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 Application
Claims 1-4, and 9-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent.
Claims 1-4, 10, 11, 13, and 17 have been amended
This FINAL action is in response to “Amendments and Remarks” received on 09 October 2025.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed 09 October 2025, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not wholly persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to objections to the Specification, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the Specification have been withdrawn.
With respect to objection of the claims, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not wholly persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained for claims 11-20 as they encompass mental processes without significantly more.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new interpretations of previously applied art.
Final Office Action
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)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.
Claim 1-4, 9-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tread" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tire" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the brake pedal" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the memory" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method (process). Therefore, Claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 17 is directed to a method. Therefore, Claim 17 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 11 and 17 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1a will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 11 recites: A vehicle consumables management system comprising
one or more processors configured to:
receive vehicle data including a rain sensor signal of the vehicle, a brake pedal input and information on acceleration or deceleration of a vehicle, the information on acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle including an acceleration and a cylinder pressure of the vehicle;
calculate a remaining amount of a brake pad based on the brake pedal input and information on acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle, and
when the remaining amount of the brake pad is below a threshold, output an alarm,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the remaining amount of the brake pad by extracting feature data including braking energy of the vehicle and information on an amount of water applied to the vehicle based on the vehicle data, predicting a temperature of the brake pad by analyzing the feature data by an artificial intelligence scheme, calculating a wear amount of the brake pad based on the temperature of the brake pad and the braking energy, and calculating the remaining amount of the brake pad based on the calculated wear amount of the brake pad.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “calculate”, “extracting”, and “predicting” steps encompass a user to gather information and estimate a wear level of a brake pad. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
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 “one or more processors configured to”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating, extracting, and predicting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of extracting feature data including braking energy of the vehicle and information on an amount of water applied to the vehicle based on the vehicle data and predicting a temperature of the brake pad by analyzing the feature data by an artificial intelligence scheme is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving vehicle data and using a processor, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a controller to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining 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 controller 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 15 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 the apparatus, the controller 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data and dividing data, and determinizing errors, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
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 limitations of receiving vehicle data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. 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, Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Further Claim 17 is not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 12-16, and 19-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle system such as adjusting brake cylinder pressure to match a wear level of a brake pad. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohazulike (US 20190084548 A1) in view of Singh et al. (US 20170113494 A1), hereinafter Singh.
Regarding claim 11, Ohazulike discloses:
A vehicle consumables management system comprising (Abstract, the present invention relates to a method and an apparatus for determining brake wear at a vehicle. According to the present invention, the brake wear estimation includes determining, for each of one or more time periods during which a brake of the vehicle is actuated, a speed of the vehicle at a start time of the respective time period and a speed change parameter indicative of a change of speed of the vehicle during the respective time period; and determining, for each of the one or more time periods, a respective brake wear parameter indicative of brake wear at one or more brakes of the vehicle during the respective time period based on the speed of the vehicle at the start time of the respective time period, the speed change parameter indicative of the change of speed of the vehicle during the respective time period, and the mass or weight of the vehicle)
one or more processors configured to ([0024], According to another aspect, there is proposed an apparatus for determining brake wear at a vehicle, the apparatus including a memory and a processor being configured to execute: determining, for each of one or more time periods during which a brake of the vehicle is actuated, a speed of the vehicle at a start time of the respective time period and a speed change parameter indicative of a change of speed of the vehicle during the respective time period, and/or determining, for each of the one or more time periods, a respective brake wear parameter indicative of brake wear at one or more brakes of the vehicle during the respective time period based on the speed of the vehicle at the start time of the respective time period, the speed change parameter Indicative of the change of speed of the vehicle during the respective time period, and the mass or weight of the vehicle. The apparatus may be configured to execute any of the method aspects above or below):
receive vehicle data including a brake pedal input and information on acceleration or deceleration of a vehicle, the information on acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle including an acceleration and a cylinder pressure of the vehicle (Fig. 3; [0119], sensor data may include data indicative of a longitudinal acceleration or deceleration or change of vehicle speed; [0120], sensor data may be indicative of whether the brake system is actuated based on a brake signal of a brake sensor and/or based on a pressure sensor detecting a pressure of the hydraulic brake system);
calculate a remaining amount of a brake pad based on the brake pedal input and information on acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle (Fig. 1; Fig. 3; Fig. 5; [0028], FIG. 1 is an exemplary schematic flow chart illustrating a method of estimating brake wear at a vehicle according to a first exemplary embodiment; [0145], Accordingly, the accumulated total brake wear of brake pad(s) of the brake(s) of the vehicle can be determined in step S116, and this exemplarily allows to estimate a remaining expected lifetime of the brake packs) of the brake(s) of the vehicle and/or an estimated expected next replacement time, at which the brake pad(s) of the brakes) of the vehicle may be expected to be needed to be replaced. Such estimations can be done in an optional analytics step S117),
and when the remaining amount of the brake pad is below a threshold, output an alarm ([0005], calculate and accumulate an abrasion index proportional to the measured braking pressure, and generate and output a notification message when the accumulated abrasion index is more than a predetermined reference value),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the remaining amount of the brake pad by extracting feature data including braking energy of the vehicle and information on an amount of water applied to the vehicle based on the vehicle data, predicting a temperature of the brake pad by analyzing the feature data by an artificial intelligence scheme, calculating a wear amount of the brake pad based on the temperature of the brake pad and the braking energy, and calculating the remaining amount of the brake pad based on the calculated wear amount of the brake pad ([0023], brake system anomaly detection is performed by mapping the sensor data to an abstract sensor data vector space and/or comparing the vector space position of the mapped sensor data to one or more cluster regions, a machine learning algorithm preferably mapping sensor data obtained during normal operation of the brake system).
However, Ohazulike does not specifically state:
receive a rain sensor signal of the vehicle
Singh teaches:
receive a rain sensor signal of the vehicle ([0051], presence and concentration of interfacial contaminants such as water, dust, mud, etc. Such information, referred to collectively herein as "abrasion-impacting information" may be sourced to the processor from a global positioning system (GPS) transmission and used with the tire-specific information to determine abradability Ab from a pre-construction database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Singh into the invention of Ohazulike to include rain level and water concentration present which could affect wear rate of brake pads as Singh discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can consider the presence and concentration of water when determining brake pad wear (Singh (2017), [0051]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of pad wear calculation as disclosed by Ohazulike and water concentration measurement as taught by Singh. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Ohazulike in view of Singh teaches:
further comprising one or more memories configured to store the vehicle data (Ohazulike: Fig. 3, 330; [0024], including a memory and a processor being configured to execute: determining, for each of one or more time periods during which a brake of the vehicle is actuated, a speed of the vehicle at a start time of the respective time period and a speed change parameter indicative of a change of speed of the vehicle during the respective time period, and/or determining, for each of the one or more time periods, a respective brake wear parameter indicative of brake wear at one or more brakes of the vehicle during the respective time period based on the speed of the vehicle at the start time of the respective time period, the speed change parameter indicative of the change of speed of the vehicle during the respective time period, and the mass or weight of the vehicle),
wherein one or more processors are configured to extract the feature data from the vehicle data stored in the memory (Ohazulike: [0023], brake system anomaly detection is performed by mapping the sensor data to an abstract sensor data vector space and/or comparing the vector space position of the mapped sensor data to one or more cluster regions, a machine learning algorithm preferably mapping sensor data obtained during normal operation of the brake system).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohazulike in view of Singh, and further in view of Howell et al. (US 20080236269 A1), hereinafter Howell.
Regarding claim 13, Ohazulike in view of Singh does not specifically state:
further comprising one or more memories are configured to pre-store a model setting value calculated by machine learning of the artificial intelligence scheme to calculate the temperature of the brake pad corresponding to the vehicle data,
and wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the temperature of the brake pad based on the extracted feature data and the model setting value retrieved from the one or more memories.
Howell teaches:
further comprising one or more memories are configured to pre-store a model setting value calculated by machine learning of the artificial intelligence scheme to calculate the temperature of the brake pad corresponding to the vehicle data (Abstract, an algorithm for brake wear and life estimation is employed that uses various inputs, such as brake pad friction material properties, brake pad cooling rate, brake temperature, vehicle mass, road grade, weight distribution, brake pressure, brake energy, braking power, etc. to provide the estimation; [0023], brake system anomaly detection is performed by mapping the sensor data to an abstract sensor data vector space and/or comparing the vector space position of the mapped sensor data to one or more cluster regions, a machine learning algorithm preferably mapping sensor data obtained during normal operation of the brake system; [0024], including a memory and a processor being configured to execute: determining, for each of one or more time periods during which a brake of the vehicle is actuated, a speed of the vehicle at a start time of the respective time period and a speed change parameter indicative of a change of speed of the vehicle during the respective time period, and/or determining, for each of the one or more time periods, a respective brake wear parameter indicative of brake wear at one or more brakes of the vehicle during the respective time period based on the speed of the vehicle at the start time of the respective time period, the speed change parameter indicative of the change of speed of the vehicle during the respective time period, and the mass or weight of the vehicle),
and wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the temperature of the brake pad based on the extracted feature data and the model setting value retrieved from the one or more memories (Fig. 2; [0016], brake pad temperature estimation processor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Howell into the invention of Ohazulike in view of Singh to include storing critical values in memory as Howell discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system estimates brake pad wear based on temperature (Howell, [0016]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of pad wear calculation as disclosed by Ohazulike in view of Singh and Howell and brake pad wear estimation using machine learning and calculated and measured values stored in memory as taught by Howell. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Ohazulike in view of Singh does not specifically state:
further comprising a look-up table storing a value of the wear amount of the brake pad predetermined according to a value of the temperature of the brake pad and a value of the braking energy,
and wherein the one or more processors are configured to search for the wear amount of the brake pad from the look-up table based on the calculated temperature of the brake pad and the extracted braking energy, and output the searched wear amount of the brake pad.
Howell further teaches:
further comprising a look-up table storing a value of the wear amount of the brake pad predetermined according to a value of the temperature of the brake pad and a value of the braking energy ([0026], From the braking energy or the braking power, the brake pad temperature can be determined as a proportional value, and from the brake pad temperature, the brake pad wear can be determined as a proportional value, typically from a look-up table in the estimation processor. Those skilled in the art would readily understand how to provide a look-up table that was populated based on the relationship between the braking energy and the brake pad temperature and the brake pad temperature and the brake pad wear based on the calculations discussed above and the properties of the brake pad. Each time the algorithm calculates the wear of the brake pad, it is added to the previous calculations of wear over time, and can then be extrapolated from the vehicle mileage to determine the remaining mileage for each brake pad),
and wherein the one or more processors are configured to search for the wear amount of the brake pad from the look-up table based on the calculated temperature of the brake pad and the extracted braking energy, and output the searched wear amount of the brake pad ([0026], From the braking energy or the braking power, the brake pad temperature can be determined as a proportional value, and from the brake pad temperature, the brake pad wear can be determined as a proportional value, typically from a look-up table in the estimation processor. Those skilled in the art would readily understand how to provide a look-up table that was populated based on the relationship between the braking energy and the brake pad temperature and the brake pad temperature and the brake pad wear based on the calculations discussed above and the properties of the brake pad. Each time the algorithm calculates the wear of the brake pad, it is added to the previous calculations of wear over time, and can then be extrapolated from the vehicle mileage to determine the remaining mileage for each brake pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Howell into the invention of Ohazulike in view of Singh and Howell to further include storing estimated brake pad wear in memory as a look-up table as Howell discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system estimates brake pad wear and increments wear and remaining thickness based on braking intervals (Howell, [0026]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of pad wear calculation as disclosed by Ohazulike in view of Singh and Howell and brake pad wear incrementation using calculated and measured values stored in memory as taught by Howell. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 15, Ohazulike in view of Singh does not specifically state:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to output the remaining amount of the brake pad by subtracting the wear amount of the brake pad from a current thickness of the brake pad.
Howell further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to output the remaining amount of the brake pad by subtracting the wear amount of the brake pad from a current thickness of the brake pad ([0027], the pad wear estimation processor will use a combination of the available information to estimate the thickness of the brake pad, an estimate of the amount of material of the brake pad lost together with the mileage that the vehicle has been driven since the pads were last changed are recorded on the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Howell into the invention of Ohazulike in view of Singh and Howell to include subtracting the estimated wear from the calculated remaining thickness of a brake pad as Howell discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that estimates the remaining life of a brake pad (Howell, [0027]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements brake wear estimation as disclosed by Ohazulike in view of Singh and Howell and brake pad wear incrementation using calculated and measured values stored in memory as taught by Howell. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Ohazulike in view of Singh teaches:
• classify the vehicle data stored in the or more memories for each of a braking interval and a non-braking interval of the vehicle (Ohazulike: Abstract, determining for each of one or more time periods during which a brake of the vehicle is actuated; Fig. 1; Fig. 2; [0012], plural respective brake wear parameters are preferably determined for plural time periods, and the method preferably further comprises accumulating the plural respective brake wear parameters to determine an accumulated brake wear parameter being indicative of brake wear at one or more brakes of the vehicle during an accumulation duration spanning the plural time periods),
• calculate a length of the braking interval and a length of a non-braking interval based on the vehicle data classified in the one or more memories (Ohazulike: [0035], in the following, it is assumed that an exemplary iterative calculation of brake wear is performed repeatedly between times t, and ti+1 with ti+1>t, with i E{0,... , n-1} so that t E{t0 , ... , tn}),
• calculate a pressure for each interval of a cylinder for providing braking force of the vehicle based on the vehicle data classified in the one or more memories (Ohazulike: [0046], typically in a hydraulic brake system, a corresponding hydraulic pressure p( { ti, ti+1}) needs to be applied over the pad area APad (i.e. the area of a corresponding brake pad)),
• calculate a vehicle velocity for each interval based on the vehicle data classified in the one or more memories (Ohazulike: [0129], whether the vehicle speed was determined or detected to be zero during the time period {ti, ti+1}, i.e. whether v({ti ,ti+1})=0 (or whether the vehicle speed was determined or detected to be substantially zero during the time period {ti, ti+1} , i.e. whether v( {ti, ti+1} )<a, wherein a may be a sensor correction factor as a threshold)),
• calculate the braking energy for each interval based on the vehicle data classified in the one or more memories (Ohazulike: [0039], Since this time period [t,,t,+i1 is a time period of a braking operation (i.e. with activated brake), generally v(ti+ 1)<v(ti) remains typically true, so that the above change of the kinetic energy of the vehicle is exemplarily calculated as a positive value as an indication of the reduction of the kinetic energy, it is to be noted that the condition v(ti+1)<v(ti) with activated brake remains typically true on substantially horizontal roads),
• calculate a quantity of rain for each interval based on the vehicle data classified in the one or more memories (Singh: [0051], presence and concentration of interfacial contaminants such as water, dust, mud, etc.).
However, Ohazulike in view of Singh does not specifically state:
calculate outdoor temperature for each interval based on the vehicle data classified in the one or more memories,
Howell additionally teaches:
• calculate outdoor temperature for each interval based on the vehicle data classified in the one or more memories ([0017], ambient temperature sensor),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Howell into the invention of Ohazulike in view of Singh and Howell to further include outdoor temperature measurement as Howell discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can consider ambient temperature when determining brake pad wear (Howell, [0017]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of brake pad wear estimation as disclosed by Ohazulike in view of Singh and Howell and consideration of ambient temperature as disclosed by Howell. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Examiner Comment
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 17-20 include limitations that are not disclosed by the cited prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 - 17:00 EST.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666