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 application filed on14 November 2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 14 November 2024 and 19 November 2025 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDSs are hereby attached.
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.
Claim 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites “the longitudinal dimension” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the wheel axle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the considered location” in multiple locations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “a vehicle” “a vehicle body”, “a vehicle subsystem”, ““a tipping operation”. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 which recites also recites “a vehicle” “a vehicle body”, “a vehicle subsystem”, ““a tipping operation”. It is not clear if the vehicle, vehicle body, vehicle subsystem, tipping operation of claim 10 is the same or different than that of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the longitudinal dimension” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 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.
Claims 12-15 depend from claim 11 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 11.
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 1-15 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 toward a system computer system for a vehicle and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 11 is directed toward a computer implement method for a vehicle 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 1 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:
1. A computer system for a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises a vehicle body and a vehicle subsystem for load carrying, wherein the vehicle subsystem for load carrying is configured to be increasingly tilted in relation to the vehicle body for load discharge during a tipping operation of the vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to, during the tipping operation:
acquire respective lateral load balance metrics for two different locations along the longitudinal dimension of the vehicle;
dynamically determine a difference between the respective lateral load balance metrics; and
cause a tipping interruptive action to be performed based on an increase rate of the difference.
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 “dynamically determine a difference between the respective lateral load balance metrics;” and “cause a tipping interruptive action to be performed based on an increase rate of the difference” steps encompass a human viewing data regarding the lateral load balance for two locations, making a calculation using paper and pencil regarding a difference and when the human notices an increase rate of difference, pressing a button to stop the tipping action.
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:
1. A computer system for a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises a vehicle body and a vehicle subsystem for load carrying, wherein the vehicle subsystem for load carrying is configured to be increasingly tilted in relation to the vehicle body for load discharge during a tipping operation of the vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to, during the tipping operation:
acquire respective lateral load balance metrics for two different locations along the longitudinal dimension of the vehicle;
dynamically determine a difference between the respective lateral load balance metrics; and
cause a tipping interruptive action to be performed based on an increase rate of the difference.
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 “wherein the vehicle comprises a vehicle body and a vehicle subsystem for load carrying, wherein the vehicle subsystem for load carrying is configured to be increasingly tilted in relation to the vehicle body for load discharge during a tipping operation of the vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to, during the tipping operation” and “acquire respective lateral load balance metrics for two different locations along the longitudinal dimension of the vehicle;” 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 courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations of “the computer system comprising processing circuity” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “acquire” “dynamically determine”, and “cause a tipping interruptive action”. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer (see [0092] of the instant application).
Further, the limitation of “acquire respective lateral load balance metrics for two different locations along the longitudinal dimension of the vehicle;” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering or data output) 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.
Finally, the claim also recites a “computer system for a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises a vehicle body and a vehicle subsystem for load carrying, wherein the vehicle subsystem for load carrying is configured to be increasingly tilted in relation to the vehicle body for load discharge during a tipping operation of the vehicle,”, which generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the computer system comprising processing circuity” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (see [0092] of the instant application). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations of acquire respective lateral load balance metrics for two different locations along the longitudinal dimension of the vehicle;” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Finally, as discussed above the limitation of “a computer system for a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises a vehicle body and a vehicle subsystem for load carrying, wherein the vehicle subsystem for load carrying is configured to be increasingly tilted in relation to the vehicle body for load discharge during a tipping operation of the vehicle,” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which does not add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 11 has similar recitations to claim 1 and the analysis above with respect to claim 1 also applies to claim 11.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-15 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, insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations are considered mental process steps (e.g. determine the increase rate exceeding a threshold of claim 2, 12; determining a weighted combination exceeds a threshold of claim 3, 13) , and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering and data output (e.g. warning message of claim 4), and generally linking (e.g. a vehicle comprising a vehicle body of claim 10) . 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 2-10, 12-15 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are not patent eligible.
Further, claim 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 is rejected as computer programs per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs. Such programs are not physical "device or structure" nor are they statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. The computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the medium which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 14 is directed to disembodied data structure which are per se are not statutory (In re Warmerdam, No. 93-1294 (Fed. Cir. August 11, 1994)). The examiner suggests to redraft the claims to include a computer-readable medium so that the claimed software in combination with a computer-readable medium will be capable of producing a useful, concrete and tangible result. A claim to a computer-readable medium encoded with functional descriptive material that can function with a computer to effect a practical application that results in a useful, concrete and tangible result (i.e. executing a stock transaction or generating an investment portfolio).
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walker (WO 2025/068535, hereinafter “Walker).
Regarding claim 1, Walker, discloses a computer system for a vehicle, wherein the vehicle (see at least Walker Figure 1A-1C, vehicle 100) comprises a vehicle body (see at least Walker Figure 1A-1C, cab 108 and dump box frame 104) and a vehicle subsystem for load carrying (see at least Walker Figure 1A-1C dump box), wherein the vehicle subsystem for load carrying is configured to be increasingly tilted in relation to the vehicle body for load discharge during a tipping operation of the vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to, during the tipping operation (see at least Walker Figure 1A-1C, See also Figure 6 for processing circuitry and page 19-20 for discussion of processing circuitry):
acquire respective lateral load balance metrics for two different locations along the longitudinal dimension of the vehicle (see at least Walker; Figures 1A-1C, load sensors 116a-116B and angle sensors 118A-118C, See also Figure 5, element 502 and 504 regarding receiving angle sensors and load sensors while dump box of vehicle tipper is in use, see at least Walker page 8, lines 35 through page 9 line 10, “In this example, the tipper truck 100 has three load cells 116A-C. One load cell 116A is positioned at the ram 106 location. Two load cells 116B, 116C are positioned at the pivot 114 location, one load cell on the left side of the pivot 116B and one load cell 116C on the right side of the pivot. This triangular arrangement of load cells can assist in the determination of a centre of gravity (COG) location of the dump box 102…In the example shown, the angle sensors 118A, 118C of the dump box 102 are shown as being located along the central line of the roof of the dump box 102. However, the angle sensors 118A, 118C may alternatively be located on the side walls of the dump box, e.g., in pairs either side of the dump box 102….FIG. 2 shows a schematic example of a tipper safety system 200. The system 200 comprises a plurality of angle sensors 202 and a plurality of load cells 204 arranged at plurality of positions on the tipper vehicle, e.g., as shown in FIGs. 1A-C. The system 200 further comprises a COG subsystem 206 configured to determine a COG of the dump box based on angle measurements from at least some of the angle sensors 202 and load measurements from the load cells 204. The system 200 further comprises a safety parameter subsystem 208 configured to determine one or more safety parameter scores (also referred to herein as "stability factor scores") from the angle measurements, load measurements and/or, if present, the COG location. The system 200 further comprises a dump box control subsystem 210, configured to control the dump box and/or restrict control of the dump box based on the one or more safety parameter scores determined by the safety parameter subsystem 208.” See also page 10, lines 19 through page 11, line 12 “For example, the payload may shift inside the dump box. The result of such a shift will be a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box. As another example, the dump box may have a twist with respect to the dump box frame. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a difference in roll angles measured by the angle sensors for the dump box and the dump box frame. As another example, the whole trailer (i.e., dump box and dump box frame) may have a roll angle. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a non-zero roll angle measured by angle sensors on both the dump box and dump box frame. Combinations of these three examples may also result in a lateral shift of the COG….Whatever the cause, the total lateral COG shift can be determined from the continuously calculated mass (i.e., from the load measurements) and from the COG vertical position (determined as described above). In some examples, the effect of each cause of the COG shift may be determined. The COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the overall roll angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the roll angle. Similarly, the COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the twist angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the twist of the vehicle. The remaining lateral COG shift contribution is from payload.” See also page 15, lines 25-35 “The plurality of angle sensors may be arranged a plurality of locations in the tipper truck, e.g., one or more at each of a plurality of locations on the dump box (such as the ram location and/or pivot location), one or more on the tipper truck cab, and/or one or more at each of a plurality of locations on the dump box frame. Each sensor may send a stream of measurements to the system, e.g., a sequence of angle measurements, each angle measurement taken at a time in a sequence of times (such as at a predefined frequency). The angle measurements may comprise roll angles at a plurality of locations in the tipper vehicle. These may be used to determine twist and roll angles of the tipper vehicle.” See also page 5, lines 25 through page 6, line 15 , page 7 lines 10-20, page 8 lines 21-27) ;
dynamically determine a difference between the respective lateral load balance metrics (see at least Walker page 10, lines 19 through page 11, line 12 “For example, the payload may shift inside the dump box. The result of such a shift will be a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box. As another example, the dump box may have a twist with respect to the dump box frame. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a difference in roll angles measured by the angle sensors for the dump box and the dump box frame. As another example, the whole trailer (i.e., dump box and dump box frame) may have a roll angle. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a non-zero roll angle measured by angle sensors on both the dump box and dump box frame. Combinations of these three examples may also result in a lateral shift of the COG….Whatever the cause, the total lateral COG shift can be determined from the continuously calculated mass (i.e., from the load measurements) and from the COG vertical position (determined as described above). In some examples, the effect of each cause of the COG shift may be determined. The COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the overall roll angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the roll angle. Similarly, the COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the twist angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the twist of the vehicle. The remaining lateral COG shift contribution is from payload.” See also page 12, line 35 through page 13, line 10 “ Returning to FIG. 2, the safety parameter subsystem 208 is, in some implementations, configured to determine one or more safety parameter scores, Si, each relating to a different aspect of the tipper vehicle, e.g., one or more vehicle and/or body roll angles, a vehicle/body twist angle, a tractor-trailer articulation angle, the RoRO parameter (as discussed above), and/or the presence or absence of objects in the exclusion zone around the tipper vehicle. In some examples, the one or more safety parameter scores further comprise scores relating to time derivatives of aspects of the tipper vehicle (referred to herein as "rate of change factors"), e.g., time derivatives of the roll angle(s), time derivatives of the twist angle(s), time derivatives of the tractor-trailer articulation angle, time derivatives of the RoRO parameter, and/or the time derivatives of object positions around the tipper vehicle.” See also page 13, lines 29-35 “An example of the calculation of an overall safety score is shown in FIG. 4. In this example, the overall safety factor is based on the current level for a vehicle/body roll, a vehicle/body twist, a RoRO, and the output of an object detection system, as well as their corresponding rates of change. The safety parameter scores take, in this example, a continuous value between zero and two. The threshold for any individual safety parameter score is, for example, 1.8, i.e., none of the individual safety parameter scores exceed the threshold and is 2.0 for the overall safety parameter score.”) and
cause a tipping interruptive action to be performed based on an increase rate of the difference (see at least Walker Figure 5, element 508 “control the position of the dump box of the tipper vehicle, and p 14 lines 10-27, “Returning to FIG. 2, the dump box control subsystem 210 uses the one or more safety parameter scores and/or the overall safety parameter score to determine how to control the dump box. If the one or more safety parameter scores and/or the overall safety parameter score all indicate that the tipper vehicle is in a safe configuration, then the dump box control subsystem 210 imposes no restrictions on the control of the dump box by an operator. If, for example, one or more of the safety parameter scores or the overall safety parameter score indicate a marginal stability/safety for the tipper vehicle configuration, the dump box control subsystem 210 may restrict the maximum speed at which the dump box may be raised. Alternatively, if one or more of the safety parameter scores or the overall safety parameter score indicate a marginal stability/safety for the tipper vehicle configuration, the dump box control subsystem 210 may prevent the dump box being raised further, but still allow an operator to lower the dump box. If one or more of the safety parameter scores or the overall safety parameter score indicate that the tipper vehicle is in an unsafe configuration, then the dump box control subsystem 210 may cause the dump box to be lowered to a predefined position, e.g., the resting position.” See also page 18, line 20-29 “At operation 505, the system controls the position of the dump box in response to determining that the tipper is in an unsafe configuration. In some examples, the system removes control of the dump box from the operator, e.g., the system takes over control of the dump box, for example by lowering it to a predefined position. Alternatively or additionally, the system limits the control of the dump box by the operator, e.g., prevents the operator from raising the dump box further, but allowing the operator to lower the dump box.”)
Regarding claim 2, Walker discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the tipping interruptive action responsive to the increase rate exceeding a threshold value for the increase rate (See at least Walker page 12, line 35 through page 13, line 10 “ Returning to FIG. 2, the safety parameter subsystem 208 is, in some implementations, configured to determine one or more safety parameter scores, Si, each relating to a different aspect of the tipper vehicle, e.g., one or more vehicle and/or body roll angles, a vehicle/body twist angle, a tractor-trailer articulation angle, the RoRO parameter (as discussed above), and/or the presence or absence of objects in the exclusion zone around the tipper vehicle. In some examples, the one or more safety parameter scores further comprise scores relating to time derivatives of aspects of the tipper vehicle (referred to herein as "rate of change factors"), e.g., time derivatives of the roll angle(s), time derivatives of the twist angle(s), time derivatives of the tractor-trailer articulation angle, time derivatives of the RoRO parameter, and/or the time derivatives of object positions around the tipper vehicle.” See also page 13, lines 29-35 “An example of the calculation of an overall safety score is shown in FIG. 4. In this example, the overall safety factor is based on the current level for a vehicle/body roll, a vehicle/body twist, a RoRO, and the output of an object detection system, as well as their corresponding rates of change. The safety parameter scores take, in this example, a continuous value between zero and two. The threshold for any individual safety parameter score is, for example, 1.8, i.e., none of the individual safety parameter scores exceed the threshold and is 2.0 for the overall safety parameter score.”) .
Regarding claim 3, Walker discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the tipping interruptive action responsive to a weighted combination of the difference and the increase rate exceeding a threshold value for the weighted combination (see at least Walker page 14, lines 1-10 “In the example shown, the overall safety score, S, is determined by first determining a combined safety parameter score for each aspect by summing the safety parameter score for that aspect and the corresponding rate of change factor for the aspect. The overall safety factor may be given by the sum of the highest safety parameter score (in this example, the combined LROS score of 1.5) and an average of the other combined safety parameter scores (in this example, an average of the combined vehicle/body roll, vehicle/body twist and obstruction scores, which comes to 0.5). The overall safety parameter value is thus, in this example, equal to 2.0. This overall safety parameter is equal to the threshold for the overall safety parameter score, and thus the tipper vehicle is determined to be in an unsafe configuration.”)
Regarding claim 4, Walker discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the tipping interruptive action comprises issuing a warning message via an operator interface and/or inhibiting the tipping operation (see at least Walker Figure 5, element 508 “control the position of the dump box of the tipper vehicle, and p 14 lines 10-27, “Returning to FIG. 2, the dump box control subsystem 210 uses the one or more safety parameter scores and/or the overall safety parameter score to determine how to control the dump box. If the one or more safety parameter scores and/or the overall safety parameter score all indicate that the tipper vehicle is in a safe configuration, then the dump box control subsystem 210 imposes no restrictions on the control of the dump box by an operator. If, for example, one or more of the safety parameter scores or the overall safety parameter score indicate a marginal stability/safety for the tipper vehicle configuration, the dump box control subsystem 210 may restrict the maximum speed at which the dump box may be raised. Alternatively, if one or more of the safety parameter scores or the overall safety parameter score indicate a marginal stability/safety for the tipper vehicle configuration, the dump box control subsystem 210 may prevent the dump box being raised further, but still allow an operator to lower the dump box. If one or more of the safety parameter scores or the overall safety parameter score indicate that the tipper vehicle is in an unsafe configuration, then the dump box control subsystem 210 may cause the dump box to be lowered to a predefined position, e.g., the resting position.” See also page 18, line 20-29 “At operation 505, the system controls the position of the dump box in response to determining that the tipper is in an unsafe configuration. In some examples, the system removes control of the dump box from the operator, e.g., the system takes over control of the dump box, for example by lowering it to a predefined position. Alternatively or additionally, the system limits the control of the dump box by the operator, e.g., prevents the operator from raising the dump box further, but allowing the operator to lower the dump box.”)
Regarding claim 5, Walker discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein each of the two different locations is a respective wheel axle location (see at least Walker Figures 1C, 118A, 118E).
Regarding claim 6, Walker discloses the computer system of claim 5, wherein the lateral load balance metric comprises a load disparity between two laterally spaced points along the wheel axle (see at least Walker Figures 1A-1C, load sensors 116a-116B and angle sensors 118A-118C, See at least Walker page 5, lines 25 through page 6, line 15 “The dump box frame 104 comprises a plurality of load cells 116A-B for measuring the load on the dump frame 104 from the dump box 102 at a plurality of locations. In the example shown, one load cell 116A is positioned at/under the ram 106 and two load cells are positioned under the pivot 114 of the dump box 102, e.g., one arranged on each side of the dump box, as shown in FIG. 1C. The load cells 116 may continuously measure a respective load at their respective locations caused by the dump box 102, e.g., measure the load at a predefined frequency (e.g., 1Hz, 10Hz or the like)…A plurality of angle sensors 118A-E (also referred to as "tilt sensors" or "inclinometers") are distributed throughout the tipper vehicle 100. For example, one or more angle sensors 118A-B may be arranged at the rear of the trailer, e.g., on the dump box 102 (e.g., angle sensor 118A) and/or on the dump box frame 104 (angle sensor 118B). One or more angle sensors 118B may be arranged at the front of the trailer, e.g., on the dump box 102 (e.g., angle sensor 118C) and/or on the dump box frame 104 (e.g., angle sensor 118D).” See also at least Walker page 8, lines 35 through page 9 line 10, “In this example, the tipper truck 100 has three load cells 116A-C. One load cell 116A is positioned at the ram 106 location. Two load cells 116B, 116C are positioned at the pivot 114 location, one load cell on the left side of the pivot 116B and one load cell 116C on the right side of the pivot. This triangular arrangement of load cells can assist in the determination of a centre of gravity (COG) location of the dump box 102…In the example shown, the angle sensors 118A, 118C of the dump box 102 are shown as being located along the central line of the roof of the dump box 102. However, the angle sensors 118A, 118C may alternatively be located on the side walls of the dump box, e.g., in pairs either side of the dump box 102….FIG. 2 shows a schematic example of a tipper safety system 200. The system 200 comprises a plurality of angle sensors 202 and a plurality of load cells 204 arranged at plurality of positions on the tipper vehicle, e.g., as shown in FIGs. 1A-C. The system 200 further comprises a COG subsystem 206 configured to determine a COG of the dump box based on angle measurements from at least some of the angle sensors 202 and load measurements from the load cells 204. The system 200 further comprises a safety parameter subsystem 208 configured to determine one or more safety parameter scores (also referred to herein as "stability factor scores") from the angle measurements, load measurements and/or, if present, the COG location. The system 200 further comprises a dump box control subsystem 210, configured to control the dump box and/or restrict control of the dump box based on the one or more safety parameter scores determined by the safety parameter subsystem 208.” See also page 10, lines 19 through page 11, line 12 “For example, the payload may shift inside the dump box. The result of such a shift will be a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box. As another example, the dump box may have a twist with respect to the dump box frame. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a difference in roll angles measured by the angle sensors for the dump box and the dump box frame. As another example, the whole trailer (i.e., dump box and dump box frame) may have a roll angle. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a non-zero roll angle measured by angle sensors on both the dump box and dump box frame. Combinations of these three examples may also result in a lateral shift of the COG….Whatever the cause, the total lateral COG shift can be determined from the continuously calculated mass (i.e., from the load measurements) and from the COG vertical position (determined as described above). In some examples, the effect of each cause of the COG shift may be determined. The COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the overall roll angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the roll angle. Similarly, the COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the twist angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the twist of the vehicle. The remaining lateral COG shift contribution is from payload.” See also page 15, lines 25-35 “The plurality of angle sensors may be arranged a plurality of locations in the tipper truck, e.g., one or more at each of a plurality of locations on the dump box (such as the ram location and/or pivot location), one or more on the tipper truck cab, and/or one or more at each of a plurality of locations on the dump box frame. Each sensor may send a stream of measurements to the system, e.g., a sequence of angle measurements, each angle measurement taken at a time in a sequence of times (such as at a predefined frequency). The angle measurements may comprise roll angles at a plurality of locations in the tipper vehicle. These may be used to determine twist and roll angles of the tipper vehicle.” See also page 7 lines 10-20, page 8 lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 7, Walker discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the lateral load balance metric for a considered location along the longitudinal dimension of the vehicle comprises a roll angle at the considered location (see at least Walker Figures 1A-1C, load sensors 116a-116B and angle sensors 118A-118C, See at least Walker page 5, lines 25 through page 6, line 15 “The dump box frame 104 comprises a plurality of load cells 116A-B for measuring the load on the dump frame 104 from the dump box 102 at a plurality of locations. In the example shown, one load cell 116A is positioned at/under the ram 106 and two load cells are positioned under the pivot 114 of the dump box 102, e.g., one arranged on each side of the dump box, as shown in FIG. 1C. The load cells 116 may continuously measure a respective load at their respective locations caused by the dump box 102, e.g., measure the load at a predefined frequency (e.g., 1Hz, 10Hz or the like)…A plurality of angle sensors 118A-E (also referred to as "tilt sensors" or "inclinometers") are distributed throughout the tipper vehicle 100. For example, one or more angle sensors 118A-B may be arranged at the rear of the trailer, e.g., on the dump box 102 (e.g., angle sensor 118A) and/or on the dump box frame 104 (angle sensor 118B). One or more angle sensors 118B may be arranged at the front of the trailer, e.g., on the dump box 102 (e.g., angle sensor 118C) and/or on the dump box frame 104 (e.g., angle sensor 118D).” See also at least Walker page 8, lines 35 through page 9 line 10, “In this example, the tipper truck 100 has three load cells 116A-C. One load cell 116A is positioned at the ram 106 location. Two load cells 116B, 116C are positioned at the pivot 114 location, one load cell on the left side of the pivot 116B and one load cell 116C on the right side of the pivot. This triangular arrangement of load cells can assist in the determination of a centre of gravity (COG) location of the dump box 102…In the example shown, the angle sensors 118A, 118C of the dump box 102 are shown as being located along the central line of the roof of the dump box 102. However, the angle sensors 118A, 118C may alternatively be located on the side walls of the dump box, e.g., in pairs either side of the dump box 102….FIG. 2 shows a schematic example of a tipper safety system 200. The system 200 comprises a plurality of angle sensors 202 and a plurality of load cells 204 arranged at plurality of positions on the tipper vehicle, e.g., as shown in FIGs. 1A-C. The system 200 further comprises a COG subsystem 206 configured to determine a COG of the dump box based on angle measurements from at least some of the angle sensors 202 and load measurements from the load cells 204. The system 200 further comprises a safety parameter subsystem 208 configured to determine one or more safety parameter scores (also referred to herein as "stability factor scores") from the angle measurements, load measurements and/or, if present, the COG location. The system 200 further comprises a dump box control subsystem 210, configured to control the dump box and/or restrict control of the dump box based on the one or more safety parameter scores determined by the safety parameter subsystem 208.” See also page 10, lines 19 through page 11, line 12 “For example, the payload may shift inside the dump box. The result of such a shift will be a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box. As another example, the dump box may have a twist with respect to the dump box frame. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a difference in roll angles measured by the angle sensors for the dump box and the dump box frame. As another example, the whole trailer (i.e., dump box and dump box frame) may have a roll angle. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a non-zero roll angle measured by angle sensors on both the dump box and dump box frame. Combinations of these three examples may also result in a lateral shift of the COG….Whatever the cause, the total lateral COG shift can be determined from the continuously calculated mass (i.e., from the load measurements) and from the COG vertical position (determined as described above). In some examples, the effect of each cause of the COG shift may be determined. The COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the overall roll angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the roll angle. Similarly, the COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the twist angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the twist of the vehicle. The remaining lateral COG shift contribution is from payload.” See also page 15, lines 25-35 “The plurality of angle sensors may be arranged a plurality of locations in the tipper truck, e.g., one or more at each of a plurality of locations on the dump box (such as the ram location and/or pivot location), one or more on the tipper truck cab, and/or one or more at each of a plurality of locations on the dump box frame. Each sensor may send a stream of measurements to the system, e.g., a sequence of angle measurements, each angle measurement taken at a time in a sequence of times (such as at a predefined frequency). The angle measurements may comprise roll angles at a plurality of locations in the tipper vehicle. These may be used to determine twist and roll angles of the tipper vehicle.” See also page 7 lines 10-20, page 8 lines 21-27)
Regarding claim 8, Walker discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the lateral load balance metric (see at least Walker; See at least Figures 1A-1C, vehicle 100, Figure 6, computer system 600 as described on page 19 line 5 through page 20 line 28 “FIG. 6 shows a schematic overview of a computer system for use in performing any of the methods described herein. The system/apparatus 600 may form at least a part of a concrete mixer, e.g. part of an ECU of a concrete mixer…The apparatus (or system) 600 comprises one or more processors 602. The one or more processors control operation of other components of the system/apparatus 600.”).
Regarding claim 9, Walker discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the lateral load balance metric is determined based on one or more of:
acceleration data from an acceleration sensor associated with the considered location
gyroscopic data from a gyroscopic sensor associated with the considered location;
suspension data indicative of a difference in vertical load between two laterally spaced points associated with the considered location; and
ground distance sensor data indicative of a difference in distance to ground between two laterally spaced points associated with the considered location (see at least Walker, wherein the load balance metric is determined by at least suspension data, chassis roll angle as described on page 1, lines 13 through 20, see at least Figures 1A-1C, load sensors 116a-116B and angle sensors 118A-118C, and least Walker page 8, lines 35 through page 9 line 10, “…In the example shown, the angle sensors 118A, 118C of the dump box 102 are shown as being located along the central line of the roof of the dump box 102. However, the angle sensors 118A, 118C may alternatively be located on the side walls of the dump box, e.g., in pairs either side of the dump box 102….FIG. 2 shows a schematic example of a tipper safety system 200. The system 200 comprises a plurality of angle sensors 202 and a plurality of load cells 204 arranged at plurality of positions on the tipper vehicle, e.g., as shown in FIGs. 1A-C. The system 200 further comprises a COG subsystem 206 configured to determine a COG of the dump box based on angle measurements from at least some of the angle sensors 202 and load measurements from the load cells 204. The system 200 further comprises a safety parameter subsystem 208 configured to determine one or more safety parameter scores (also referred to herein as "stability factor scores") from the angle measurements, load measurements and/or, if present, the COG location. The system 200 further comprises a dump box control subsystem 210, configured to control the dump box and/or restrict control of the dump box based on the one or more safety parameter scores determined by the safety parameter subsystem 208.” See also page 10, lines 19 through page 11, line 12 “For example, the payload may shift inside the dump box. The result of such a shift will be a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box. As another example, the dump box may have a twist with respect to the dump box frame. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a difference in roll angles measured by the angle sensors for the dump box and the dump box frame. As another example, the whole trailer (i.e., dump box and dump box frame) may have a roll angle. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a non-zero roll angle measured by angle sensors on both the dump box and dump box frame. Combinations of these three examples may also result in a lateral shift of the COG….Whatever the cause, the total lateral COG shift can be determined from the continuously calculated mass (i.e., from the load measurements) and from the COG vertical position (determined as described above). In some examples, the effect of each cause of the COG shift may be determined. The COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the overall roll angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the roll angle. Similarly, the COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the twist angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the twist of the vehicle. The remaining lateral COG shift contribution is from payload.” See also page 15, lines 25-35 “The plurality of angle sensors may be arranged a plurality of locations in the tipper truck, e.g., one or more at each of a plurality of locations on the dump box (such as the ram location and/or pivot location), one or more on the tipper truck cab, and/or one or more at each of a plurality of locations on the dump box frame. Each sensor may send a stream of measurements to the system, e.g., a sequence of angle measurements, each angle measurement taken at a time in a sequence of times (such as at a predefined frequency). The angle measurements may comprise roll angles at a plurality of locations in the tipper vehicle. These may be used to determine twist and roll angles of the tipper vehicle.” See also at least Walker page 10, lines 19 through page 11, line 12 “For example, the payload may shift inside the dump box. The result of such a shift will be a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box. As another example, the dump box may have a twist with respect to the dump box frame. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a difference in roll angles measured by the angle sensors for the dump box and the dump box frame. As another example, the whole trailer (i.e., dump box and dump box frame) may have a roll angle. Such a twist will result in a difference in loads measured by load cells on either side of the dump box, as well as a non-zero roll angle measured by angle sensors on both the dump box and dump box frame. Combinations of these three examples may also result in a lateral shift of the COG….Whatever the cause, the total lateral COG shift can be determined from the continuously calculated mass (i.e., from the load measurements) and from the COG vertical position (determined as described above). In some examples, the effect of each cause of the COG shift may be determined. The COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the overall roll angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the roll angle. Similarly, the COG subsystem 206 can use the continuous mass measurements, COG calculation and the twist angle to calculate lateral shift contribution from the twist of the vehicle. The remaining lateral COG shift contribution is from payload.”)
Regarding claim 10, Walker discloses a vehicle comprising a vehicle body and a vehicle subsystem for load carrying, wherein the vehicle subsystem for load carrying is configured to be increasingly tilted in relation to the vehicle body for load discharge during a tipping operation of the vehicle, the vehicle further comprising the computer system of claim 1 (see at least Walker; See at least Figures 1A-1C, vehicle 100, Figure 6, computer system 600 as described on page 19 line 5 through page 20 line 28, See also the citations provided for claim 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above. For example see the citations above for claim 1 and further Walker Figure 6, computer system 600 performing the method as described on page 19 line 5 through page 20 line 28. Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 2, above.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 14, Walker discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the method of claim 11 (see at least Walker Figure 6 and computer system 600 as described on page 19 line 5 through page 20 line 28, “The system/apparatus comprises a non-volatile memory 606. The non-volatile memory 606 stores a set of operation instructions 608 for controlling the operation of the processors 602 in the form of computer readable instructions. The non-volatile memory 606 may be a memory of any kind such as a Read Only Memory (ROM), a Flash memory or a magnetic drive memory…The one or more processors 602 are configured to execute operating instructions 608 to cause the system/apparatus to perform any of the methods described herein. The operating instructions 608 may comprise code (i.e. drivers) relating to the hardware components of the system/apparatus 600, as well as code relating to the basic operation of the system/apparatus 600. Generally speaking, the one or more processors 602 execute one or more instructions of the operating instructions 608, which are stored permanently or semi-permanently in the non-volatile memory 606, using the volatile memory 604 to store temporarily data generated during execution of said operating instructions 608.”)
Regarding claim 14, Walker discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 11 (see at least Walker Figure 6 and computer system 600 as described on page 19 line 5 through page 20 line 28, “The system/apparatus comprises a non-volatile memory 606. The non-volatile memory 606 stores a set of operation instructions 608 for controlling the operation of the processors 602 in the form of computer readable instructions. The non-volatile memory 606 may be a memory of any kind such as a Read Only Memory (ROM), a Flash memory or a magnetic drive memory…The one or more processors 602 are configured to execute operating instructions 608 to cause the system/apparatus to perform any of the methods described herein. The operating instructions 608 may comprise code (i.e. drivers) relating to the hardware components of the system/apparatus 600, as well as code relating to the basic operation of the system/apparatus 600. Generally speaking, the one or more processors 602 execute one or more instructions of the operating instructions 608, which are stored permanently or semi-permanently in the non-volatile memory 606, using the volatile memory 604 to store temporarily data generated during execution of said operating instructions 608.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20200339106-A1 to Schueth is cited for controlling the vehicle based on roll angle sensors, and payload sensors when tipping the truck.
US-20170219453-A1 to Landes is cited for teaching a method of detecting a rollover of a truck during a tipping operation including using accelerometers and gyroscopes (see at least [0029]).
US-20220185162-A1 to HAGERSKANS discloses sensors for determining a difference at two longitudinal locations of a truck including detecting a roll angle The sensors may be accelerometers or gyroscopes (see at least [0010-0014] and [0045]) .
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