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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,280 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter across the application substantially covers the same subject matter.
For example, in comparing independent claim 1 of each application, the claimed “simulating a plurality of operating states for one or more second vehicle combinations, wherein each operating state is based on: one or more operational parameters related to physical properties of the one or more second vehicle combinations” is substantially similar to the subject matter of claim 1 of co-pending application 18/990,280, which claims a model to “determine a safe torque allocation for a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: perform a plurality of simulations for motion of the vehicle combination based on a plurality of torque allocations and a plurality of operating points for the vehicle combination.” While not identical recitations, it is clear that the subject matter of these claims overlaps where the instant claim to simulating operating states is substantially the same as a model which uses operating points as a basis for simulation. Both claims also rely on vehicle combinations within the simulation environment to determine a torque limit/allocation which are later classified into safe/unsafe categorization in each of the claims. Thus, each of the independent claims, though differently worded, substantially cover the same subject matter. Since the application are commonly owned, the instant application and U.S. Application No. 18/990,280 are subject to a provisional, non-statutory double patenting rejection.
The other claims listed in the rejection share similar outcomes when the claims are compared to each other. For example, both applications recite axle loads as operating points/parameters in claim 3 of each application. Both claim sets leverage friction coefficients as one of the operating points/parameters. The applications share classification claims that are similar and the envelope is part of the safety allocation/limit determinations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a tractor unit and trailing unit in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, and 15.
The tractor unit is defined at least in the description of Fig. 1 and 3 wherein,
“the tractor unit 12 is generally the foremost unit in a vehicle combination, and comprises the cabin for the driver, including steering controls, dashboard displays and the like. Generally, the tractor unit 12 is used to provide propulsion power for the vehicle combination 10. The at least one trailing unit 14 is generally used to store goods that are being transported by the vehicle combination. The at least one trailing unit 14 may be a truck, trailer, dolly and the like. The at least one trailing unit 14 may also provide propulsion to the vehicle combination 10. For example, the trailing unit 14 may comprise one or more electric motors configured to drive one or more axles or individual wheels of the trailing unit 14. A trailing unit 14 without a front axle is known as a semi-trailer.”;
“the tractor unit 12 comprises a number of tractor axles 16, and the trailing unit 14 comprises a number of trailer axles 18. At least one of the axles on each unit may be a driven axle, meaning that it is coupled to a propulsion system to drive the vehicle combination 10 forward. The propulsion systems may include traditional propulsion systems coupled to driven axles of the tractor unit 12, and/or electric motors coupled to driven axles of the tractor unit 12 or the trailing unit 14.”; and
“Whilst three tractor axles 16 and three trailer axles 18 are shown, it will be appreciated that any suitable number of axles may be provide on the tractor unit 12 and the at least one trailing unit 14. It will also be appreciated that any number of the tractor axles 16 and/or trailer axles 18 may be driven axles, including zero (i.e. one of the units may include at least one driven axle while the other does not). Furthermore, further trailing units 14 may be provided connected to each other. This gives rise to different types and designations of vehicle combinations.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowable except for the outstanding provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection proffered above rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, and 17 as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,280. A timely filed terminal disclaimer will place this application in condition for allowance.
The prior art of record, either taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach or suggest the combination of features recited by Applicant in claim 1. Specifically, a search of the prior art revealed prior art documents U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0121191 to Rust et al. and U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0339455 to Weston et al. While these documents reveal vehicle tractor/trailer combinations, simulated operating states, and various parameters related to driving scenarios, the claimed torque limit determination coupled with the safety classification aspects of the invention are not disclosed by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669