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 response filed 20 April 2026.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 10-11 have been amended.
Claims 9 and 14 have been cancelled
Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15 are pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-15 were 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 Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 20 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Walker (WO 2025/068535, hereinafter “Walker).
Applicant’s arguments, see 9-11, filed 20 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Thompson (US-20140336883-A1) and AMF Fahrzeugbau GmbH (DE-202013101202-U1).
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 1-8, 10-13 and 15 are 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 an increase rate of “the difference” in line 17. However, “a difference” was recited in line 12 and “a difference” was recited in line 14. It is not clear if the difference recited in line 17 is referring back to the difference in line 12 or line 14. Claim 11 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 2-8 and 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 12-13 and 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 § 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) 1-8, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (WO 2025/068535, hereinafter “Walker) in view of Thompson (US-20140336883-A1, hereinafter “Thompson”).
Regarding claim 1, Walker, teaches 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 by receiving measurement data and determining the lateral load balance metric based on the measurement data (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
send a control signal to 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.”).
Walker teaches wherein the measurement data includes load data and angle or inclination data, but does not teach wherein the measurement data comprises one or more of:
acceleration data from an acceleration sensor associated with a considered location; and
ground distance sensor data indicative of a difference in distance to ground between two lateral spaced points associated with the considered location.
Thompson teaches wherein the measurement data comprises one or more of:
acceleration data from an acceleration sensor associated with a considered location (see at least Thompson [0021-0023] “[0022] The sensors 20, 21, may be any type of sensor which is capable of determining the pitch, yaw and/or roll angle of the members (i.e. first frame 11 and body 17 in the illustrated example), on which the sensor is positioned relative to the direction of gravitational acceleration. Each of the sensors 20, 21, may be, for example, an inclination sensor, an accelerometer or a gyroscope, and may be of any type, for example, piezoelectric, capacitive, potentiometric, Hall effect, magnetoresistive, piezoresistive or any type of microelectromechanical system (MEMS). [0023] These sensors generally comprise a "proof" mass. This mass moves relative to the frame of the sensor. That difference in movement between the frame and proof mass is related to its acceleration and can be measured in a variety of ways: capacitively, piezo-electrically, and piezo-resistively. A solid object's movement can be fully described by measuring linear acceleration in the x, y, and z directions and angular velocity about the x, y, and z axes.” See also [0036-0041])); and
ground distance sensor data indicative of a difference in distance to ground between two lateral spaced points associated with the considered location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Walker with the teaching of Thompson, with a reasonable expectation of success because as Thompson teaches an either an inclination sensor or an accelerometer may be used to detect unsafe conditions that may lead to a potential roll over (see at least [0022-0023] and [0036-0041]) .
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Walker and Thompson teaches 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, the combination of Walker and Thompson teaches 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, the combination of Walker and Thompson teaches 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, the combination of Walker and Thompson teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein each of the two different locations is a location of a respective wheel axle location (see at least Walker Figures 1C, 118A, 118E).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Walker and Thompson teaches the computer system of claim 5, wherein the lateral load balance metric comprises a load disparity between two laterally spaced points along the respective 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, the combination of Walker and Thompson teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the lateral load balance metric for the 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, the combination of Walker and Thompson teaches 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 10, the combination of Walker and Thompson teaches a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1, the vehicle body and the vehicle subsystem for load carrying (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 15, the combination of Walker and Thompson teaches 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.”).
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (WO 2025/068535, hereinafter “Walker) in view of AMF FAHRZEUGBAU GmbH (DE-202013101202-U1, hereinafter “AMF”).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches 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 by receiving measurement data and determining the lateral load balance metric based on the measurement data (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
send a control signal to 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.”).
Walker teaches wherein the measurement data includes load data and angle or inclination data, but does not teach wherein the measurement data comprises one or more of:
acceleration data from an acceleration sensor associated with a considered location; and
ground distance sensor data indicative of a difference in distance to ground between two lateral spaced points associated with the considered location.
AMF teaches wherein the measurement data comprises one or more of:
acceleration data from an acceleration sensor associated with a considered location and
ground distance sensor data indicative of a difference in distance to ground between two lateral spaced points associated with the considered location (see at least AFM Figure 5 and sensors 51, 52, 53, and 54 and [0058] “To determine the stability of the commercial vehicle 1, the flank height F is detected by the ultrasonic sensors 51, 52, 53, 54 and compared according to stored specifications and, if the wheel 2?, which is imminent for the left rear wheel 23, is completely relieved, the crane 42 is stopped by the control unit of the stability control device according to the invention, so that a tipping over of the commercial vehicle 1 is prevented. It is only possible to move the crane 42 in such a way that the stability of the commercial vehicle 1 is increased again.” See also [0055], [0068] and [0074-0076]);.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Walker with the teaching of AMF, with a reasonable expectation of success because as AMF teaches both the detected angle and the distance or height may be used to detect the stability of the vehicle and to prevent the vehicle from tipping (see at least AMF [0058] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Walker and AMF teaches 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, the combination of Walker and AMF teaches 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, the combination of Walker and AMF teaches 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, the combination of Walker and AMF teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein each of the two different locations is a location of a respective wheel axle location (see at least Walker Figures 1C, 118A, 118E).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Walker and AMF teaches the computer system of claim 5, wherein the lateral load balance metric comprises a load disparity between two laterally spaced points along the respective 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, the combination of Walker and AMF teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the lateral load balance metric for the 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, the combination of Walker and AMF teaches 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 10, the combination of Walker and AMF teaches a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1, the vehicle body and the vehicle subsystem for load carrying (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 15, the combination of Walker and AMF teaches 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-5825284-A to Dunwoody is cited for showing the acceleration of the lateral load using sensors.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights