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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on December 31, 2024 for application number 19/006,599. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 31, 2024 was submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2024-013683 filed on January 31, 2024.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-3 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-3 are rejected.
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 enough 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 enough 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 enough 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting enough structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“Calculator”, “Estimator” and “Vibration Suppression Controller” in claims 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (McCann – US 2006/0293815 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McCann discloses:
A vibration control device (vehicle weight estimating method that is based on a determined vertical oscillation frequency of an unpowered vehicle such as a semi-trailer 10: Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a calculator for calculating a weight of a trailer (semi-trailer 10: Fig. 1) based on acceleration and driving force when a vehicle driven by a motor toes the trailer (semi-trailer 10: Fig. 1) ([0014]: “The invention is a vehicle weight estimating method that is based on a determined vertical oscillation frequency of an unpowered vehicle such as a semi-trailer 10. The system utilizes an accelerometer 12 with sensitivity in at least the vertical axis. The accelerometer 12 is preferably housed within the control module 14 for ABS, EBS, Suspension and/or Roll Control on board the semi-trailer. The control module 14 can be configured to also use the signal from the accelerometer 12 to determine the approximate vertical oscillation frequency of the semi-trailer 10. An estimate of the approximate sprung vehicle weight can be calculated using the vertical oscillation data and by approximating the spring constant of the vehicle suspension”);
an estimator for estimating a resonance frequency between the vehicle and the trailer based on the weight of the trailer (semi-trailer 10: Fig. 1) and a weight of the vehicle ([0017, 0030]: “By contrast, the subject invention comprises a method to continuously estimate the weight, preferably the sprung weight, of semi-trailer 10 on the single or closely co-located dual axles 16 in order to optimize control of the semi-trailer 10 when it is in motion by analysis of, primarily, the vertical oscillation frequency of the semi-trailer 10 under varying conditions of being unloaded, partially loaded, or fully loaded” and “The vertical frequency oscillation of a semi-trailer 10 as measured by the vertical axis accelerometer 12 of the present invention will, of course vary depending on a number of factors. It may, generally be said, however, that a low frequency oscillation is an indicator of a heavy load. Conversely, a high frequency oscillation is an indicator of a light load. For purposes of the invention frequencies of from 0.5 to 15 Hz may be potential indicators”); and
a vibration suppression controller for performing vibration suppression control for reducing excitation of the resonance frequency on the motor ([0004, 0027]: “The sensor, or sensors, may be sensitive to particular frequencies, or filters may be used to remove frequencies caused by the engine or frequencies from other mechanical noise. The estimated weight can be made available via a display to the driver, recorded electronically or otherwise in a vehicle log, and/or serve as an input to other vehicle safety or control systems” and “As noted, an estimate of weight is extracted by determining the frequency of the acceleration signal. This estimate is used to enhance the quality of the control outputs to the solenoids 28. For example, if it is known that the rear of the semi-trailer 10 is approximately fully loaded then the control algorithm can allocate more time to the no-control state which actually provides a pressure increase function during the periods that the driver has over braked for the conditions and ABS control is active. As will be understood by those skilled in the art, transitions between the pressure decrease state and the pressure increase state can occur earlier if it is known that the rear of the trailer 10 is loaded. This helps to reduce stopping distance in the loaded condition”).
Regarding claim 2, McCann disclose the vibration control device according to claim 1, and further on McCann also discloses:
wherein the estimator uses a mapping data, which gives a relationship between the weight of the trailer (semi-trailer 10: Fig. 1) and the resonance frequency, to estimate the resonance frequency corresponding to the weight of the trailer (semi-trailer 10: Fig. 1) calculated by the calculator ([0019]: “In a microprocessor in the electronic control module 14, the spring constant or constants of the semi-trailer suspension components or suitable representations thereof, have already been entered. Data recorded by the vertical accelerometer is transferred via an electrical signal to the microprocessor where it is {{{entered into a mathematical algorithm}}}, which calculates the semi-trailer 10 weight. This information could be further compared with one or more set values for optimal control of the semi-trailer 10 under the then-existing conditions. While not part of the present invention, some type of warning could be conveyed to the operator of the vehicle if limits of safe operation were exceeded. Based on the information provided by the method of the present invention, the position of one or more axles/wheels/tires can be changed to provide more stable conditions when the trailer 10 is in motion, or during loading/unloading procedures”).
Regarding claim 3, McCann disclose the vibration control device according to claim 1, and further on McCann also discloses:
wherein the calculator calculates the weight of the vehicle on a basis of acceleration and driving force during non-toeing ([0003-0005]: i.e., system for determining the weight of a vehicle using accelerometers).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6,067,491 A – Takahashi
WO 2020/194621 A1 - SAWADA
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. 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.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747