DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's application filed April 25, 2025. Claims 1-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Objection
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The invention claims foreign priority to EP24177253.2. However, the specification lacks cross-reference to this foreign priority. See (b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Appropriate correction is required.
Judicial Exception Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 10 recites “A computer-implemented method comprising: acquiring, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a longitudinal velocity of a vehicle combination; determining, by the processing circuitry, an upper limit and/or a lower limit for a rotational speed of an electrical machine associated with at least one unit of the vehicle combination or a speed of a wheel associated with the electrical machine based on the acquired longitudinal velocity; and transmitting, by the processing circuitry, the upper and/or lower limit to a controller of the at least one unit.”.
The limitations of claim 7 presented above, as drafted, are processes that, 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 “circuitry of a computer system” nothing in the claims elements precludes the steps from practically being performed as part of human activities. For example, “acquiring, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a longitudinal velocity of a vehicle combination”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind where a person is mentally able to determine a vehicle velocity. Further, “determining, by the processing circuitry, an upper limit and/or a lower limit for a rotational speed of an electrical machine”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind where a person is mentally able to set rotational speed limits. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, “transmitting, by the processing circuitry, the upper and/or lower limit to a controller of the at least one unit” is not a practical application because it is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic elements. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The controller is merely receiving a signal without acting on the vehicle system to generate an action on vehicle. Accordingly, the claim lack of additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Further, claims 1-9 are also rejected because they amount no more than the same mere instructions of the method of claims 10-19 in a system which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kattenberg et al, US 2025/0360913, in view of Jundt et al. US 2018/0304884, hereinafter referred to as Kattenberg and Jundt, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Kattenberg discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire a longitudinal velocity of a vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, “information about the velocity of the vehicle 1 as a whole is imported and, in addition, information about the rotational behavior or the drive behavior of the individual wheels 2.i is imported on a wheel-individual or axle-individual basis”);
determine an upper limit and/or a lower limit for a rotational speed of an electrical machine associated with at least one unit of the vehicle combination or a speed of a wheel associated with the electrical machine based on the acquired longitudinal velocity (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, “a respective threshold value can thus also be assigned and it can then be checked, for each individual wheel, whether the threshold value is exceeded, in order to be able to detect an inadmissible deviation in the wheel rotational behavior”); and
transmit the upper and/or lower limit to a controller of the at least one unit of the vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 68, 69, 72, “The respective threshold value T.i; s2T.i; NT.i, vT.i can be ascertained by the drive control unit 10 itself or by the brake control unit 20, for example as part of the stability control implemented therein”).
Kattenberg fails to explicitly disclose a vehicle combination.
However. Jundt teaches a vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 1, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 12, “the current load of the vehicle or the tractor-trailer combination, limit speeds for the route ahead are ascertained, the limit speeds allowing the route ahead to be passed without the vehicle or the tractor-trailer combination rolling over. Then, if it is determined that the ascertained limit speeds are exceeded at certain driving positions along the route, the vehicle is immediately decelerated to the limit speeds ascertained at the location in each case”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kattenberg and include a vehicle combination as taught by Jundt because it would allow the system preventing a rollover of a vehicle or a tractor-trailer combination in curves (Jundt ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kattenberg discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the acquired longitudinal velocity is the longitudinal velocity of the tractor unit of the vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, “information about the velocity of the vehicle 1 as a whole is imported and, in addition, information about the rotational behavior or the drive behavior of the individual wheels 2.i is imported on a wheel-individual or axle-individual basis”).
Regarding claim 3, Kattenberg discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the upper and/or lower limit further based on a roll-over prevention operation for the vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 73, “The slip control deviation dsA thus indicates the difference between the actual slip s2I.i of the respective wheel 2.i and the respective slip threshold value s2T.i (wheel-individual), or between the actual slips s2I.i of the wheels 2.i of the respective vehicle axle FA”).
Kattenberg fails to explicitly disclose a vehicle combination.
However. Jundt teaches a vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 1, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 12, “the current load of the vehicle or the tractor-trailer combination, limit speeds for the route ahead are ascertained, the limit speeds allowing the route ahead to be passed without the vehicle or the tractor-trailer combination rolling over. Then, if it is determined that the ascertained limit speeds are exceeded at certain driving positions along the route, the vehicle is immediately decelerated to the limit speeds ascertained at the location in each case”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kattenberg and include a vehicle combination as taught by Jundt because it would allow the system preventing a rollover of a vehicle or a tractor-trailer combination in curves (Jundt ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kattenberg discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the upper and/or lower limit further based on a stretch braking operation for the vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 73, 31, “the limit driving torque and/or the limit drive rotational speed are/is specified or adjusted, in dependence on the braking torque applied by the actuated service brakes, such that, as a result of the limitation of the setpoint driving torque and/or of the setpoint drive rotational speed for the drive by which the wheel with the inadmissible control deviation is being driven, in combination with the application of the braking torque at the same wheel”).
Regarding claim 5, Kattenberg discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the upper and/or lower limit further based on a side slip angle of the at least one unit (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 70, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 73, 31, 67, “the actual slips s2I.i for the individual wheels 2.i. The actual slip s2I.i for the respective wheel 2.i is obtained, for example, as a percentage or as an absolute value from the actual wheel rotational speeds N2I.i for the respective wheel 2.i (or the actual drive rotational speeds N3I.i for the respective drive 3.i) and the vehicle velocity vl. The actual slip s2I.i characterizes the velocity difference between the road velocity (vehicle velocity vl) and the actual wheel circumferential velocity v2I.i of the respective wheel 2.i,”).
Regarding claim 6, Kattenberg discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive an upper and/or lower capability for the rotational speed of the electrical machine or the speed of the wheel associated with the electrical machine from the controller of the at least one unit; and determine the upper limit and/or lower limit based on the received capability (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 80, 76. “By limiting the setpoint driving torques M3S.i and/or setpoint drive rotational speeds N3S.i for the respective drives 3.i in this manner, the actual slip s2I.i or the actual wheel rotational speed N2I.i or the actual drive rotational speed N3I.i or the actual wheel circumferential velocity v2I.i or the actual drive velocity v3I.i at the respective
wheels 2.i or drives 3.i that are affected is correspondingly likewise limited, or so controlled that an admissible slip control deviation dsA and/or rotational speed control deviation dNA and/or velocity control deviation dvA is obtained again”).
Regarding claim 7, Kattenberg discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive a measured longitudinal velocity for the at least one unit of the vehicle combination from the controller of the at least one unit (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, “information about the velocity of the vehicle 1 as a whole is imported and, in addition, information about the rotational behavior or the drive behavior of the individual wheels 2.i is imported on a wheel-individual or axle-individual basis”).
Regarding claim 8, Kattenberg discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive a previously set upper and/or lower limit for the rotational speed of the electrical machine or the speed of the wheel associated with the electrical machine from the controller of the at least one unit (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 46, “wherein the drive control unit is configured to specify or to adjust the limit driving torque and/or the limit drive rotational speed in dependence on the braking torque applied by the actuated service brakes”).
Regarding claim 9, Kattenberg discloses a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 3, 4, 6, 8, “controlling a vehicle having a drive system, wherein the drive system includes a drive control unit and at least one electric drive for the wheel-individual or axle-individual driving of wheels of the vehicle, wherein the driving control unit is configured to generate a setpoint driving torque and/or a setpoint drive rotational speed in dependence on a drive demand and to output them/it to the respective drive”).
Regarding claim 10, Kattenberg discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
acquiring, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a longitudinal velocity of a vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, “information about the velocity of the vehicle 1 as a whole is imported and, in addition, information about the rotational behavior or the drive behavior of the individual wheels 2.i is imported on a wheel-individual or axle-individual basis”);
determining, by the processing circuitry, an upper limit and/or a lower limit for a rotational speed of an electrical machine associated with at least one unit of the vehicle combination or a speed of a wheel associated with the electrical machine based on the acquired longitudinal velocity (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, “a respective threshold value can thus also be assigned and it can then be checked, for each individual wheel, whether the threshold value is exceeded, in order to be able to detect an inadmissible deviation in the wheel rotational behavior”); and
transmitting, by the processing circuitry, the upper and/or lower limit to a controller of the at least one unit (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 68, 69, 72, “The respective threshold value T.i; s2T.i; NT.i, vT.i can be ascertained by the drive control unit 10 itself or by the brake control unit 20, for example as part of the stability control implemented therein”).
Kattenberg fails to explicitly disclose a vehicle combination.
However. Jundt teaches a vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 1, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 12, “the current load of the vehicle or the tractor-trailer combination, limit speeds for the route ahead are ascertained, the limit speeds allowing the route ahead to be passed without the vehicle or the tractor-trailer combination rolling over. Then, if it is determined that the ascertained limit speeds are exceeded at certain driving positions along the route, the vehicle is immediately decelerated to the limit speeds ascertained at the location in each case”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kattenberg and include a vehicle combination as taught by Jundt because it would allow the system preventing a rollover of a vehicle or a tractor-trailer combination in curves (Jundt ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kattenberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the acquired longitudinal velocity is the longitudinal velocity of the tractor unit of the vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, “information about the velocity of the vehicle 1 as a whole is imported and, in addition, information about the rotational behavior or the drive behavior of the individual wheels 2.i is imported on a wheel-individual or axle-individual basis”).
Regarding claim 12, Kattenberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, comprising determining the upper and/or lower limit based on a roll-over prevention operation for the vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 73, “The slip control deviation dsA thus indicates the difference between the actual slip s2I.i of the respective wheel 2.i and the respective slip threshold value s2T.i (wheel-individual), or between the actual slips s2I.i of the wheels 2.i of the respective vehicle axle FA”).
Regarding claim 13, Kattenberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, comprising determining the upper and/or lower limit based on a stretch braking operation for the vehicle combination (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 73, 31, “the limit driving torque and/or the limit drive rotational speed are/is specified or adjusted, in dependence on the braking torque applied by the actuated service brakes, such that, as a result of the limitation of the setpoint driving torque and/or of the setpoint drive rotational speed for the drive by which the wheel with the inadmissible control deviation is being driven, in combination with the application of the braking torque at the same wheel”).
Regarding claim 14, Kattenberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, comprising determining the upper and/or lower limit based on a side slip angle of the at least one unit (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 70, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 73, 31, 67, “the actual slips s2I.i for the individual wheels 2.i. The actual slip s2I.i for the respective wheel 2.i is obtained, for example, as a percentage or as an absolute value from the actual wheel rotational speeds N2I.i for the respective wheel 2.i (or the actual drive rotational speeds N3I.i for the respective drive 3.i) and the vehicle velocity vl. The actual slip s2I.i characterizes the velocity difference between the road velocity (vehicle velocity vl) and the actual wheel circumferential velocity v2I.i of the respective wheel 2.i,”).
Regarding claim 15, Kattenberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: receiving, by the processing circuitry, an upper and/or lower capability for the rotational speed of the electrical machine or the speed of the wheel associated with the electrical machine from the controller of the at least one unit; and determining the upper limit and/or lower limit based on the received capability (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 80, 76. “By limiting the setpoint driving torques M3S.i and/or setpoint drive rotational speeds N3S.i for the respective drives 3.i in this manner, the actual slip s2I.i or the actual wheel rotational speed N2I.i or the actual drive rotational speed N3I.i or the actual wheel circumferential velocity v2I.i or the actual drive velocity v3I.i at the respective wheels 2.i or drives 3.i that are affected is correspondingly likewise limited, or so controlled that an admissible slip control deviation dsA and/or rotational speed control deviation dNA and/or velocity control deviation dvA is obtained again”).
Regarding claim 16, Kattenberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising receiving, by the processing circuitry, a measured longitudinal velocity for the at least one unit of the vehicle combination from the controller of the at least one unit (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, “information about the velocity of the vehicle 1 as a whole is imported and, in addition, information about the rotational behavior or the drive behavior of the individual wheels 2.i is imported on a wheel-individual or axle-individual basis”).
Regarding claim 17, Kattenberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising receiving, by the processing circuitry, a previously set upper and/or lower limit for the rotational speed of the electrical machine or the speed of the wheel associated with the electrical machine from the controller of the at least one unit (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 46, “wherein the drive control unit is configured to specify or to adjust the limit driving torque and/or the limit drive rotational speed in dependence on the braking torque applied by the actuated service brakes”).
Regarding claim 18, Kattenberg discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 10 (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 46, 8, “controlling a vehicle having a drive system, wherein the drive system includes a drive control unit and at least one electric drive for the wheel-individual or axle-individual driving of wheels of the vehicle, wherein the drive control unit is configured to generate a setpoint driving torque and/or a setpoint drive rotational speed in dependence on a drive demand and to output them/it to the respective drive”).
Regarding claim 19, Kattenberg 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 10 (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 10, 22, 28, 39, 56, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 60, 30, 41, 42, 68, 29, 46, 8, “controlling a vehicle having a drive system, wherein the drive system includes a drive control unit and at least one electric drive for the wheel-individual or axle-individual driving of wheels of the vehicle, wherein the drive control unit is configured to generate a setpoint driving torque and/or a setpoint drive rotational speed in dependence on a drive demand and to output them/it to the respective drive”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights