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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the aforementioned Application filed March 14, 2025. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on European Patent Office Application No. EP24168767.2, filed April 5, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 14, 2025, 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 § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-6 are directed to a system for determining if a tire of a trailer needs to be inflated or deflated based on various conditions. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations displayed in bold below:
A computer system, for inflating a trailer equipment included in a trailer, comprising processing circuitry configured to:
receive data including at least a trailer connection status and a trailer load;
determine if a vehicle comprising the trailer and a tractor unit will depart within a predetermined timeframe, based at least on the trailer connection status and the trailer load; and
if the vehicle is determined to depart within the predetermined timeframe, output an inflation authorization message to increase a trailer equipment pressure to be equal to or above a departure pressure threshold.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. A user is able to view data received from an onboard system indicating the successful connection of the tractor to the trailer and the current inflation pressure of each tire of the ow connected trailer (e.g. through a screen or lights on a dash). After seeing said information, the user is able to make a mental determination as to if the tractor-trailer combination is departing within a timeframe (e.g. by looking at a clock and knowing the schedule of the driver) and then authorizing the inflation of the trailer tires once the determination has been made. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
A computer system, for inflating a trailer equipment included in a trailer, comprising processing circuitry configured to:
receive data including at least a trailer connection status and a trailer load;
determine if a vehicle comprising the trailer and a tractor unit will depart within a predetermined timeframe, based at least on the trailer connection status and the trailer load; and
if the vehicle is determined to depart within the predetermined timeframe, output an inflation authorization message to increase a trailer equipment pressure to be equal to or above a departure pressure threshold.
The functions of the computer system and processing circuitry are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The characterization of the computer system as being a system for inflating a trailer equipment included in a trailer amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The process of receive data including at least a trailer connection status and a trailer load merely amounts to extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, 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.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of computer system and processing circuitry amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the characterization of the computer system as being a system for inflating a trailer equipment included in a trailer amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the limitation of receive data including at least a trailer connection status and a trailer load represents data gathering steps that amount to extra-solution activity. The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). ). In addition, 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 (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/variables/limitations of claims 2-6 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without recitation of any further additional elements. Therefore, tor the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US 20240198736; hereinafter Richardson), in view of Ravella et al. (US 11634147; hereinafter Ravella).
Regarding Claim 1,
Richardson teaches
A computer system, for inflating a trailer equipment included in a trailer, comprising processing circuitry (Richardson: Paragraph [0109]; Gateway 300) configured to:
receive data including at least a trailer connection status (Richardson: Paragraph [0109]; “In a specific example, a gateway 300 attached to a tractor can use signal modulation data from inflators 200 on a trailer to verify that the trailer is attached.”) and a trailer load; (Richardson: Paragraph [0155]; “Operation parameters can be determined based on current and/or historical: fleet data, vehicle parameters, driving context, vehicle operation state, inflator operation state, environmental parameters, tire parameters, vehicle speed, temporal data, fleet preferences, fleet information, vehicle location, vehicle type, load type, load weight, load type, and/or other suitable information.”)
...
Richardson does not explicitly teach a system for determining if a vehicle trailer combination will be departing within a timeframe or perform certain actions based on said determination.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ravella teaches
...
determine if a vehicle comprising the trailer and a tractor unit will depart within a predetermined timeframe, (Ravella: Column 3, Line 33-47; “As used herein, “pre-trip” can refer to actions taking place prior to a planned/predefined trip of the autonomous vehicle, including actions taking place immediately prior to the planned trip (e.g., within the immediately preceding minutes or hours), actions taking place within one day prior to the planned trip, actions taking place within one week prior to the planned trip, etc.”) based at least on the trailer connection status (Ravella: Column 7, Line 50-62, FIG. 2; “As shown in FIG. 2, the method 200 begins with detecting, at 202, whether a trailer is attached to an autonomous tractor (e.g., based on image and/or sensor data, such as 112E of FIC. 1C). If a trailer is not detected at 202, the method 200 can loop back to iterative checks until a trailer is detected. If a trailer is detected at 202, an initial trailer health assessment is performed at 204,...”) and the trailer load; (Ravella: Column 5, Line 52 – Column 6, Line 10; “Alternatively or in addition, the first type of pre-trip maneuver can be assigned to the first autonomous semi-truck 100A and/or the second type of pre-trip maneuver can be assigned to the second autonomous semi-truck 100B based on one or more of: a health history of the semi-truck (or of the trailer alone or of the tractor alone), a vehicle age, a current loading (e.g., cargo weight), a current cargo type, a current/planned trip length, a current/planned trip profile, or a current/planned trip terrain type of the associated semi-truck.”) and
if the vehicle is determined to depart within the predetermined timeframe, output an inflation authorization message to increase a trailer equipment pressure to be equal to or above a departure pressure threshold. (Ravella: Column 7, Line 10-15, 37-43, TABLE 1 (Found in Columns 4 and 5); When the tire is detected to be underinflated during the initial assessment, an alert is sent to inflate it.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the trailer equipment inflation system of Richardson with the departure determination and pre departure checks of Ravella for the benefit of facilitating the automatic implementation of pre-trip trailer health assessments and mid-trip (i.e., during a trip) trailer health monitoring for [autonomous] vehicles (e.g., [autonomous] semi-trucks). (Ravella: Column 2, Line 53-56)
Regarding Claim 2,
Richardson, in view of Ravella, teaches
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive a trailer equipment pressure and to send a feedback message indicating successful inflation when the trailer equipment pressure is equal to or above the departure pressure threshold. (Richardson: Paragraph [0084]; “The inflator communication module 220 can transmit data according to an inflator communication rate, when a parameter (e.g., inflator parameter) or sensor measurement value exceeds a threshold value, responsive to a request from the gateway 300 and/or user device 500, upon wakeup, and/or at another suitable time.”)
Regarding Claim 5,
Richardson, in view of Ravella, teaches
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive data including a speed of the vehicle; (Richardson: Paragraph [0044], [0051], [0096]) and
if the speed of the vehicle is above or equal to a maximal speed threshold after the inflation authorization message has been output, output a deflation message, to decrease the trailer equipment pressure to be equal to or below a security pressure threshold. (Richardson: Paragraph [0098]; “In a fourth variant, the gateway 300 can determine the driving context (e.g., vehicle location, vehicle speed, etc.) and optionally send the driving context to the remote computing system 400 (and/or any other suitable system that determines the inflator setpoints). However, the gateway 300 can perform other suitable functions.”; [0185]; “Operating the inflator can include inflating the tire, deflating the tire, remaining at the same state and/or transitioning between states.”; [0194]; The system may adjust the tire pressure setpoints based on the vehicle speed and may then communicate with the inflators to deflate the tires accordingly.)
Regarding Claim 6,
Richardson, in view of Ravella, teaches
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine if the vehicle will depart within the predetermined timeframe via an artificial intelligence model, the data representative of at least of the trailer connection status and the trailer load being input variables of the artificial intelligence model. (Richardson: Paragraph [0123])
Regarding Claim 7, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
...
the tractor unit further comprises:
an air compressor configured to inflate the trailer equipment when the inflation authorization message is output to increase a trailer equipment pressure to be equal to or above a departure pressure threshold. (Richardson: Paragraph [0035]; Inflators 200; [0041], [0050])
Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9,
Richardson, in view of Ravella, teaches
The vehicle of claim 7, wherein the vehicle further comprises:
a connection sensor, configured to determine a connection status of the tractor unit and the trailer; (Richardson: Paragraph [0038])
a load sensor, configured to measure a load of the trailer; (Richardson: Paragraph [0096])
a trailer equipment pressure sensor, configured to sense the trailer equipment pressure; (Richardson: Paragraph [0024]) and
a speed sensor, configured to sense a speed of the vehicle. (Richardson: Paragraph [0096])
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
...
when the inflation authorization message is output, inflating a trailer equipment included on the trailer to increase a trailer equipment pressure to be equal to or above a departure pressure threshold by an air compressor included in the tractor unit. (Richardson: Paragraph [0035]; Inflators 200; [0041], [0050])
Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is analogous to Claim 2 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14,
Richardson, in view of Ravella, teaches
A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 11. (Richardson: Paragraph [0203])
Regarding Claim 15.
Richardson, in view of Ravella, teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to perform the method of
claim 11. (Richardson: Paragraph [0203]; “Alternative embodiments implement the above methods and/or processing modules in non-transitory computer-readable media, storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a processing system, cause the processing system to perform the method(s) discussed herein.”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson, in view of Ravella, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-15, above, and further in view of Hennig (US 20130306192).
Regarding Claim 3,
Richardson, in view of Ravella, teaches
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to output the inflation authorization message if:
the trailer connection status indicates that the trailer is connected to the tractor unit included in the vehicle;... (Richardson: Paragraph [0109]; “In a specific example, a gateway 300 attached to a tractor can use signal modulation data from inflators 200 on a trailer to verify that the trailer is attached.”)
Richardson, in view of Ravella, does not explicitly teach a method for detecting if the trailer load is below a threshold.
However in the same field of endeavor, Hennig teaches
...and
the trailer load is below a maximum load threshold. (Hennig: Paragraph [0038])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the inflation authorization message conditions of Richardson, in view of Ravella, with the trailer load threshold condition of Hennig for the benefit of adjusting the tire pressure in a wide-based tire or other type of tire to maintain a relatively constant tire pressure. (Hennig: Paragraph [0003])
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson, in view of Ravella, and further in view of Hennig, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kale et al. (US 20220289163; hereinafter Kale).
Regarding Claim 4,
Richardson, in view of Ravella, and further in view of Hennig, teaches
The computer system of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive data including an engine status of an engine included in the tractor unit, (Richardson: Paragraph [0051]; “Gateway parameters can include vehicle speed, vehicle operation state (e.g., on, idling, moving, parked, off, etc.),...”) a location of the vehicle, (Richardson: Paragraph [0030]; “...the remote computing system 400 can automatically determine a target setpoint for each tire 10 based on the current or anticipated driving context (e.g., vehicle location, load, ambient environment, tire make and model, etc.) and provide an updated setpoint to the tire inflator 200 to satisfy.”) a current time and date, ... (Richardson: Paragraph [0045]) a total drive time before break (Richardson: Paragraph [0046]; “Load parameters can describe the ... maximum trip length...”)
determine if the vehicle will depart within the predetermined timeframe further based on the location of the vehicle, on the current time and date and on the total drive time before break; (Ravella: Column 3, Line 64 – Column 4, Line 22; The system takes various factors into account during the “pre-trip health condition” check and may abort the trip if the condition score is below some threshold, therefore determining if the vehicle will depart within a timeframe.) and
output an inflation authorization message if:
the engine status of the tractor unit indicates that the engine is off;... (Richardson: Paragraph [0051]; “Gateway parameters can include vehicle speed, vehicle operation state (e.g., on, idling, moving, parked, off, etc.),...”)
Richardson, in view of Ravella, and further in view of Hennig, does not explicitly teach a method for analyzing the air supply pressure amount not comparing the air supply pressure to some threshold.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kale teaches
...
receive data including...a supply pressure; (Kale: Paragraph [0029]; “As an example, one or more CTIS pressure sensors 324 may be utilized by the CTIS 210 to detect the air pressure level in the CTIS air tank 318.”)
...
output an inflation authorization message if:
...
the supply pressure is above or equal to a minimal supply pressure threshold. (Kale: Paragraph [0030]-[0031]; The system will inflate the tires if it is determined that they are underinflated and if there is sufficient pressure in the tire inflation air supply tank.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the data received by the computer system and the determination to send the authorization message of Richardson, in view of Ravella, and further in view of Hennig, with the air supply pressure data and consideration of Kale for the benefit of improving overall engine and pneumatic efficiency. (Kale: Paragraph [0003])
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is analogous to Claim 4 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson, in view of Ravella, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-15, above, and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 20150144222; hereinafter Wilson).
Regarding Claim 8,
Richardson, in view of Ravella, teaches
The vehicle of claim 7,...
Richardson, in view of Ravella, does not teach explicitly teach a trailer with park breaks
However in the same field of endeavor, Wilson teaches
...wherein the trailer equipment of the trailer comprises park brakes. (Wilson: Paragraph [0098])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Richardson, in view of Ravella, with the park breaks of Wilson for the benefit of enabling the deflation pilot valve to allow deflation of the tires only when the vehicle is parked, thereby preventing deflation of the tires below any minimum recommended guidelines while the vehicle is traveling over-the-road. (Wilson: Paragraph [0098])
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson, in view of Ravella, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-15, above, and further in view of Kale.
Regarding Claim 10,
Richardson, in view of Ravella, teaches
The vehicle of claim 7, further comprising:
an engine, included in the tractor unit; (Richardson: Paragraph [0036])
an engine sensor, configured to determine an engine status of the engine; (Richardson: Paragraph [0051]; “Gateway parameters can include vehicle speed, vehicle operation state (e.g., on, idling, moving, parked, off, etc.),...”) and...
Richardson, in view of Ravella, does not teach
However in the same field of endeavor, Kale teaches
an air supply sensor, configured to sense a supply pressure of the air compressor. (Kale: Paragraph [0029]; “As an example, one or more CTIS pressure sensors 324 may be utilized by the CTIS 210 to detect the air pressure level in the CTIS air tank 318.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the data received by the computer system and the vehicle of Richardson, in view of Ravella, with the air supply sensor of Kale for the benefit of improving overall engine and pneumatic efficiency. (Kale: Paragraph [0003])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights