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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirby (US # 5,215,154). With respect to claims 1, 12, & 19, the Kirby reference discloses a device comprising a processor (91) configured to:
obtain an engine torque1 and a velocity2 of a vehicle when it is in motion;
determine, based on the engine torque and the velocity, an estimate of a load weight on the vehicle3; and generate an instruction4 based on the estimate of the load weight.
Claim 2 is redundant.
With respect to claims 5 & 6, Kirby discloses a calibration constant5.
With respect to claim 10, Kirby calibrates his device6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby (US # 5,215,154) in view of Nagatomo et al (US PG Pub # 2022/0394956). The use of “learning model” software to carry out calculations was known as shown by the example of Nagatomo (para. # 0063-0065), and therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to upgrade the processor of Kirby with a learning model software to improve the performance of his device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby (US # 5,215,154). The value of the constant in the weight equation would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby (US # 5,215,154). It would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to upgrade the controller of Kirby to a modern networked device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby (US # 5,215,154). It is a truism that the load weight of the vehicle is the gross weight minus the empty (tare) weight of the vehicle, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to program the controller (91) of Kurby to carry out this basic difference equation that every weighing device inherently does.
Conclusion
Claims 4,8-9,11-15,18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other references cited show estimating vehicle weight based on measure torque and acceleration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 “…The force causing the acceleration or velocity is preferably measured by measuring twisting of a drive train propeller shaft. In one form of the method that twisting is measured by measuring a time delay between peripheral marks and axially-spaced positions on the shaft passing fixed sensors, the marks preferably comprising magnetic marks and the sensors being adapted to detect the same…”
2 “…Instead of the velocity being derived from sensor 17 it could of course be supplied from a regular vehicle speedometer … Since acceleration is the time derivative of velocity, we can say ##EQU1#”
3 “…FIG. 4 illustrates one arrangement in which the force measure derived from such sensors as are described with reference to FIGS. 1 to 3 is used to evaluate vehicle gross weight.
The force measure is input from the sensor arrangement 41 to a computer 42 together with a time signal from a speedometer arrangement 43 which gives pulses as the needle passes, say, the 5 mph (8 kph) and 15 mph (24 kph) marks 44, 45. It is assumed here that a measurement will depend upon the vehicle being driven with constant acceleration between those two speeds, and on level ground.
The force measure will be in the form of a time interval which will be proportional to force and can be represented as k.sub.1 f where k.sub.1 is a constant and f is the force. The acceleration measure will be in the form of a time interval which will be inversely proportional to the acceleration and can be represented as k.sub.2 a where k.sub.2 is another constant and a is the acceleration. The vehicle weight W =f/a (neglecting the gravitational constant). The computer output will be k.sub.1 f/k.sub.2 a or k.sub.2 f/a where k.sub.3 =k.sub.1 /k.sub.2. This constant k.sub.3 can be eliminated by calibration…”
4 “…FIG. 9 illustrates an arrangement using this relationship in which the single output to a processor 91 is from a speedometer 92 which could of course be one of the sensors 16, 17 referred to above. A constant K is supplied as before from a selector 93 and DISPLAYED ON A CAB READOUT 94….” [Note that this is the equivalent of the “alert” that applicant describes as an “instruction” in his own written description; para. # 0030]
5 “…The force measure will be in the form of a time interval which will be proportional to force and can be represented as k.sub.1 f where k.sub.1 is a constant and f is the force. The acceleration measure will be in the form of a time interval which will be inversely proportional to the acceleration and can be represented as k.sub.2 a where k.sub.2 is another constant and a is the acceleration. The vehicle weight W =f/a (neglecting the gravitational constant). The computer output will be k.sub.1 f/k.sub.2 a or k.sub.2 f/a where k.sub.3 =k.sub.1 /k.sub.2. This constant k.sub.3 can be eliminated by calibration….”
6 “…For a particular vehicle, the test can be carried out at a known gross weight, as measured by a weighbridge. The constant k.sub.3 can then be evaluated. Alternatively, the vehicle can be run empty for a first measurement and then again with a known added load. The value k.sub.3 can then be evaluated without knowing the gross weight….”
