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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 5, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending and are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to European Patent Application No. EP 24194847.0, filed August 16, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim lacks traditional punctuation, i.e., a colon, following the transitional phrase delineating the preamble from the body of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim lacks an appropriate conjunction before the last limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-15 are directed to the abstract idea of estimating the mass of a towed unit when standing still on a road surface and/or when travelling up a slope, which is an abstract idea under its broadest reasonable interpretation because the claimed invention is directed to an judgment, observation, and/or evaluation. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are either directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, or generic hardware recited at a high level of generality, i.e., a computer system, processing circuitry, etc., that provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to estimate a mass of a towed unit of a vehicle, the vehicle comprising the towed unit and a towing unit arranged to directly or indirectly tow the towed unit, the processing circuitry further being configured to estimate the mass of the towed unit, wherein when the vehicle is standing still on a road surface, the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the mass of the towed unit based on a first propulsion force needed to be applied to at least one of the wheels of the towing unit to move the towed unit when the towed unit is applying a brake force to at least one wheel of wheels of the towed unit, and/or when the vehicle is travelling up a slope, the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the mass of the towed unit based on a second propulsion force needed to be applied to at least one of the wheels of the towing unit to maintain a velocity of the vehicle.
Under it its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mental process because estimating the mass of a towed unit when standing still on a road surface and/or when travelling up a slope is an example of an judgment, observation, and/or evaluation, and an judgments, observations, and/or evaluations made on the basis of data, i.e., first and second propulsion forces, are examples of abstract ideas. The additional elements of the generic hardware of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the claimed invention.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 8 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention eligible because they are directed to insignificant additional elements primarily directed to additional data gathering steps, i.e., measuring propulsion force using a sensor, or mental steps, i.e., defining the formula used in the claimed solution, considering a vertical load, directed to the above described judgment, observation, and/or evaluation. Claim 12 recites specific structure for the surroundings sensor, notably, a radar or lidar sensor, however, this limitation does not render the claimed invention eligible because the sensors are well-known and routine in the art of object detection.
Independent claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for insignificant differences.
Claims 11, 13-15 depend from claim 9 and are rejected under the same rationale as claims 3, 5, 7, and 8 where relevant.
Examiner notes claims 2, 6, 10, and 12 recite positive vehicle control which if included in the independent claims would render the claimed invention eligible.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-15 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al., CN 118270012 A, hereinafter referred to as Yang.
As to claim 1, Yang discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to estimate a mass of a towed unit of a vehicle, the vehicle comprising the towed unit and a towing unit arranged to directly or indirectly tow the towed unit, the processing circuitry further being configured to estimate the mass of the towed unit, wherein
when the vehicle is standing still on a road surface, the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the mass of the towed unit based on a first propulsion force needed to be applied to at least one of the wheels of the towing unit to move the towed unit when the towed unit is applying a brake force to at least one wheel of wheels of the towed unit, and/or
when the vehicle is travelling up a slope, the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the mass of the towed unit based on a second propulsion force needed to be applied to at least one of the wheels of the towing unit to maintain a velocity of the vehicle (Trailer mass estimation based on traveling at constant speed on determined slope – See at least ¶25 and 106-109).
Independent claim 9, and dependent claims 14 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims are directed to nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences due to the claims being directed to different statutory categories of invention.
As to claim 8, Yang discloses a vehicle comprising a towing unit and a towed unit, the towing unit is arranged to directly or indirectly tow the towed unit, the vehicle comprising, and/or is controlled by, the computer system of claim 1 (Towed trailer – See at least ¶9).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., CN 118270012 A, in view of Gudeta et al., US 11787418 B1, hereinafter referred to as Yang, and Gudeta, respectively.
As to claim 5, Yang fails to explicitly disclose when the vehicle is standing still on the road surface and when the towed unit is applying a vertical load on the towing unit, the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the mass of the towed unit by accounting for the vertical load applied on the towing unit. However, 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 invention of Yang and include the feature of when the vehicle is standing still on the road surface and when the towed unit is applying a vertical load on the towing unit, the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the mass of the towed unit by accounting for the vertical load applied on the towing unit, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Gudeta teaches it is well-known and routine to consider a vertical load when estimating mass of a towed unit, i.e., trailer (Static mass estimation based in part on kingpin force, i.e., vertical force – See at least Col. 10 Lines 45-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6,7, and 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights