DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application, which was filed December 22, 2024 as a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/067170, filed June 23, 2022. After a preliminary amendment wherein claims 1-20 were amended, claims 1-20 remain in the application.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer program, and products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) without any structural recitations.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to “a computer readable medium” which, in its broadest reasonable interpretation, incorporates transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in the form of mental processes executing mathematical concepts without significantly more. The claims recite lengthy characterizations of the effective forces being exerted between a tractor and trailer as expressed by the mass of the trailer, the angle between the trailer and the horizontal, and the angle between the longitudinal axes of the trailer and the tractor, and comparing/balancing the threshold of the force between the trailer and the tractor with the available frictional forces between the ground supporting the tractor and the ground engaging members of the tractor, i.e. the tires. Similar mathematical relationships are claimed using lateral angles of inclination and inertial forces exerted by and between the trailer and the tractor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the mathematical computations are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, which amounts to no more than determining to “apply it”, e.g. as found in claim 12 wherein a braking force less than the determined “threshold value” is applied. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no particular computational elements are claimed beyond what is perceived to be a generic computer executing program code, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD J. WALLACE whose telephone number is
(313) 446-4915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665