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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 1/9/25, wherein:
Claims 1-2, 5-26 are currently pending;
Claims 1-, 5-9, 11-14, 16, 22, 24-26 have been amended;
Claims 3-4 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 5-26 overcome the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1-26 recite the steps of e.g.“ determining a safe operation envelope for the vehicle combination based on a yaw rate of at least one unit and a current operating state of the vehicle combination; determining a current value of the yaw rate of the at least one unit; comparing the current value to the safe operating envelope; if the current value is outside the safe operating envelope, determining that a yaw instability is present in the vehicle combination; wherein determining the safe operating envelope comprise determining a reference value for he yaw rate based on the current operating state of the vehicle combination, wherein the reference value for the yaw rate of the tractor unit is given by W₁, model = v₁r tan δ₁ / L₁ where v₁r is the longitudinal speed of the tractor unit, δ₁ is the road wheel angle of the tractor unit, and L₁ is the wheelbase of the tractor unit.” are directed to the “Mathematical concepts” in group of abstract ideas as support in Applicant’s specification at least on page 14-16. The grouping of “mathematical concept” as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a) is not limited to formulas or equation, and specifically includes “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculation”.
Further, the step of “comparing the current value to the safe operating envelope; if the current value is outside the safe operating envelope, determining that a yaw instability is present in the vehicle combination” are the process under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting “by computer” (claim 26), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (e.g., including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion). For example, the context of this limitation encompasses that a person can mentally compare the two received data value (e.g. how fast the car rotates (yaw rate) with the safe operation state envelope of the vehicle) and also mentally determine the similarity or different between the two data. The person then can mentally determine a fault or error of the yaw rate error/fault of the vehicle based on the comparison. IF a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea with respect to step 2A, prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with respect to step 2A, prong 2. In particular, the preamble in claim 1 recites the vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and trailing unit is not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely general link to the technological environment. Further, a computer is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., a generic processor) in claim 26 such that is amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic component. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discuss above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and trailing unit recited in preamble is considered as general link to the technological environment. Also using a generic computer component amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic component. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Dependent claims 2, 5-25 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational and are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chatzikomis et al (US 2020/0039504): at least abstract discloses obtaining a current value of a slip angle of the vehicle; setting a reference yaw rate in accordance with the obtained slip angle; setting a reference yaw moment based on the reference yaw rate; and controlling the electric vehicle to apply torque to a plurality of wheels of the vehicle in accordance with the reference yaw moment.
Plaehn et al (US 2021/0188229): at least in pars. 0030-0031 discloses determining trailer actual yaw rate depending on wheel rotation of the trailer which are measure by means of wheel rotation speed sensors. In addition or as an alternative, the trailer actual yaw rate can be determined depending on a direct measurement of the trailer actual yaw rate by means of a yaw rate sensor in the trailer.
Rios Lazcano et al (US 2026/0048785): at least abstract discloses vehicle stabilization system can detect a condition associated with a movement of the over-actuated vehicle and dynamically generate a stabilization control command. A condition detected by the vehicle stabilization system can indicate instability of the over-actuated vehicle and include unstable conditions such as sway, jackknifing, oversteering, understeering, yaw instability, roll instability, and pitch instability.
Drako (US 2016/0318493): At least pars. 0030-0033 discloses method for operation of the anti-jackknifing apparatus includes: determining that a skidding movement is occurring; determining that the angle of the tractor and its trailer is near instability; determining at least one desired yaw direction to avoid folding of the articulated vehicle.
Schmidt (US 2022/0355789): at least pars. 0013-0015 discloses the yaw rate of the tractor vehicle during the operation of the tractor-trailer combination is monitored, at least at intervals, in order that if an instability of the tractor-trailer combination is recognized, at least a steering angle in the same direction as the front axle can be set at the rear axle.
Nitta et al (US 2020/0391711): at least pars. 0016, 0023 discloses the tractor includes a wheel speed sensor that detects a wheel speed, which is a rotation speed of the wheel. The tractor includes a vehicle behavior sensor that detects the operation state of the vehicle. Specifically, the yaw rate sensor that detects the actual yaw rate (yaw angular velocity) of the vehicle, the longitudinal acceleration sensor that detects an acceleration (longitudinal acceleration) in the front-rear direction of the vehicle, and the lateral acceleration sensor that detects an acceleration (lateral acceleration) in the left-right direction of the vehicle are provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights