for determining a reference side area for a vehicle entity,
the vehicle entity being
a vehicle or a vehicle trailer and
having a nominal vehicle entity side area,
the reference side area being adapted
to be multiplied with a side force coefficient for determining a side force parameter proportional to a wind side force load imparted on the vehicle entity and/or
to be multiplied with a lift coefficient for determining a lift parameter proportional to a wind lift load imparted on the vehicle entity and/or
to be combined with a drag coefficient for determining a drag load imparted on the vehicle entity,
the vehicle entity comprising
a load surface adapted to receive a material load such that at least a portion of the material load can be exposed to wind loads,
the load surface being associated with a load surface area and a load surface length;
the vehicle entity having
a longitudinal extension in a longitudinal direction,
a transversal extension in a transversal direction, and
a vertical extension in a vertical direction such that when the vehicle entity is supported by a horizontally extending ground surface,
the vertical direction is parallel to a normal of the horizontally extending ground surface,
the longitudinal direction corresponding to an intended direction of travel of the vehicle entity and
the transversal direction being perpendicular to each one of the longitudinal direction and the vertical direction; and
the load surface area extending in a plane,
the normal of which is parallel to the vertical direction,
the load surface length extending in the longitudinal direction,
each one of the reference side area and the nominal vehicle entity side area extending in a plane,
the normal of which is parallel to the transversal direction,
the control system being adapted to:
receive density information indicative of a density of material loaded onto the load surface;
receive weight information indicative of a weight of material loaded onto the load surface;
use the density information, the weight information, the load surface area and the load surface length in order to determine a material load surface area,
the material load surface area extending in a plane, the normal of which is parallel to the transversal direction; and
use the material load surface area and the nominal vehicle entity side area in order to determine the reference side area.
The recited limitations of
a control system
a vehicle entity
a reference side area
a nominal vehicle side area
a load surface
a longitudinal extension
a transversal extension
as recited in claim 1, are additional claim elements, however, these additional claim elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim.
Specifically, the recitation of the following claim limitation
the reference side area being adapted
to be multiplied with a side force coefficient for determining a side force parameter proportional to a wind side force load imparted on the vehicle entity and/or
to be multiplied with a lift coefficient for determining a lift parameter proportional to a wind lift load imparted on the vehicle entity and/or
to be combined with a drag coefficient for determining a drag load imparted on the vehicle entity, and
the control system being adapted to:
receive density information indicative of a density of material loaded onto the load surface;
receive weight information indicative of a weight of material loaded onto the load surface;
use the density information, the weight information, the load surface area and the load surface length in order to determine a material load surface area,
the material load surface area extending in a plane, the normal of which is parallel to the transversal direction
is merely pre-solution data gathering. Furthermore, the courts have held that using mathematical algorithms/relationships to update or convert data is ineligible subject matter. See e.g. Parker v. Flook; Gottschaulk v. Benson
The claim limitations of
use the material load surface area and the nominal vehicle entity side area in order to determine the reference side area
is merely post solution activity, which fails to meaning limit the claim (note: the claim does not require that anything actually happens after determining the reference side area).
The claims also include additional structural elements (a control system, a vehicle entity, a reference side area, a nominal vehicle side area, a load surface, a longitudinal extension, a transversal extension) which are well-known and understood, routine, and conventional elements to those having ordinary skill within the relevant art. These elements do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Mutatis mutandis claim 18.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent claims 2-17 and 19-30 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 1 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims 2-17 and 19-30) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent claims 1 and 18), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: (a control system, a vehicle entity, a reference side area, a nominal vehicle side area, a load surface, a longitudinal extension, a transversal extension) are generically recited structural elements and generically recited computer elements in independent claims 1 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a control system, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of claims 1-30 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a control system, a vehicle entity, a reference side area, a nominal vehicle side area, a load surface, a longitudinal extension, a transversal extension as recited in independent claims 1 and 18.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed structural components (i.e. a vehicle entity, a reference side area, a nominal vehicle side area, a load surface, a longitudinal extension, a transversal extension) and generically claimed computer components (a control system) which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks (such as mathematical functions/operations (including comparing estimated/measured values)). The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The Applicant’s specification, in [page 11, ln 16-19], states that “Moreover, as a further general remark, although the control system 24 is schematically illustrated as a control unit in Fig. 1, the control system 24 in accordance with the present invention may comprise one or more control units (not shown) connected to each other and operating together." This being the case, it seems that the control system is a generic control system, which is well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “control system” is reasonably construed as to constitute a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 1-30 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system and method of claims 2-17 and 19-30, respectively, are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of claims 1-30 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claims 1 and 18 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 1-30 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1-30 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-30 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-30 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.
In re claims 1-30, claims 1, 9-10, 18 and 26-27 all use the term “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if the limitations following the term are required. Claims 2-8, 11-17, 19-25 and 28-30 are further rejected for dependence upon a rejected claim.
In re claims 5, 12, 22 and 29, claims 5, 12, 22 and 29 all use the term “preferably” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if the limitations following the term are required.
In re claims 13 and 30, claims 13 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: some sort of actuator, solenoid, hydraulic cylinder or some other device/mechanism that causes the vehicle entity to incline, decline or to be pitched at an angle on a windward side.
In re claims 13 and 30, the phrase "such that the vehicle entity assumes a condition" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In re claims 13 and 30, claims 13 and 30 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. Specifically, since claims 13 and 30 lack some sort of actuator, solenoid, hydraulic cylinder or some other device/mechanism (and corresponding hydraulic/pneumatic/electrical circuit and necessary components) that causes the vehicle entity to incline, decline or to be pitched at an angle on a windward side, it is unclear in the claim how the vehicle entity can assume a condition with a static inclination towards a windward side of the vehicle entity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-17 and 19-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art Kuhnleet al. (DE 102020004986 (A1)) is considered to be the closest art and teaches inter alia
A body arrangement (100) comprising a chassis device (101) and a cabin device (101) is described, the cabin device i (101) being movable in the direction of action of a gravity (103) above the chassis device is arranged; characterized in that the body arrangement further comprises a body condition measuring device (106) and an evaluation device (107), wherein the body condition measuring device (106) is set up, an angular difference between the cabin device (102) and the chassis device (101) and to transmit it in the form of an angular difference signal to the evaluation device (107) and / or the body condition measuring device (107) being set up to accelerate the chassis device (101) and / or the cabin device ( 102) to be determined and transmitted to the evaluation device (107) in the form of an acceleration signal, the evaluation device (107) engaging it is icht to characterize a wind (201) which acts on the body arrangement (100) from the transmitted signal / signals, but fails to further teach, as required by claims 1 and 18,
a control system/method being adapted to:
receive density information indicative of a density of material loaded onto the load surface;
receive weight information indicative of a weight of material loaded onto the load surface;
use the density information, the weight information, the load surface area and the load surface length in order to determine a material load surface area,
the material load surface area extending in a plane, the normal of which is parallel to the transversal direction; and
use the material load surface area and the nominal vehicle entity side area in order to determine the reference side area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747