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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, the applicant claims “a certain launch application trip condition”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey by using the term certain. Are some conditions excluded from consideration and if so, which criteria is used to identify said “certain” conditions and not other conditions. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a start of the vehicle.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, the applicant claims “a weight corresponding to the identified launch acceleration trip interval”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Is the applicant referring to a weight value of the interval, i.e. a score for example or the vehicle’s weight. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as the commercial vehicle’s weight.
Claims 2-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) collect driving data, compare driving data with a launch acceleration trip condition, perform data preprocessing for the launch acceleration trip, and estimate a weight for the launch acceleration trip.
The limitation of “compare driving data with a launch acceleration trip condition, perform data preprocessing for the launch acceleration trip, and estimate a weight for the launch acceleration trip”, as drafted, is a process 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 “a processor and a memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor and a memory” language, “comparing, performing and applying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally estimating a vehicle weight based on collected and computed data using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of using a processor and a memory to perform the recited steps. The processor and the memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation of collect driving data, the examiner submits that this limitations is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely uses a processor to perform the process. In particular, collecting driving data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the estimating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do 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, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of collecting driving data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites sensors used to collect vehicle data are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle. 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. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 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 well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite additional steps that can be performed mentally and fall under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The claims do not recite any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea in order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang CN 117382651 A (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Wang).
In re claims 1 and 11, Wang discloses a vehicle weight estimation method, device, equipment and storage medium in ramp starting process (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a processor configured to execute instructions; and a memory storing the instructions (Paragraphs 0120-0121), wherein the processor is configured to:
collect real-time vehicle driving data based on an ignition on state of the commercial vehicle (Paragraph 0015 S1 “Collect vehicle operation data” and Paragraph 0019 S11 “Collect vehicle speed”);
compare the real-time vehicle driving data with a certain launch acceleration trip condition to identify a launch acceleration trip interval (Paragraph 0029 “Obtain the vehicle speed and gradient during the starting process, and perform a mapping table lookup based on the vehicle speed and gradient to obtain the corresponding driving force correction value”);
perform data preprocessing for the identified launch acceleration trip interval to generate an estimation dataset (Paragraph 0030 “Obtain the filtered driving force difference, add the filtered driving force difference and the driving force correction value to obtain the required corrected driving force difference”);
and apply the estimation dataset to weight estimation calculation logic to estimate a weight corresponding to the identified launch acceleration trip interval (Paragraph 0016 “Construct a vehicle weight estimation model“, Paragraph 0026 S24 “obtain the estimated vehicle weight”, and Paragraph 0032 “calculate the difference in vehicle weight at adjacent sampling points based on the difference in driving force and acceleration at adjacent sampling points”)
In re claims 7 and 17, Wang teaches the following:
wherein the processor is configured to: perform a moving average of at least one weight previously estimated in a certain window interval and the estimated weight to update the estimated weight in response to the identified launch acceleration trip interval (Paragraph 0038 “Calculate the average vehicle weight by taking a set number of estimated vehicle weight values from the current time forward”)
In re claims 8 and 18, Wang teaches the following:
wherein the processor is configured to: provide a driving and braking system provided in the commercial vehicle with information about the updated weight (Paragraph 0011 “hill start process”)
In re claims 9 and 19, Wang teaches the following:
wherein the real-time vehicle driving data includes at least one of wheel based speed data, lateral acceleration data, longitudinal acceleration data, yaw rate data, brake pedal position data, electric motor speed data, electric motor torque data, inverter current link data, inverter DC link voltage data, pinch angle data, or steering wheel angle data (Paragraph 0019 S11 “Collect vehicle speed”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al US 2025/0074432 A1 discloses applying a real velocity and real acceleration to a trained real-to-virtual transformation model to obtain a virtual output set at a target time point, which includes a virtual gradient of a vehicle, a virtual velocity of the vehicle, and virtual longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, and applies the virtual output set at the target time point and a real wheel torque at the target time point to a trained mass estimation model to obtain weight information of the vehicle.
Hawley US 2024/0208498 A1 discloses a driveforce speed control system for a vehicle that includes a sensor configured to detect a speed limit, and an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the sensor. The ECU is configured to calculate a road load and a mass condition, determine a speed limit based on the sensor, and activate a speed control based on the road load, the mass condition, and the speed limit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights