CTNF 19/070,978 CTNF 100621 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA 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. EP24162040.0 , filed on 03/07/2024 . Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025 was received and reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This office action is in response to application number 19/070,978 filed on 03/05/2025, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 12 & 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The dependency of the claims should be stated at the beginning of the claim’s language to conform with the other non-objected claims. Example: (Claim 12) - The computer system of claim 1 being integrated within a vehicle . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry. STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03 , or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04 STEP 2A (PRONG 1) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) STEP 2A (PRONG 2) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III) Claim 1: A computer system for determining a control input for a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire operational information relating to a manoeuvre of the vehicle; and determine a cost associated with energy efficiency of one or more motion support devices of the vehicle performing the manoeuvre; determine a cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle performing the manoeuvre; and determine a control input such that a cumulative cost of energy efficiency and tyre wear is below a threshold. Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101 Step 1: Statutory category – Yes The claim recites a system comprising a device (an apparatus) comprising processing circuitry. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03 Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity. The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “ mental processes ” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “ performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper ”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) The claim recites the limitation of acquire operational information relating to a manoeuvre of the vehicle; and determine a cost associated with energy efficiency of one or more motion support devices of the vehicle performing the manoeuvre; determine a cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle performing the manoeuvre; and determine a control input such that a cumulative cost of energy efficiency and tyre wear is below a threshold. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “processing circuitry”. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by processing circuitry does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Step 2A, Prong 2: Practical Application - No In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.” The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation (s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements or steps of a computer system for determining a control input for a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry. The computer system and processing circuitry merely automates the inputting and the predicting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a controller. The computer system and processing circuitry are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the inputting and the predicting steps. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B: Inventive concept - No In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, computer system and processing circuitry elements were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification Further does not provide any indication that the computer system and processing circuitry elements are anything other than a conventional computer element(s) (See ¶¶70). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Hence, the specification indicates that computer systems and processing circuitry are a well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that computer systems and processing circuitry elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible. Claim 13: Independent method claim 13 recites similar limitations performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above. Claims 2-7, 12, 14-16, & 20: Dependents do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea and can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 12, 14-16, & 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 2-7, 12, 14-16, & 20. Claims 8-11 & 17-18: Dependents 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 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.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a computer program product containing computer code . Paragraph 0073 of applicant’s specification discloses transitory and non-transitory mediums. As explained in U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer-Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010): The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi¬ cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 4-9, 12-13, 15-17, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansson US 20060025895 A1 (hereinafter Jansson) in view of Payne et al. US 20170061825 A1 (hereinafter Payne) . Claim 1: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the System of claim #, accordingly, the rejection of claim # above is incorporated. Jansson discloses A computer system for determining a control input for a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire operational information relating to a manoeuvre of the vehicle [[0029]; FIG. 5 is a block diagram of an apparatus 50 for reducing vehicle tire wear in the manner described above. Suitable engine and vehicle speed sensors 52, 54 and a suitable load sensor 56 provide sensed information to a processor 58, such as a programmable microprocessor. The processor 58 manipulates the sensed information together with other information, including the coefficient of friction provided by a driver's or other input 60 and other vehicle information stored in a suitable memory 62, and determines engine and retarder torque limits that are provided to the ECU 40 and an engine or transmission retarder 64 ] ; and determine a control input such that a cumulative cost of energy efficiency and tyre wear is below a threshold [[0018]; Applicant reduces tire wear and fuel consumption by controlling tire slip to be close to or substantially zero, e.g., less than a few percent or about 0-3%, and preferably less than 0.5%. (…) One effect of this control is reduction of tire wear. It will be appreciated that this control can have other effects, including for example reduction of fuel consumption ] . Jansson does not explicitly disclose determine a cost associated with energy efficiency of one or more motion support devices of the vehicle performing the manoeuvre; determine a cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle performing the manoeuvre; and (…). Payne teaches determine a cost associated with energy efficiency of one or more motion support devices of the vehicle performing the manoeuvre; determine a cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle performing the manoeuvre [[0015]; Some embodiments may be configured for vehicles to share traffic information and fuel economy information for segments of a route over a network. These embodiments then compare a driver's performance along the route with the performance of other drivers to determine a score for that driver (such as a fuel economy score, a vehicle preservation score, a tire preservation score, a brake preservation score, a travel time score, and/or other score). Embodiments may also use the data from other vehicles to predict the conditions on a driver's route and determine when to suggest or activate certain controls ] ; and (…). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jansson in view of Payne with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle efficiency. The combination would improve driving efficiency [Payne; [0003]; Some embodiments may also be configured for comparing the driver score with the second vehicle efficiency data to determine whether the driver can improve the driving efficiency and in response to determining that the driver can improve, providing instructions for traversing a remaining portion of the route, based on actions taken by the third party in traversing that portion of the route ]. Claim 2: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the System of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the operational information comprises a road inclination, an estimated vehicle mass, an estimated vehicle velocity, and/or a requested acceleration [[0024]; A variety of equivalent input data values can thus be provided to the ECU 40, including at least the friction coefficient .mu. and the combined mass of the truck and load ] . Claim 4: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the System of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the motion support devices comprise one or more electric machines, internal combustion engines, and/or service brakes. [[0023]; To control engine torque, the engine control unit ("ECU") receives a number of input data values, carries out a number of program steps using the input data, and provides a number of output data values to appropriate vehicle systems, such as fuel injectors, ignition timing, engine and wheel brakes, etc ] . Claim 5: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the System of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle represents particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels. [[0006]; If a vehicle is controlled in the usual way to produce maximum tractive force, then the large slip allows high tire wear, which is minimal at zero or near-zero slip. Reducing drive-wheel slip can also have the benefit of reducing fuel consumption. Applicant's invention decreases tire wear and fuel consumption and reduces the operation cost of vehicles that are subjected to extensive tire slip ] . Claim 6: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the System of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle is based on one or more of axle loads, tyre type, and tyre size. [[0008]; In another aspect of the invention, a method of reducing wear of a drive wheel tire of a vehicle includes the steps of collecting information corresponding to a load on an axle supporting the drive wheel tire; determining a torque limit at the drive wheel tire from at least the axle load and a coefficient of friction between the drive wheel tire and a surface supporting the drive wheel tire; (...) ] . Claim 7: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the System of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the control input using an optimisation function to minimise the cumulative cost. [[0027]; Since in some vehicles, such as heavy trucks, the driveline inertia can be significant, step 414 shows adjusting the engine torque limit by adding to it the driveline inertia torque. The result is used (step 416) as an upper limit on the allowable engine torque that reduces wheel spin to less than a few percent, thereby increasing tire life and reducing fuel consumption ] . Claim 8: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the System of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the determined control input comprises a force input, a torque input, and/or a longitudinal slip input for one or more motion support devices of the vehicle. [[0023]; In many modern vehicles, an engine's torque can be readily controlled through execution of suitable program instructions by the engine's electronic control unit ] . Claim 9: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the System of claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses the computer system of claim 8, wherein the force input comprises a force from an electric machine, a force from a set of service brakes, and/or a total gear ratio associated with an electric machine. [[0023]; To control engine torque, the engine control unit ("ECU") receives a number of input data values, carries out a number of program steps using the input data, and provides a number of output data values to appropriate vehicle systems, such as fuel injectors, ignition timing, engine and wheel brakes, etc ] . Claim 12: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the System of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses A vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1. [[0007]; a control system for reducing wear of a drive wheel tire of a vehicle includes a control unit adapted to control torque generated by the vehicle's engine and applied to the drive wheel tire based on a variable torque limit value, (…). ] . Claim(s) 13, 15, 16, & 17: The claim(s) are directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 1, 5, 7, & 8, respectively. The cited portions of Jansson and Payne used in the rejection of claim(s) 1, 5, 7, & 8 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim(s) 13, 15, 16, & 17, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 13, 15, 16, & 17 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 1, 5, 7, & 8 as outlined above. Claim 19: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the method of claim 13, accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 13 [[0030]; It will be recognized that the various actions could be performed by specialized circuits (e.g., discrete logic gates interconnected to perform a specialized function or application-specific integrated circuits), by program instructions executed by one or more processors, or by a combination of both ] . Claim 20: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the method of claim 13, accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated. Jansson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 13 [[0031]; More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer-readable medium include an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, and a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM) ] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansson in view of Payne, further in view of Nobunaga US 20240246369 A1 (hereinafter Nobunaga) . Claim 3: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 3. Nobunaga teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the cost associated with energy efficiency of one or more motion support devices of the vehicle represents one or more of CO2 emissions, electrical energy usage, and fuel consumption [[0010]; it is very important for bus companies and other companies that operate vehicles to obtain predictive information on how much energy consumption (For example, fuel consumption of vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines, CO2 emissions, electric power consumption of electric vehicles, etc.) will be per route ] . It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jansson in view of Nobunaga with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle efficiency. The combination would improve energy consumption and convenience for operators of the vehicle [Nobunaga; [0048]; With such a configuration, the energy consumption of each route or the like can be predicted for the vehicle V, and the convenience of a bus company or the like that operates a bus or the like can be improved ]. Claim(s) 14: The claim(s) is directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 3, respectively. The cited portions of Jansson, Payne, and Nobunaga used in the rejection of claim(s) 3 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim(s) 14, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 14 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 3 as outlined above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10-11 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansson in view of Payne, further in view of Prokes et al. US 20230150482 A1 (hereinafter Prokes) . Claim 10: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 10. Prokes teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the determined control input comprises a respective control input for one or more axles of the vehicle [[0118]; The MSD coordination function 540 may, for instance, use the tire model to determine a relationship between tire scrubbing and vehicle motion state to better control the relative axle load distribution. (...) Also, according to another example, the MSD coordination function may decide on a number of different control options and/or different MSD coordination solutions which all meet a current request from the TSM 370, and thereby also improve some secondary objective, like reducing a tire wear rate and/or improving energy efficiency of the transportation mission by reducing a rolling resistance ] . It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jansson in view of Prokes with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle efficiency. The combination would improve motion management system via adjustable axle loads [Prokes; LOCATION; Hereby, it becomes possible to provide an improved vehicle motion management system where the axle loads on the vehicle can be dynamically adjusted in order to reduce tire scrubbing force. This is at least partly due to the provisions of determining the axle load distribution for a given maneuver based on a vehicle tire model and a vehicle model ]. Claim 11: The combination of Jansson and Payne teach the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jansson does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 11. Prokes teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the determined control input relates to one or more driven axles of the vehicle [[0118]; The MSD coordination function 540 may, for instance, use the tire model to determine a relationship between tire scrubbing and vehicle motion state to better control the relative axle load distribution. (...) Also, according to another example, the MSD coordination function may decide on a number of different control options and/or different MSD coordination solutions which all meet a current request from the TSM 370, and thereby also improve some secondary objective, like reducing a tire wear rate and/or improving energy efficiency of the transportation mission by reducing a rolling resistance ] . It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jansson in view of Prokes with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle efficiency. The combination would improve motion management system via adjustable axle loads [Prokes; LOCATION; Hereby, it becomes possible to provide an improved vehicle motion management system where the axle loads on the vehicle can be dynamically adjusted in order to reduce tire scrubbing force. This is at least partly due to the provisions of determining the axle load distribution for a given maneuver based on a vehicle tire model and a vehicle model ]. Claim(s) 18: The claim(s) is directed towards a method of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 10, respectively. The cited portions of Jansson, Payne, and Prokes used in the rejection of claim(s) 10 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim(s) 18, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 18 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 10 as outlined above . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 19/034825 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/070,978. That is, claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/034825 falls entirely within the scope of claim 1-20 or, in other words, claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/034825 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 19/062800 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/070,978. That is, claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/062800 falls entirely within the scope of claim 1-20 or, in other words, claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/062800 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 . Lopez De La Cruz et al. (US 20230196854 A1) discloses A replacement system for a tire supporting a vehicle includes a processor in electronic communication with an electronic system of the vehicle, and an electronic memory capacity for storing tire identification information. The processor receives the tire identification information and vehicle data. A prediction model is in electronic communication with the processor and receives the tire identification information and the vehicle data. An identification of a replacement tread depth for the tire is included in the prediction model, and the model determines an estimation of remaining available distance for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth. The model estimates remaining available time to reach the replacement tread depth from the estimation of remaining available distance. A residual correction module optimizes the estimation of the remaining available time for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth, and a notification of a replacement lead time is generated by the system. Yang et al. (US 20160325725 A1) discloses the present invention provides a method for controlling an engine unit in a vehicle. The vehicle includes an engine unit, a transmission unit adapted to selectively couple with the engine unit and also configured to transmit the power generated by the engine unit, a first motor generator coupled with the transmission unit, an output unit, a power switching device, a second motor generator configured to drive at least one of front and rear wheels, and a power battery that is respectively connected to the first motor generator and the second motor generator. The method includes: acquiring an operating mode of a vehicle and an operating parameter of the vehicle; and controlling an engine unit according to an operating parameter and an operating mode to start or stop. Alghooneh et al. (US 20220324266 A1) discloses A method for determining a tire tread wear estimation of a tire includes receiving, by a controller, a direct tire tread wear measurement, when available, performing an indirect tire tread wear estimation, performing a data fusion of the indirect tire tread wear estimation with the direct tire tread wear measurement when available, estimating a percentage tire life remaining and a mileage to end of tire life, and estimating a refined tire tread wear calibration coefficient for performing future indirect tire tread wear estimations. Storti et al. (US 20200001662 A1) discloses A tire tread wear system may include one or more vehicle sensors and a processor. The processor may include a control module, a geometrical model, a machine learning model, and a switch. The geometrical model may be configured to collect data from the vehicle sensors to determine a dynamic rolling radius of a tire. The geometrical model may be configured to output a tread wear estimation based on the dynamic rolling radius of the tire. The machine learning model may be configured to collect data from the vehicle sensors. The machine learning model may be configured to output a tread wear estimation based on a correlation of the tread wear estimation output from the geometrical model and one or more data instances with a tire tread state. The switch may be configured to activate the geometrical model, the machine learning model, or a combination thereof. Ciaravola et al. (US 20210245554 A1) discloses The invention concerns a tread wear monitoring method comprising a tread wear model calibration step (1) and a tread wear monitoring step (2), wherein the tread wear model calibration step (1) includes determining (13) a calibrated tread wear model based on tread-wear-related quantities and first frictional-energy-related quantities. The tread wear monitoring step (2) includes: acquiring (21), from a vehicle bus (40) of a motor vehicle (4) equipped with two or more wheels fitted, each, with a tire, driving-related quantities related to driving of the motor vehicle (4); computing (22) second frictional-energy-related quantities related to frictional energy experienced, during driving, by a given tire of the motor vehicle (4) by providing a predefined vehicle dynamics model that mathematically relates the acquired driving-related quantities to the second frictional-energy-related quantities, and computing the second frictional-energy-related quantities by inputting the acquired driving-related quantities into the predefined vehicle dynamics model; and performing a tread wear estimation (23) and a remaining tread material prediction (24) based on the second frictional-energy-related quantities computed and the calibrated tread wear model. The tread wear model calibration step (1) further includes: performing (11) tread wear tests on one or more tires; and measuring (12) tread-wear-related quantities indicative of tread depth reductions resulting from the performed tread wear tests, and first frictional-energy-related quantities related to frictional energy which the tested tire(s) is/are subject to during the performed tread wear tests. Determining (13) a calibrated tread wear model includes: providing a predefined reference tread wear model that mathematically relates frictional energy experienced by a tire along a driving route to tread wear caused by said frictional energy through given parameters; computing calibration values of the given parameters by inputting the measured tread-wear-related and first frictional-energy-related quantities into the predefined reference tread wear model; and determining the calibrated tread wear model by applying the computed calibration values in the predefined reference tread wear model. Ruoppolo (US 20040073339 A1) discloses System for monitoring a tyre (6), characterized in that it comprises a device (4) for detecting data from said tyre comprising a code identifying said tyre and data relating to the state of said tyre, and a central processing unit (3) able to cause automatic processing of said information and generate the value of an index characteristic of the tyre during use. Said value of a characteristic index comprises the operating cost of the tyre. Haronian et al. (US 20210347215 A1) discloses A system for detecting pressure and wear conditions of tires that includes a module positioned inside each wheel of a vehicle. The module includes sensors, a processor, a transmitter and a power source for powering the module. The output from the sensors in each wheel is fed to the processors of each wheel for data processing and the data is transmitted by the transmitter in each wheel to a receiver and data processor located outside of the wheels. The data processor is designed to analyze the received processed data from the modules, and to provide alerts based on stored information and by comparing the processed data from the first wheel with the processed data from the second wheel. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony G Mora whose telephone number is (571)272-2306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8am-5pm PST, Alternating Friday 8am-4pm PST. 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, Kito R Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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. /ANTHONY GABRIEL MORA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664 /KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 15 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 16 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 17 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 18 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 19 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 20 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 21 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 22 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/070,978 Page 23 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights