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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the preliminary amendment filed 22 December 2024.
Claims 1-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 21-25 have been canceled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification indicates on page 14, line 14, that the Ftractor,ground TTR is shown in Figure 2. However, the examiner notes that Ftractor,ground TTR does not appear to be shown in the Figure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the preamble of claim 1 contains intended use language by reciting a “method for determining a tractor longitudinal force threshold value (F ret, threshold LTR) for a tractor longitudinal retardation force (F ret LTR) that can be imparted on a tractor of a vehicle combination comprising said tractor and a trailer for retarding said vehicle combination”. The examiner notes that as written, the tractor longitudinal retardation force does not need to be imparted on the tractor of the vehicle combination.
Further, the examiner notes that the claim is a method claim, however, the claim includes a lengthy preamble that recites structural elements. It is unclear if the structural elements are afforded patentable weight in the method claim. If a preamble is merely a statement of intended use it is generally not given patentable weight. The preamble should be kept short and should ideally identify a single statutory class of invention. Language intended to limit the claims should be placed in the body of the claim and not the preamble. See MPEP 2111 II. The examiner recommends amending the claim to comport with US practice, including the recitation of the arrangement of the tractor and trailer in the body of the claim and connecting the elements to the method limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 20-21, “each wheel of said set of set of tractor wheels comprising a tire,” which should be replaced with “each wheel of said set of tractor wheels comprising a tire,” to remove the redundant “of set”.
Claim 1 lines 40-41 recites “said set of set of tractor wheels” which should be replaced with “said set of tractor wheels,” to remove the redundant “of set”.
Claim 2 recites “said the set of tractor wheels” in lines 1-2. The examiner recommends using either “the” or “said”.
Claim 16 , line 3 recites “on said wheel on the on the basis” which should be replaced with “on said wheel on the basis” to remove the redundant “on the”.
Claim 17 recites “retardation force tractor longitudinal force threshold value (F ret, threshold LTR)” which should recite “tractor longitudinal retardation force threshold value (F ret, threshold LTR)”
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 is 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claims are replete with indefiniteness issues. While the examiner has attempted to identify all of them, any newly identified 112(a)/(b) rejections will not be considered a new basis of rejection because the Applicant initial submission has significant errors which cause the claims to be difficult to examine.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current mass" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner recommends reciting “a current mass”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current or predicted operating condition” in lines 27-28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner recommends reciting “a current operating condition and a predicted operating condition”.
Claim 2 recites “wherein each wheel of said the set of tractor wheels has a wheel longitudinal direction (Lw) being parallel to said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead, as well as a wheel transversal direction (Tw) being parallel to said tractor transversal direction (TTR) when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead” in lines 1-5. It is unclear what is intended by “as well as” in the context of the phrase. For clarity, the examiner recommends reciting “wherein each wheel of said the set of tractor wheels has a wheel longitudinal direction (Lw) being parallel to said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead,” and “wherein each wheel of said the set of tractor wheels has a wheel transversal direction (Tw) being parallel to said tractor transversal direction (TTR) when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead”.
Claim 2 recites “said feature” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-6 have the same limitation and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites “a subset of said set of tractor wheels” in line 6. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 which previously recited “a subset of said set of tractor wheels” in line 36. It is not clear if the recitation of a subset of tractor wheels recited in claim 2 is the same subset as that recited in claim 1. Claims 3-5 have the same recitation and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 4 recites “the effective rolling radius” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “determining said tractor tire lateral force limit value further comprises the following for each wheel of at least a subset of said set of tractor wheels: determining a slip angle value (α) using said wheel longitudinal velocity value (vLW) and said wheel transversal velocity value (vTW) preferably by dividing said wheel transversal velocity value (vTW) by said wheel longitudinal velocity value (vLW), more preferred by calculating the arctangent for an argument corresponding to the ratio between said wheel transversal velocity value (vTW) and said wheel longitudinal velocity value (vLW) multiplied by minus one”. The examiner notes the term “preferably” and “more preferred” cause indefiniteness. It is not clear to the examiner if the scope of the claim requires the determining by dividing the wheel transversal velocity by the wheel longitudinal velocity or by calculating the arctangent as claimed, or if can be determined by another method not recited explicitly in the claim. Claims 13, 15, and 16 have a similar recitation and are rejected for the same reasons. Specifically, in these claims , it is unclear if the determination steps are to be made for at least one or each of the wheel or wheels.
Claim 5 recites “the ratio between said wheel transversal velocity value (vTW) and said wheel longitudinal velocity value (vLW)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “said reference lateral force” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “reference lateral force value” was previously recited but not “reference lateral force”.
Claim 7 recites “the inclination angle” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10 and 20 have a similar recitation and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 11 recites “multiplying each force value indicative of a force, in said trailer longitudinal direction, with the sine of said articulation angle value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “each force value of a force” in the claim. Further, there are many forces recited in the claims. It is not clear what “a force” is referring to in claim 11. Further, it is not clear if the multiplying is multiplying each force is separately with the sine of the articulation value or if the product is each force multiplied together and also with the articulation angle. Claim 12 has similar recitation and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 recites “wherein each wheel axle is connected to individual wheels of said set of tractor wheels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “individual wheels” in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 13 is dependent from claim 1 which recites “a set of tractor wheels adapted to engage the ground supporting said tractor, each wheel of said set of set of tractor wheels”
Claim 13 recites “said trailer lateral force value (FTTRtrailer2tractor)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15 and 16 have a similar recitation and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 13 “using a tire model for determining a tire lateral force limit, taking at least one characteristic of the tire into account”. Claim 13 depends from claim 1, which recites “determining a tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR) using a tire model for determining a tire lateral force limit”. It is not clear if the tire model of claim 13 is the same or different than that recited in claim 1. Further, it is not clear if the “tire lateral force limit” of claim 13 is the same or different than that recited in claim 1.
The term “summarizing” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “summarizing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites “summarizing the axle tractor longitudinal force threshold value … for each wheel axle in said set of wheel axles in order to obtain said tractor longitudinal force threshold value”. It is not clear what is intended by the phrase “summarizing the axle tractor longitudinal force threshold value … for each wheel axle in said set of wheel axles in order to obtain said tractor longitudinal force threshold value”. Does this mean that each axle tractor longitudinal force threshold value is determined for each wheel axle and it is provided? Or is it averaged? Or some other method of “summarizing”? Further, the examiner notes that claim 13 does not require that the determination of the tractor axle lateral force limit value or the horizontal axle friction force is determined for each wheel. It appears that these values are only determined for “at least one” of the wheels based on the term “preferably” as noted above. Therefore it is not clear how the summarizing can be done for each wheel axle.
Claim 14 recites “indicative of a trailer lateral force” . Claim 14 depends from claim 13 which previously recited “indicative of a trailer lateral force”. It is not clear if the trailer lateral force of claim 14 is the same or different than that recited in claim 13.
Claim 14 recites “the centre of gravity of said tractor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “from the connection point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 “using a tire model for determining a tire lateral force limit, taking at least one characteristic of the tire into account”. Claim 15 depends from claim 1, which recites “determining a tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR) using a tire model for determining a tire lateral force limit”. It is not clear if the tire model of claim 15 is the same or different than that recited in claim 1. Further, it is not clear if the “tire lateral force limit” of claim 15 is the same or different than that recited in claim 1.
The term “summarizing” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “summarizing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 15 recites “summarizing the wheel tractor longitudinal force threshold … for each wheel in said set of wheel wheels in order to obtain said tractor longitudinal force threshold value”
It is not clear what is intended by the phrase “summarizing the wheel tractor longitudinal force threshold … for each wheel in said set of wheel wheels in order to obtain said tractor longitudinal force threshold value”. Does this mean that wheel tractor longitudinal force threshold value is determined for each wheel and it is provided? Or is it averaged? Or some other method of “summarizing”. Further, the examiner notes that claim 15 does not require that the determination of the horizonal wheel friction force . It appears that this value is only determined for “at least one” of the wheels based on the term “preferably” as noted above. Therefore it is not clear how the summarizing can be done for each wheel in the set of wheels as claimed.
Claim 16 recites “from each one of a plurality of wheels, preferable from each wheel, in said set of set of tractor wheels”. It is not clear if the scope of the claim requires each wheel of the set of wheels or a plurality of the set of wheels (more than one). Further it is not clear if the plurality of wheels is the same or different than the set of wheels recited and how this differs from the subset of wheels recited in claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “indicative of a trailer lateral force”. Claim 16 depends from claim 15 which previously recited “indicative of a trailer lateral force”. It is not clear if the trailer lateral force of claim 16 is the same or different than that recited in claim 15.
Claim 16 recites “the centre of gravity of said tractor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “from the connection point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “a vehicle combination”, “a tractor” and “a trailer”. Claim 17 depends from claim 1 which previously recited “a vehicle combination”, “a tractor” and “a trailer”. It is unclear if these elements are the same or different than those recited in claim 1.
Claim 17 recites “a retardation force tractor longitudinal force threshold value (F ret, threshold LTR)” appears to be the same as the “tractor longitudinal retardation force threshold value (F ret, threshold LTR)” recited in claim 1 as discussed in the objections above. The examiner notes that claim 17 depends from claim 1 which previously recited “a tractor longitudinal force threshold value (F ret, threshold LTR).” Thus, it is not clear if the force recited in claim 17 is the same or different than that recited in claim 1. Further, if it is different, the examiner notes that Applicant uses the same variable to describe both with creates ambiguity in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “a requested braking force”. Claim 19 depends from claim 18 which previously recited “a requested braking force”. It is not clear if the requested braking force of claim 19 is the same or different than that of claim 18. Claim 20 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 19 recites “the current mass of said tractor” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “a trailer mass value”. Claim 19 depends from claim 1 which previously recited “a trailer mass value”. It is not clear if the trailer mass value of claim 19 is the same or different from that claimed in claim 1.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed a method and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a tractor longitudinal force threshold value (F ret, threshold LTR) for a tractor longitudinal retardation force (F ret LTR) that can be imparted on a tractor of a vehicle combination comprising said tractor and a trailer for retarding said vehicle combination,
said trailer having a trailer longitudinal extension in a trailer longitudinal direction (LTL), a trailer lateral extension in a trailer lateral direction (TTL) and a trailer vertical extension in a trailer vertical direction (VTL), wherein said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) corresponds to an intended direction of travel of said trailer when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead, said trailer vertical direction (VTL) corresponds to a direction of a normal to a planar surface supporting the trailer and said trailer lateral direction (TTL) being perpendicular to each one of said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) and said trailer vertical direction (VTL),
said tractor having a tractor longitudinal extension in a tractor longitudinal direction (LTR), a tractor lateral extension in a tractor lateral direction (TTR) and a tractor vertical extension in a tractor vertical direction (VTR), wherein said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) corresponds to an intended direction of travel of said tractor when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead, said tractor vertical direction (VTR) corresponds to a direction of a normal to a planar surface supporting the tractor and said tractor lateral direction (TTR) being perpendicular to each one of said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) and said tractor vertical direction (VTR), wherein said tractor longitudinal retardation force (F ret LTR) extends in a direction parallel to said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR), said tractor comprising a set of tractor wheels adapted to engage the ground supporting said tractor , each wheel of said set of set of tractor wheels comprising a tire,
said method comprising:
determining a tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR), indicative of a tractor lateral force being or predicted to be imparted on said tractor, using a tractor lateral force value determination procedure comprising:
obtaining a trailer mass value (mtrailer) indicative of the current mass of said trailer ;
obtaining a trailer operating value indicative of the current or predicted operating condition of said trailer ;
determining an articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59]) indicative of a current articulation angle between said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) and said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL),and
determining said tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) using said trailer mass value (mtrailer), said trailer operating value and said articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59]);
determining a tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR) using a tire model for determining a tire lateral force limit, taking at least one characteristic of the tire into account, for each wheel of at least a subset of said set of tractor wheels;
determining a reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) using said tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) and said tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR);
determining a horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total) indicative of a possible total horizontal frictional force obtainable between said ground supporting said tractor and said set of set of tractor wheels, and
determining said tractor longitudinal force threshold value using said reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) and said horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total).
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, the “determining a tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR), indicative of a tractor lateral force being or predicted to be imparted on said tractor, using a tractor lateral force value determination procedure”, “determining an articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59]) indicative of a current articulation angle between said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) and said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL)”, “determining said tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) using said trailer mass value (mtrailer), said trailer operating value and said articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59])”, “determining a tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR) using a tire model for determining a tire lateral force limit, taking at least one characteristic of the tire into account, for each wheel of at least a subset of said set of tractor wheels”, “determining a reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) using said tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) and said tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR);”, “determining a horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total) indicative of a possible total horizontal frictional force obtainable between said ground supporting said tractor and said set of set of tractor wheels,” and “determining said tractor longitudinal force threshold value using said reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) and said horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total)” steps encompass a human using paper and pen to perform the calculations of an articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59]) for data such as sensor data or simulation data, and determining said tractor lateral force value with the obtained trailer mass value (mtrailer), and the trailer operating value and the calculated articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59]), and further using a pen and paper to calculate a tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR) using a tire model for determining a tire lateral force limit, and calculating a reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) using the previously calculated tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) and said tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR), and further calculating with a paper and pen using sensor data or simulation data a horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total) and calculating the tractor longitudinal force threshold value using the previously calculated reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) and previously calculated horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total).
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”):
Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a tractor longitudinal force threshold value (F ret, threshold LTR) for a tractor longitudinal retardation force (F ret LTR) that can be imparted on a tractor of a vehicle combination comprising said tractor and a trailer for retarding said vehicle combination,
said trailer having a trailer longitudinal extension in a trailer longitudinal direction (LTL), a trailer lateral extension in a trailer lateral direction (TTL) and a trailer vertical extension in a trailer vertical direction (VTL), wherein said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) corresponds to an intended direction of travel of said trailer when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead, said trailer vertical direction (VTL) corresponds to a direction of a normal to a planar surface supporting the trailer and said trailer lateral direction (TTL) being perpendicular to each one of said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) and said trailer vertical direction (VTL),
said tractor having a tractor longitudinal extension in a tractor longitudinal direction (LTR), a tractor lateral extension in a tractor lateral direction (TTR) and a tractor vertical extension in a tractor vertical direction (VTR), wherein said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) corresponds to an intended direction of travel of said tractor when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead, said tractor vertical direction (VTR) corresponds to a direction of a normal to a planar surface supporting the tractor and said tractor lateral direction (TTR) being perpendicular to each one of said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) and said tractor vertical direction (VTR), wherein said tractor longitudinal retardation force (F ret LTR) extends in a direction parallel to said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR), said tractor comprising a set of tractor wheels adapted to engage the ground supporting said tractor , each wheel of said set of set of tractor wheels comprising a tire,
said method comprising:
determining a tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR), indicative of a tractor lateral force being or predicted to be imparted on said tractor, using a tractor lateral force value determination procedure comprising:
obtaining a trailer mass value (mtrailer) indicative of the current mass of said trailer ;
obtaining a trailer operating value indicative of the current or predicted operating condition of said trailer ;
determining an articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59]) indicative of a current articulation angle between said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) and said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL),and
determining said tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) using said trailer mass value (mtrailer), said trailer operating value and said articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59]);
determining a tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR) using a tire model for determining a tire lateral force limit, taking at least one characteristic of the tire into account, for each wheel of at least a subset of said set of tractor wheels;
determining a reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) using said tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) and said tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR);
determining a horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total) indicative of a possible total horizontal frictional force obtainable between said ground supporting said tractor and said set of set of tractor wheels, and
determining said tractor longitudinal force threshold value using said reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) and said horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total).
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 limitations of “said trailer having a trailer longitudinal extension in a trailer longitudinal direction (LTL), a trailer lateral extension in a trailer lateral direction (TTL) and a trailer vertical extension in a trailer vertical direction (VTL), wherein said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) corresponds to an intended direction of travel of said trailer when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead, said trailer vertical direction (VTL) corresponds to a direction of a normal to a planar surface supporting the trailer and said trailer lateral direction (TTL) being perpendicular to each one of said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) and said trailer vertical direction (VTL)” , “said tractor having a tractor longitudinal extension in a tractor longitudinal direction (LTR), a tractor lateral extension in a tractor lateral direction (TTR) and a tractor vertical extension in a tractor vertical direction (VTR), wherein said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) corresponds to an intended direction of travel of said tractor when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead, said tractor vertical direction (VTR) corresponds to a direction of a normal to a planar surface supporting the tractor and said tractor lateral direction (TTR) being perpendicular to each one of said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) and said tractor vertical direction (VTR), wherein said tractor longitudinal retardation force (F ret LTR) extends in a direction parallel to said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR), said tractor comprising a set of tractor wheels adapted to engage the ground supporting said tractor , each wheel of said set of set of tractor wheels comprising a tire,”, “obtaining a trailer mass value (mtrailer) indicative of the current mass of said trailer” and “ obtaining a trailer operating value indicative of the current or predicted operating condition of said trailer” the examiner submits that these limitations 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 and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Specifically, the limitations of “obtaining a trailer mass value (mtrailer) indicative of the current mass of said trailer” and “obtaining a trailer operating value indicative of the current or predicted operating condition of said trailer” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, claim 1 is a method and recites the method is “for determining a tractor longitudinal force threshold value (F ret, threshold LTR) for a tractor longitudinal retardation force (F ret LTR) that can be imparted on a tractor of a vehicle combination comprising said tractor and a trailer for retarding said vehicle combination” and then further recites the arrangement of the tractor and trailer (“said trailer having a trailer longitudinal extension in a trailer longitudinal direction (LTL), a trailer lateral extension in a trailer lateral direction (TTL) and a trailer vertical extension in a trailer vertical direction (VTL), wherein said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) corresponds to an intended direction of travel of said trailer when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead, said trailer vertical direction (VTL) corresponds to a direction of a normal to a planar surface supporting the trailer and said trailer lateral direction (TTL) being perpendicular to each one of said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) and said trailer vertical direction (VTL),” and “said tractor having a tractor longitudinal extension in a tractor longitudinal direction (LTR), a tractor lateral extension in a tractor lateral direction (TTR) and a tractor vertical extension in a tractor vertical direction (VTR), wherein said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) corresponds to an intended direction of travel of said tractor when said vehicle combination is travelling straight ahead, said tractor vertical direction (VTR) corresponds to a direction of a normal to a planar surface supporting the tractor and said tractor lateral direction (TTR) being perpendicular to each one of said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) and said tractor vertical direction (VTR), wherein said tractor longitudinal retardation force (F ret LTR) extends in a direction parallel to said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR), said tractor comprising a set of tractor wheels adapted to engage the ground supporting said tractor , each wheel of said set of set of tractor wheels comprising a tire”. First, as noted above, the examiner notes that the claim preamble includes intended use limitation. The examiner notes that these claim limitations generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a tractor trailer combination. Further, limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or filed of use are not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(h). “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).”)
Finally, the examiner notes that the claim includes a lengthy preamble that recites structural elements. The claim is a method claim and it is unclear if the structural elements are afforded patentable weight in a method claim. The MPEP indicates that if a preamble is merely a statement of intended use it is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111 II.
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.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the 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, the additional limitations of “obtaining a trailer mass value (mtrailer) indicative of the current mass of said trailer” and “obtaining a trailer operating value indicative of the current or predicted operating condition of said trailer” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Finally, limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 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. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 2, “the determining” steps are considered a mental process”.
Regarding claim 3, “obtaining” values is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and the further defines the mental process steps of determining.
Regarding claim 4, “the determining” steps are considered a mental process”.
Regarding claim 5, “the determining” steps are considered a mental process”.
Regarding claim 6, “the determining” steps are considered a mental process”.
Regarding claim 7, “obtaining” values is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and the further defines the mental process steps of determining.
Regarding claim 8, “obtaining” values is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and the further defines the mental process steps of determining.
Regarding claim 9, “the determining” steps are considered a mental process”.
Regarding claim 10, “obtaining” values is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and the further defines the mental process steps of determining.
Regarding claim 11, “the multiplying” step is considered a mental process”.
Regarding claim 12, “the multiplying” step is considered a mental process”.
Regarding claim 13, “the determining” steps are considered a mental process”.
Regarding claim 14, “using a…equation” steps are considered a mental process and the inputs are considered insignificant extra-solution activity or further mental process steps if calculated.
Regarding claim 15, “the determining” steps are considered a mental process”.
Regarding claim 16, “using a…equation” steps are considered a mental process and the inputs are considered insignificant extra-solution activity or further mental process steps if calculated.
These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-16 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art uncovered by the examiner is discussed below, however the prior art does not appear to teach or suggest “determining a reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) using said tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) and said tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR); determining a horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total) indicative of a possible total horizontal frictional force obtainable between said ground supporting said tractor and said set of set of tractor wheels, and determining said tractor longitudinal force threshold value using said reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) and said horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total).” in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Laine (US Pub. No. 20240101099) discloses a tractor and trailer arrangement as claimed and further describes obtaining a trailer mass value (mtrailer) indicative of the current mass of said trailer, obtaining a trailer operating value indicative of the current or predicted operating condition of said trailer, determining an articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59]) indicative of a current articulation angle between said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) and said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) (see [0048-0065]).
However, Laine does not teach:
determining a tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR) using a tire model for determining a tire lateral force limit, taking at least one characteristic of the tire into account, for each wheel of at least a subset of said set of tractor wheels;
determining a reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) using said tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) and said tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR);
determining a horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total) indicative of a possible total horizontal frictional force obtainable between said ground supporting said tractor and said set of set of tractor wheels, and
determining said tractor longitudinal force threshold value using said reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) and said horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total).
Boros (US Patent No. 6,223,114) discloses a tractor and trailer arrangement as claimed and further describes obtaining a trailer mass value (mtrailer) indicative of the current mass of said trailer, obtaining a trailer operating value indicative of the current or predicted operating condition of said trailer, determining an articulation angle value ([Symbol font/0x59]) indicative of a current articulation angle between said tractor longitudinal direction (LTR) and said trailer longitudinal direction (LTL) (see col. 4 line 25 through col. 5 line 30).
Further Boros discloses using the mass of the vehicle and the tire stiffness to determine the effective tire lateral forces (see col 4, line 63 through col 5, line 25).
However Boros does not teach:
determining a reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) using said tractor lateral force value (Ftractor TTR) and said tractor tire lateral force limit value (Ftire TTR);
determining a horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total) indicative of a possible total horizontal frictional force obtainable between said ground supporting said tractor and said set of set of tractor wheels, and
determining said tractor longitudinal force threshold value using said reference lateral force value (Ftractor,ref TTR) and said horizontal friction force value (Ftractor total).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gerum et al. (US Patent No. 5,747,683) discloses determining the lateral forces related to the tire (see column 6, lines 45-55).
Morselli (US Pub. No. 2016/0251005) and Gudeta et al (US Patent No. 11,787,418) are cited for showing the angle of articulation in a tractor trailer arrangement.
Drako (US Pub. No. 2016/0318493 is cited for discussing the issue of regenerative braking and jackknifing in tractor trailer arrangements.
Moller US Pub. No. 2025/0368171 is cited for being a copending case with similar subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662