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 amendments filed on April 08, 2025. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending, with Claims 1 and 19 being amended, and Claim 21 being newly added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 08, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed April 08, 2025, the Examiner maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 08, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection (see Pages 2-6 of instant arguments), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims recite functions of observing road conditions, observing how the vehicle is driving, and adjusting driving behavior in response, which a driver can do through visual observation as well as mentally. The claims use a generic computer to execute the process of the claims, and do not require the vehicle actually be controlled in response to determining the slip parameters. As such, the Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 08, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (see page 6-8 of instant arguments), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Carlgren explicitly teaches that the wheels can be driven, or free-rolling, and the slip associated with each tire can be determined. Carlgren further explicitly teaches that the slip and friction values for each wheel, whether driven or not, are determined and used to update the control signals sent to the vehicle systems (see at least Paragraphs [0019], [0021], [0044] of Carlgren). Haken explicitly teaches a device for determining a coefficient of friction of a vehicle tire, which is then used to determine if a tire is free rolling or not, which uses a control system to adjust how the vehicle is being driven (see at least Paragraphs [0094], [0118], and [0122]-[0123] of Haken). As such, Carlgren, in view of Haken, teaches a method for estimating if a vehicle has a free-rolling tire based on slip and grip determinations, and using that data to adjust how the vehicle is driver. Carlgren, in view of Haken, teaches the features of the claims, as written.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addresses above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
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 1-10, 12, 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites determining slip values for a wheel. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely use a computer to perform the method.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for monitoring a road condition (i.e., a process). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of a) an abstract idea, b) a law of nature, or c) a natural phenomenon.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the bolded portions represent an “abstract idea”; and where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”):
Claim 1 recites the following:
A road condition monitoring system for a vehicle, the vehicle being supported by at least one tire and including a central communication system, the system comprising:
a processor configured to communicate with the central communication system;
an identifier stored on the processor and executable on the processor;
identify a free rolling instance of the at least one tire, wherein the free rolling instance is a condition experienced when the vehicle travels at a constant speed on a straight road as indicated by the vehicle condition data, regardless of whether the wheel on which the tire is mounted is a driven wheel or a non-driven wheel;
a slip estimator stored on the processor and executable on the processor, wherein the slip estimator causes the processor to at least:
receive speed data from the central communication system;
determine slip characteristics of the at least one tire during the free rolling instance; and
a classifier stored on the processor and executable on the processor, wherein the classifier causes the processor to at least: receive the slip characteristics of the at least one tire and
identify a road surface condition from the slip characteristics; and
a vehicle control system in electronic communication with the central communication system, the vehicle control system receiving the identified road surface condition for actuation of the vehicle control system in response to the identified road surface condition.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute “a mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. The limitations of “identify a free rolling instance…”, “determine slip characteristics…”, and “identify a road surface condition” all amount to an abstract idea. For example, these limitations involve a driver sensing how the wheels and vehicle are handling, and determining what type road conditions exist based on the handling and environment, and adjusting driving behavior accordingly.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites the following:
A road condition monitoring system for a vehicle, the vehicle being supported by at least one tire and including a central communication system, the system comprising:
a processor configured to communicate with the central communication system;
an identifier stored on the processor and executable on the processor;
identify a free rolling instance of the at least one tire, wherein the free rolling instance is a condition experienced when the vehicle travels at a constant speed on a straight road as indicated by the vehicle condition data, regardless of whether the wheel on which the tire is mounted is a driven wheel or a non-driven wheel;
a slip estimator stored on the processor and executable on the processor, wherein the slip estimator causes the processor to at least:
receive speed data from the central communication system;
determine slip characteristics of the at least one tire during the free rolling instance; and
a classifier stored on the processor and executable on the processor, wherein the classifier causes the processor to at least: receive the slip characteristics of the at least one tire and
identify a road surface condition from the slip characteristics; and
a vehicle control system in electronic communication with the central communication system, the vehicle control system receiving the identified road surface condition for actuation of the vehicle control system in response to the identified road surface condition.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of using a processor or a vehicle control system to enable an identifier, estimator, or classifier to perform a function of calculating and labeling tire characteristics, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a processor) to perform the process. A driver can visually determine there is slip in a tire by observing how the vehicle reacts with the current road conditions.
The Examiner further submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of using “receiving the identified road surface condition…”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of insignificant extra-solution activities that amounts to mere data gathering.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 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 limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to determine slip characteristics of a tire amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, Claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12, 15-16, and 21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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, because the claims involve determining the conditions of the road and adjusting driving based on an observed condition, which can be mentally. Therefore, dependent Claims 2-10, 12, 15-16, and 21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1.
Elements of Claims 14, 18, and 19 would appear to overcome the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, if incorporated into the independent Claim 1. Incorporating the elements of the use of the least squares algorithm with a forgetting factor and the use of a discrete estimation system would appear to potentially overcome the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1-12 and 14-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “… the vehicle control system receiving the identified road surface condition for actuation of the vehicle control system …”. The instant specification at Paragraph [0047] only states that “the road surface condition may be input into vehicle control systems and/or discrete estimation systems …”. The specification does not provide for actuating a vehicle system, or implementing changes to the vehicle or tire estimation system in how the vehicle handles when slip or a free rolling instance is determined.
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 1-4, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by German Patent Publication No. 102019003282 A1, to Carlgren, et al (hereinafter referred to as Carlgren; previously of record).
As per Claim 1, Carlgren discloses the features of a road condition monitoring system for a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0011]; where the wheel slip value can be determined for the current road conditions; and where determination or estimation of the road condition is made to obtain the target wheel slip value),
the vehicle being supported by at least one tire mounted on a wheel (e.g. Abstract; Paragraph [0041]; where the drive wheels are coupled to the drive unit on the vehicle; and the vehicle is provided with wheels that act on a road surface) and
including a central communication system (e.g. Paragraphs [0041], [0052]; where the control unit (210) may be communicatively coupled to one or more electronic control units; and where the vehicle control unit (210) may communicate with the drive unit, and may be a processor (112) communicatively connected to a transceiver (1040) for wired or wireless communication and transmit and/or receive signals such as control signals, status data, sensor data), the system comprising:
a processor in configured to communicate with the central communication system (e.g. Paragraphs [0041], [0043] [0053]; where the control unit (210) may be communicatively coupled to one or more electronic control units; where the control unit (210) may include control logic and/or a processor and optimal memory, and can be configured to send control signals to the drive unit (DU); and where the control unit (210) may be include a communications interface for transmitting data values or parameters as a signal to the processing means (112) or other external nodes);
an identifier in stored on the processor and executable on the processor (e.g. Paragraphs [0043]; where the vehicle includes one or more sensors configured to receive and/or obtain and/or measure physical characteristics related to the vehicle and one or more sensor signals comprising data indicative of the physical characteristics of the vehicle and send the sensor data indicating the wheel speeds or the angular velocity of the wheels of the vehicle to the control unit (210) to determine the presence of slip or free-rolling wheels (i.e. indicator)), wherein the identifier causes the processor to at least:
receive vehicle condition data from the central communications system (e.g. Paragraphs [0050], [0052]; where the vehicle may include wheel speed sensors configured to monitor the speed of each wheel and send the signals (i.e. an indicator or identifier) to the controller (210); where the drive unit may send the status signals to the control unit (210), which then may send it back to the drive unit),
identify a free rolling instance of the at least one tire, wherein in the free rolling instance is a condition experience when the vehicle travels at a constant speed on a straight road as indicated by the vehicle condition data (e.g. Paragraphs [0020], [0040]; where slip is calculated for a free rolling wheel; and where the wheel slip change value is determined for constant or current road conditions),
regardless of whether the wheel on which the tire is mounted is a driven wheel or a non-driven wheel (e.g. Paragraphs [0020]-[0021]; where the wheel slip value can be calculated for at least one drive wheel and at least one freely rolling wheel);
a slip estimator stored on the processor and executable on the processor (e.g. Paragraphs [0011], [0019]; where the control unit (210) controls the rotational speed of the drive wheels of the vehicle based on a desired slip value or ratio to determine an updated targe wheel slip value (i.e. a program for determining slip is located on the control unit of the vehicle)), wherein the slip estimator cause the processor to at least:
receive speed data from the central communication system (e.g. Paragraph [0041], [0043]; where the drive unit (DU) can be coupled to the drive wheels so that the rotational speed is transmitted form the drive unit (DU) to the wheels; and where sensor data indicating the wheel speeds or angular velocity of the wheels of the vehicle can be sent to the control unit (210)); and
determine slip characteristics of the at least one tire during the free rolling instance (e.g. Abstract; Paragraphs [0019], [0026]; where the control unit (210) controls the drive wheels of the vehicle based on a desired slip value or ratio; and where the speed of the free rolling wheel is used to determine the slip ratio); and
a classifier stored on the processor and executable on the processor (e.g. Paragraphs [0019], [0028], [0035]; Figure 2; where the traction force resulting from the wheels acting on a roach surface is determined based on road conditions, such as icy or dry, and determine the effect of the road status on the coefficient of friction of the wheels on the road (i.e. the road condition is classified to further calculate resulting slip)), wherein the classifier causes the processor to at least:
receive the slip characteristics of the at least one tire (e.g. Paragraph [0033], [0040], [0050]; where the wheel slip change value is determined for a previous time to obtain a target wheel slip value; and where the sensor data is used to calculate the wheel slip value or slip ratio, sent to the control unit (210) for processing); and
identify a road surface condition from the slip characteristics (e.g. Paragraphs [0026], [0028]; where the estimation of the road surface is performed in order to obtain a target wheel slip value; and where the wheel slip value can be adjusted based on the drive wheel speed values); and
a vehicle control system in electronic communication with the central communication system (e.g. Paragraphs [0019], [0043], [0052]; where the vehicle comprises a control unit (210), which may send and receive signals from the drive unit (DU), where the drive unit may send status signals to the control unit (210)),
the vehicle control system receiving the identified road surface condition for actuation of the vehicle control system in response to the identified road condition (e.g. Paragraph [0051]; where the vehicle may include one or more environmental sensors, configured to collect and/or register and/or record sensor data indicative of the environment of the vehicle, and may be configured to send the sensor data as a signal to the controller (210)).
As per Claim 2, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 1, and Carlgren further discloses the features of wherein the slip characteristics include a magnitude of an estimated slip of the at least one tire during the free rolling instance (e.g. Paragraph [0040]; where a wheel slip change value is determined to update the wheel slip based on changing road conditions).
As per Claim 3, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 1, and Carlgren further discloses the features of further comprising a slip adjustor, the slip adjustor estimating a relative change in slip of the at least one tire during the free rolling instance, wherein the slip characteristics include the relative change in slip of the at least one tire (e.g. Paragraphs [0004], [0040]; where a wheel slip change (∆WS) value is determined for a wheel to update the wheel slip based on changing road conditions).
As per Claim 4, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 3, and Carlgren further discloses the features of wherein the classifier identifies the road surface condition from a magnitude of the relative change in slip of the at least one tire (e.g. Paragraph [0040]; where a magnitude of a wheel slip change value is determined to update the wheel slip based on changing road conditions).
As per Claim 12, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 1, and Carlgren further discloses the features of where the road surface condition identified by the classifier is according to road surface type, including at least one of a dry surface, a wet surface, a snow-covered surface, and an icy surface (e.g. Paragraphs [0024], [0035]; where the road conditions range from icy to dry; and where the target slip value is reduced or lowered when the drive wheel to be controlled moves from a road surface having a relatively higher coefficient of friction to a road surface having a relatively lower coefficient of friction, e.g., from dry to icy asphalt).
As per Claim 16, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 1, and Carlgren further discloses the features of wherein the speed data received by the slip estimator includes a vehicle reference speed and a wheel speed (e.g. Paragraphs [0022], [0043], [0047]; where sensor data indicating the wheel speeds or the angular velocity of the wheel of the vehicle is sent to the control unit (210); and where the speed of the vehicle in the direction of travel is determined for a free-rolling wheel).
As per Claim 17, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 16, and Carlgren further discloses the features of wherein the slip estimator estimates a slip of the at least one tire as a percentage difference between the vehicle reference speed and the wheel speed (e.g. Paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0050]; where the wheel slip value may be calculated using the speed of angular velocity of at least one drive wheel minus the speed or angular velocity of a free rolling wheel over the wheel speed value to determine a slip ratio).
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 5-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. 102019003282 A1, to Carlgren, et al (hereinafter referred to as Carlgren; previously of record), in view of WIPO Patent Publication No. 2015/074744 A1, to Haken, et al (hereinafter referred to as Haken; previously of record).
As per Claim 5, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 3, and Carlgren further discloses the features of
wherein the slip adjustor includes a reference slip calculator (e.g. Paragraphs [0020], [0050]; where the sensor data can be used to calculate or determine the wheel slip value or slip ratio), ‘…’ and
estimating a reference slip value of the at least one tire during the free rolling instance (e.g. Abstract; Paragraph [0030], where the control unit (210) controls the speed of at least one wheel or drive wheel of the vehicle using an initial target wheel slip value; and where the speed of the wheels are determined when a wheel is free rolling).
Carlgren fails to disclose every feature of wherein the reference slip calculator includes ‘…’ receiving vehicle atmospheric condition data from the central communication system. However, Haken, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for determining a coefficient of friction in a vehicle, where the environmental conditions around the vehicle are determine using sensors for rain, humidity, or temperature (e.g. Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, with the feature of determining atmospheric conditions in the system of Haken, in order to improve the quality control and handling of the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0003] of Haken).
As per Claim 6, Carlgren, in view of Haken, teaches the features of Claim 5, and Haken further teaches the features of wherein the atmospheric condition data includes an ambient temperature and a relative humidity.
Haken teaches a method for determining a coefficient of friction in a vehicle, where the ambient temperature is determined with the outside temperature sensor (203), and a humidity sensor determines the humidity (e.g. Paragraphs [0037], [0044], [0147], [0153]; Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, with the feature of determining atmospheric conditions in the system of Haken, in order to improve the quality control and handling of the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0003] of Haken).
As per Claim 7, Carlgren, in view of Haken, teaches the features of Claim 5, and Haken further teaches the features of further comprising a dry road condition estimator that analyzes the atmospheric condition data to determine if a road on which the vehicle is traveling is dry by generating a probability of road dryness.
Haken teaches a method for determining a coefficient of friction in a vehicle, where an estimate of the presence of water film (220) on the tires of the vehicle takes place using both the outside temperature sensor (203), the tire temperatures sensor (205), and the driving dynamics sensor (207); and where a confidence factor is determined depending on the driving conditions; where the confidence factors can determine the maximum adhesion value for a given driving condition (e.g. Paragraphs [0111], [0117], [0147], [0174]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, with the feature of determining the dryness of a road in the system of Haken, in order to improve the handling of the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0003] of Haken).
As per Claim 8, Carlgren, in view of Haken, teaches the features of Claim 5, and Carlgren further discloses the features of wherein the reference slip calculator receives a vehicle speed and tire-related data to estimate the reference slip value of the at least one tire during the free rolling instance (e.g. Abstract; Paragraphs [0020], [0030], where the control unit (210) controls the speed of at least one wheel or drive wheel of the vehicle using an initial target wheel slip value; and where the speed of the wheels are determined when a wheel is free rolling).
As per Claim 9, Carlgren, in view of Haken, teaches the features of Claim 8, and Haken further teaches the features of wherein the tire-related data includes at least one of a pressure of the at least one tire, a load on the at least one tire, a wear state of the at least one tire, and a position of the at least one tire on the vehicle.
Haken teaches a method for determining a coefficient of friction in a vehicle, where respective wheel loads are determined (e.g. Paragraphs [0090], [0173]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, with the feature of determining a state of the tire in the system of Haken, in order to improve the quality of data being sent to and utilized by the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0003] of Haken).
As per Claim 10, Carlgren, in view of Haken, teaches the features of Claim 5, and Carlgren further discloses the features of wherein the slip adjustor includes a relative slip calculator, the relative slip calculator receiving the reference slip value and a slip estimation from the slip estimator, the relative slip calculator determining the relative change in slip of the at least one tire from the reference slip value and the slip estimation (e.g. Abstract; Paragraphs [0024], [0032], [0048]; where a wheel slip value may be calculated and a slip change value is determined as a nominal wheel slip value; and where the drive unit determines the updated target wheel slip value to control the speed of the vehicle; and where the desired wheel slip value is updated relative to the desired wheel slip value to determine the maximum traction force on the vehicle for each road condition).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. 102019003282 A1, to Carlgren, et al (hereinafter referred to as Carlgren; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0299997 A1, to Schlegel, et al (hereinafter referred to as Schlegel; previously of record).
As per Claim 11, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 1, but Carlgren fails to disclose every feature of wherein the classifier employs a multinomial logistic regression classification to identify the road surface condition.
However, Schlegel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for estimating the maximum coefficient of friction on a vehicle at a current and future location, where a multinomial logistics regression model can be used to determine a friction coefficient based on the road condition (e.g. Paragraphs [0020], [0040], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, with the feature of utilizing a regression model in the system of Schlegel, in order to improve the quality of estimating determining road condition values (see at least Paragraph [0019] of Schlegel).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. 102019003282 A1, to Carlgren, et al (hereinafter referred to as Carlgren; previously of record), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,952,635 B2 to Yasui, et al (hereinafter referred to as Yasui; previously of record).
As per Claim 14, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 1, but the Carlgren fails to disclose every feature of wherein the identifier includes a threshold based event classifier, including at least one of a linear classifier, a nonlinear classifier, and a Bayesian statistical classifier.
Yasui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a road condition estimation apparatus, where the aligning torque to the wheel slip angle is approximated to a linear characteristic (e.g. Col. Col. 15 line 62- Col. 16 lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, with the feature of using a linear classifier in the system of Yasui in order to correlate vehicle data with the driving conditions (see at least Col. 4 lines 20-25 of Yasui).
As per Claim 15, Carlgren, in view of Yasui, teaches the features of Claim 14, and Carlgren further discloses the features of wherein the vehicle condition data are categorized by each respective vehicle condition, with predetermined thresholds are set for each vehicle condition, and when the predetermined thresholds are met, a free rolling instance of the at least one tire is identified (e.g. Paragraphs [0020]; [0024]; where a plurality of curves are provided, which show a relationship between the normalized friction coefficient and the wheel slip value or ratio, and the corners are assigned to a range of asphalt road conditions, and a maximum friction value can be determined for all curves (i.e. a curve or threshold is mapped for every road condition); and where the wheel slip value is calculated for a free rolling wheel).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. 102019003282 A1, to Carlgren, et al (hereinafter referred to as Carlgren; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,751,533 A1, to Singh, et al (hereinafter referred to as Singh; previously of record).
As per Claim 18, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 17, but the combination of Carlgren, in view of Haken, fails to teach every feature of wherein the slip estimator employs a recursive least squares algorithm with a forgetting factor.
However, Singh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for estimating road surface friction, where the estimator comprises a recursive least square algorithm with a forgetting factor (e.g. Claim 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, with the feature of utilizing a least squares algorithm in the system of Singh, in order to improve the estimation of determining road condition values (see at least Col. 7 linens 41-45 of Singh).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. 102019003282 A1, to Carlgren, et al (hereinafter referred to as Carlgren; previously of record), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0074541 A1, to Ono, et al (hereinafter referred to as Ono; previously of record).
As per Claim 19, Carlgren discloses the features of Claim 1, but Carlgren fails to disclose the features of wherein the road surface condition identified by the classifier is output from the road condition monitoring system to a discrete estimation system.
However, Ono, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a tire grip estimation apparatus, where the grip estimation is broken into discrete time series, and input to the system to determine the grip of the tire (e.g. Figures 12A-C, 22A-C, 23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, with the feature of using a tire grip estimation system in the system of Ono, in order to estimate the grip level with high accuracy (see at Paragraph [0012] of Ono).
As per Claim 20, Carlgren, in view of Ono, teaches the features of Claim 19, and Ono further teaches the features of wherein the discrete estimation system includes a tire grip estimation system.
However, Ono, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a tire grip estimation apparatus, where the grip estimation is broken into discrete time series, and input to the system to determine the grip of the tire (e.g. Figures 12A-C, 22A-C, 23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, with the feature of using a tire grip estimation system in the system of Ono, in order to estimate the grip level with high accuracy (see at Paragraph [0012] of Ono).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlgren, in view of Ono, as applied to Claim 19 above, and further in view of WIPO Patent Publication No. 2015/074744 A1, to Haken, et al (hereinafter referred to as Haken; previously of record).
As per Claim 21, Carlgren, in view of Ono, teaches the features of Claim 19, but the combination of Carlgren, in view of Ono, fails to teach every feature of the vehicle condition data received by the identifier includes a vehicle reference speed, a vehicle longitudinal acceleration, a steering wheel angle, a brake pedal command, and a gas pedal position.
Haken teaches a method for determining a coefficient of friction in a vehicle, where a steering angle sensor and vehicle speed sensors determine the driving speed, longitudinal and lateral acceleration, the steering wheel angle in relation to a steering torque and speed; and where the longitudinal dynamics are classified via an actual longitudinal acceleration and/or brake pressure (i.e. pedal command), and where the applied brake pressure (27) is determined by a brake pressure sensor (i.e. a gas pedal position is determined based on brake pressure) (e.g. Paragraphs [0012], [0032], [0090], [0137]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the wheel slip determination method of Carlgren, in view of Ono, with the feature of determining vehicle speed characteristics in the system of Haken, in order to determine how the vehicle is handling on a certain type of road or in a certain condition (see at least Paragraph [0003] of Haken).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fraeknel, et al (U.S. 2022/0024259 A1), which teaches a method for predicting wear of a vehicle tire by determining the wheel slip and grip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT E LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MERRITT E LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666