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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/7/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2, 4-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has a listing with multiple “and/or” wording. It is unclear where the listing ends and what items are optional to one another based on the several “and/or”s used. Examiner recommends a format like “at least one of” with the listings so it is clear what is included in the listings and what is not. The dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. It is unclear if claim 20 is independent or dependent. The fee sheet dated 10/9/2025 treats the claim as dependent and the claim does reference another claim, but the claim alters the preamble of the claim which indicates that it is independent. The conflicting structure and referencing another claim make it unclear. Examiner recommends cutting and pasting the parts of claim 1 into claim 20 and making it clearly independent.
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.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is an improper product by process claim. The claim 1 does not produce the product of claim 20. Claim 20 should be written clearly in independent form with the limitations of claims 1.
Alice type rejection – Abstract Idea Mental Process
As to claim 1-2 and 4-20 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 is/are directed to a mental process of determining a motion trajectory (Process claims 1-2 and 4-19 and apparatus for claim 20).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea – mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for detecting a yaw instability in a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit, the method comprising:
determining a plurality of probability values each representing the probability of a yaw instability for the vehicle combination, wherein each probability value is based on a reference value and a current value of a respective parameter of a plurality of parameters;
applying a respective weight to each probability value; and
determining a combined probability value representing the probability of a yaw instability occurring in the vehicle combination based on the weighted probability values;
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises each of a yaw rate of the tractor unit and/or the at least one trailing unit, an articulation angle and/or an articulation angular rate of consecutive units, a longitudinal wheel slip of the tractor unit and/or the at least one trailing unit, a sideslip angle of the tractor unit and/or the at least one trailing unit, and an understeering gradient of the tractor unit and/or the at least one trailing unit. (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
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. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea – mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
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”) See above.
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. Claim 1 includes a processing apparatus. Regarding the additional limitations of that merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose processing environment. The processing is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining process steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 mental process into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity (acquiring input data) in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of processing with a processing apparatus are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processing apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 4-19 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 because they merely add to the mental processing. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 4-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Examiner recommends a controlling step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending and are indicated as having allowable subject matter. If applicable, any remaining non-art rejections or formalities must be overcome prior to a notice of allowance.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 20 all of the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1, a method for detecting a yaw instability in a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit, the method comprising: determining a plurality of probability values each representing the probability of a yaw instability for the vehicle combination, wherein each probability value is based on a reference value and a current value of a respective parameter of a plurality of parameters; applying a respective weight to each probability value; and determining a combined probability value representing the probability of a yaw instability occurring in the vehicle combination based on the weighted probability values; wherein the plurality of parameters comprises each of a yaw rate of the tractor unit and/or the at least one trailing unit, an articulation angle and/or an articulation angular rate of consecutive units, a longitudinal wheel slip of the tractor unit and/or the at least one trailing unit, a sideslip angle of the tractor unit and/or the at least one trailing unit, and an understeering gradient of the tractor unit and/or the at least one trailing unit. The combination taken with the claims not listed limitations may be patentable emphasizing the underlined limitation.
The closest prior art On the Feedback Control of Hitch Angle through Torque-Vectoring discloses torque-vectoring (TV) algorithm for the control of the hitch angle of an articulated vehicle. The hitch angle control function prevents trailer oscillations and instability during extreme cornering maneuvers. The proposed control variable is a weighted combination of terms accounting for the yaw rate, sideslip angle and hitch angle of the articulated vehicle. The novel control variable formulation results in a single-input single-output (SISO) feedback controller. In the specific application a simple proportional integral (PI) controller with gain scheduling on vehicle velocity is developed. The TV system is implemented and experimentally tested on a fully electric vehicle with four on-board drivetrains, towing a single-axle passive trailer. Sinusoidal steer test results show that the proposed algorithm significantly improves the behavior of the articulated vehicle, and justify further research on the topic of hitch angle control through TV.
All dependent claims are allowable for at least the reasons of claim 1 and or 29.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190263368 A1 an object of the invention is to realize an M+ control which is suitable to a driving scene without depending on pedal operation information of a driver. A vehicle motion control device according to the invention sets an absolute value of deceleration generated in the vehicle in a period in which the lateral motion of the vehicle is predicted to be changed from a state where the vehicle takes the lateral motion to a state where the vehicle does not take the lateral motion to be smaller than that generated in a period in which the lateral motion of the vehicle is predicted to be changed from a state the vehicle takes one of right and left lateral motions to a state where the vehicle takes the other lateral motion.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights