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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6,8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wendling et al US 2011/0276215.
In Re 1-6,8-13, Wendling teaches
1. A computer system for controlling one or more lift axles (120 fig 1 para 16) of a heavy vehicle (optional) or vehicle combination (100,105 fig 1), wherein the computer system comprises processing circuitry (figs 2-3) configured to:
obtain capability data (404 fig 4) indicative of level changing rate limitations (construed as lift axle deployment sensor 216 reading axle stuck or locked with a rate of 0 Hz) for each of the one or more lift axles (paras 30,33,37-38, especially para 30);
obtain road data (400,402, fig 4, 504 fig 5) pertinent to a road section (506 fig 5) along which the vehicle or vehicle combination is to be driven (para 28);
determine a desired lift axle configuration (508 or 512) for the road section based on the obtained road data, and
control (5q4 or 516) a lowering or raising of each of the one or more lift axles based on the indicated level changing rate limitations, obtained capability data, to achieve the desired lift axle configuration at the road section.
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the desired lift axle configuration in accordance with at least one of (Markush):
a desire to reduce overall tire wear (overly compliant includes a desire raising tire to reduce wear); a desire to increase energy efficiency (optional), and a desire to increase steerability of the vehicle or vehicle combination (optional).
3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the road data is indicative of one or more regulated axle load (paras 17,22,33 “For example, the suspension sensors 212 may be used in coordination with the axle deployment sensor 216 in determining whether a vehicle is in compliance with applicable weight regulations.”) restrictions at the road section, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the desired lift axle configuration in accordance with such restrictions.
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein to control the lowering or raising of each of the one or more lift axles comprises using the level changing rate-limitations to determine when to start lowering or raising each of the one or more lift axles to achieve the desired lift axle configuration before (para 42) or (optional) at a start of the road section.
5. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display the capability data and control the lowering or raising of each of the one or more lift axles via a same interface (202 fig 2).
6. The computer system of claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the raising or lowering of each of the one or more lift axles by sending control commands to the interface, the control commands being selected from at least one of (Markush)
i) a set of a desired force (load synonymous with force paras 16,) to be applied by or at the lift axle and a limitation of how much the lift axle should be raised or lowered, and
ii) a set of a desired level to which the lift axle should be raised or lowered and a limitation of how much force that should be applied by or at the lift axle in order to do so (optional).
8. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain the road data by communicating with one or more sensors (212-216 fig 2) of the vehicle or vehicle combination.
9. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain the road data by communicating with at least one of (Markush):
one or more remote sensors (optional), one or more other vehicle or vehicle combinations having already driven along the road section (optional), and with a cloud-based service (412 fig 4).
10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the capability data is further at least indicative of at least one of (Markush) level limitations (para 22 “position of vehicles cargo loads”) and force limitations (optional) for each of the one or more lift axles, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to use at least one of (Markush) such level limitations and force limitations as part of determining at least one of (Markush) the desired lift axle configuration, controlling the lowering, and raising of each of the one or more lift axles (para 22 the sensors determining position of vehicle cargo loads are used to adjust lift axles).
11. A heavy vehicle or vehicle combination, comprising: one or more lift axles, and the computer system according to claim 1 (see in re 1 as described above over Wendling).
12. The heavy vehicle or vehicle combination of claim 11, further comprising an interface (fig 3 interface, notify fig 5, paras 2,13,42) for controlling a lift axle of the one or more lift axles and displaying the capability data (see in re 5 as described above over Wendling).
13. A computer-implemented method (see in re 1 as described above over Wendling).
14. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (para 23, at least EEPROM) comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry of a computer system, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 13 (see in re 1 as described above over Wendling).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendling et al US 2011/0276215 in view of Giovanardi et al US 2023/0152106.
In Re 7, Wendling further teaches the road data is indicative of along the road section, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the desired lift axle configuration.
Wendling does not teach however Giovanardi teaches actual or forecasted weather conditions (116,110 fig 1), based also on the weather conditions (control vehicle systems based on input of weather fig 1 106, abstract, para 20). Giovanardi further teaches improving vehicle systems and vehicle user experience based on weather inputs and routing, paras 7,20. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Giovanardi’s weather conditions to Wendling’s vehicle to improve vehicle systems and user experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs 5-6, filed 5/18/26, with respect to 35 USC 112b and claim objecitons have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC claim rejections and claim objections of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 pgs 6-10 with respect to 35 USC 102 and 103 claim rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues pg 7 second paragraph that Wendling fails to disclose capabilities of the lift axle. However, examiner finds in order for Wendling to determine is the vehicle in the compliant state step 508, the capabilities of the lift axle have to be compared to regulatory requirements.
Applicant argues pg 7 third paragraph features which are not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "an indication of how fast the lift axle can be lifted or lowered.";
"[a]s another example, the interface 140 may be configured to provide one or more different capabilities (i.e. limitations) of each lift axle 130," such as "a maximum rate/speed at which the lift axle 130 may currently be raised/lowered," "a minimum rate/speed Azievei "i" at which the lift axle 130 may currently be raised/lowered," "a minimum z-level zievel "i" to which the lift axle may be lowered," "a maximum z-level zievel ' to which the lift axle may be raised," "a minimum change in force per time AFz """ of the lift axle," "a maximum change in force per timeAFF minimum force Fz "i" that the lift axle may apply in the z-direction," "a maximum forceFz" that the lift axle may apply in the z-direction." Paragraph 0061 (emphasis added). A "rate limitation" as described in the specification and as would be understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art means a limitation as to a speed of operation (e.g., a speed that the lift axle may be lowered or lifted).") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues bottom of pg 7 through pg 8, that Wendling's lift axle does not work if stuck, which is true, but has no bearing on patentablity. Further applicant argues Wendling fails how to control the lift axle. However, examiner finds Wendling teaches lowering or raising the axle, the rate is either not raised or raised.
The remaining arguments of pg 8 are again not claimed, but rather quotations of applicants specification as addressed above.
Pg 9 applicant argues against other claims using same logic as refuted above and is therefore moot.
See prior art rejection over Wendell as described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights