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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on October 28, 2025. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
All of applicants arguments have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that amendments that claims 4, 13, and 19, as amended, are not directed to an abstract idea (Applicant’s Response, pg. 11), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The calculations of the center of gravity and moment of inertia of the vehicle are only done in response to the longitudinal acceleration being less than a threshold. Claims 4, 13, and 19 include limitations that are done when the longitudinal acceleration is greater than the threshold. Therefore, the center of gravity and moment of inertia are not calculated resulting in there being no value to selectively control at least one aspect of a vehicle system of the vehicle resulting in there being no practical application.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Hac does not teach “setting a vehicle mass value to an initial value;…in response to a determination that the vehicle mass value is convergent, determining at least one vehicle load value, wherein the at least one vehicle load value includes a fuel level value and a seat occupancy value for at least one seat of an associated vehicle; calculating, based on the vehicle load value and a vehicle specific look-up table, a center of gravity value of the vehicle; and calculating, based on the vehicle load value and the vehicle specific look-up table a moment of inertia value of the vehicle” (Applicant’s Response, pgs. 12-13). It is noted that Hac is only relied upon to teach “calculating, based on the vehicle load value and the vehicle specific look-up table a moment of inertia value of the vehicle”. The combination of Kroeger, Ustunel, Yun, and Wang teach the rest of the rest of the claim (See below).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Hac does not teach “calculating, based on the vehicle load value and the vehicle specific look-up table a moment of inertia value of the vehicle” (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Hac teaches calculating the vehicle yaw moment of inertia using the calculated mass values and other known vehicle properties ([0054]). These other known vehicle properties include the length of the vehicle wheelbase which is then used in equations 13 and 14 to calculate variables in the moment of inertia calculation (Equation 15). As the vehicle wheelbase is a fixed value that is specific to each vehicle, there would be a stored database with all the values to be used in equations 13 and 14. Therefore, the stored database with all the fixed values would be the same as a look-up table.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 28, 2025. These drawings are unacceptable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
lr in Fig. 6B.
lf in Fig. 6B
Iz in Fig. 6B
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because
In Fig. 4, the line going from step 408 should go to step 414 instead of 412 according to Fig. 3. However, if the line going from 408 to 412 is correct, then it is missing an arrow.
In Fig. 4, it is unclear which driving resistance force value is being used in 412 as the figure does not show a driving resistance force value being calculated when going from 406 to 412. Paragraph 0053 says that if a driving resistance force value is not estimated the latest value is used, but this occurs at a separate step than 412.
In Fig. 4, it is unclear how the updated first vehicle mass value at step 412 would be different than the first estimated mass value at step 404 as the driving resistance force value is calculated based on the first estimated mass value in step 408 and then the driving resistance force value of step 408 is used to update the first estimated vehicle mass value of step 412.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, lines 2 and 5, and claim 19, lines 2, 5, 11, and 25 include multiple colons in the same sentence make is unclear which limitations fall under which colon.
In claim 19, lines 24-25, “a vehicle specific look-up table” should read “the vehicle specific look-up table”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, lines 29-30, the limitation “estimate a vehicle mass value based on the driving resistance force value” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the estimated vehicle mass value would be different than the initial mass value as the driving resistance force value is calculated based on the initial mass value and then the driving resistance force value is used to estimate the vehicle mass value.
Claim 20 is also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as it does not clear the deficiencies of the claim from which it depends.
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 4, 6-8, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as there is a selection option that occurs when the longitudinal acceleration value is greater than the threshold and within an acceleration range. Claim 19 with this selection is taken as the representative claim.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus for vehicle mass estimation (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 19 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 19 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 19 recites:
An apparatus for vehicle center of gravity and moment of inertia estimation, the apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
set a vehicle mass value to an initial value and a driving resistance force value to an initial value;
receive at least a longitudinal acceleration value and an angular wheel velocity value;
in response to a determination that the longitudinal acceleration value is greater than the threshold:
estimate a vehicle mass value based on the driving resistance force value and set the vehicle mass value to the estimated vehicle mass value.
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. For example, “set…” and “estimate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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”.):
An apparatus for vehicle center of gravity and moment of inertia estimation, the apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
set a vehicle mass value to an initial value and a driving resistance force value to an initial value;
receive at least a longitudinal acceleration value and an angular wheel velocity value;
in response to a determination that the longitudinal acceleration value is greater than the threshold:
estimate a vehicle mass value based on the driving resistance force value and set the vehicle mass value to the estimated vehicle mass value.
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 “receive…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “processor” and “memory” amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 19 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 and memory amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receive…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 20 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim is 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. Therefore, dependent claim 20 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 19.
Therefore, claims 19 and 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Similar to claims 19 and 20, claims 4 and 6-8, and claims 13 and 15-17 are directed toward a mental process without a practical application or significantly more. These claims recite the same abstract idea as claims 19 and 20 merely implemented in a method or a system, which does not add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroeger (US 8,825,286) in view of Ustunel (US 2021/0347321), Yuan (“Recursive Least Square Vehicle Mass Estimation Based on Acceleration Partition”, CJME), Wang (US 2024/0017729), and Hac (US 2009/0177346).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kroeger discloses a method and system for vehicle center of gravity estimation, the method and system comprising:
calculating, based on the vehicle load value and a vehicle specific look-up table, a center of gravity value of the vehicle (Kroeger, Fig. 3 & Col. 3, lines 48-52 regarding m representing the mass of the vehicle and r being the wheel radius being used in the equation to calculate the coordinates center of gravity. By using the wheel radius, there must be a stored database (i.e., table) for the computer to lookup the wheel radius for inputting into the center of gravity equation.); and
selectively controlling at least one aspect of a vehicle system of the vehicle using the at least one of the center of gravity values of the vehicle and the moment of inertia value of the vehicle set based on the vehicle load value (Kroeger, Col. 1, lines 62-65 regarding adapting vehicle control systems based on the center of gravity).
Kroeger fails to disclose setting a driving resistance force value to an initial value;
setting a vehicle mass value to an initial value;
receiving at least a longitudinal acceleration value and an angular wheel velocity value;
estimating, in response to the longitudinal acceleration value being less than a threshold, an estimated driving resistance force value based on an the vehicle mass value and the angular wheel velocity value;
setting the driving resistance force value to the estimated driving resistance force value;
in response to a determination that the vehicle mass value is convergent, determining at least one vehicle load value, wherein the at least one vehicle load value includes a fuel level value and a seat occupancy value for at least one seat of an associated vehicle;
calculating, based on the vehicle load value and the vehicle specific look-up table, a moment of inertia value of the vehicle.
Wang teaches setting a driving resistance force value to an initial value (regarding having the driving resistance force be 0 until a force is calculated);
receiving at least a longitudinal acceleration value and an angular wheel velocity value (Wang, [0039] regarding an acceleration sensor 70 & [0053] regarding a wheel speed sensor);
estimating, in response to the longitudinal acceleration value being less than a threshold (Wang, [0049] regarding calculating the driving force when the longitudinal acceleration is less than a threshold), an estimated driving resistance force value based on an the vehicle mass value and the angular wheel velocity value (Wang, [0043] & [0050] regarding a reference driving force based on vehicle mass and vehicle speed & [0053] regarding vehicle speed being calculated from wheel speed); and
setting the driving resistance force value to the estimated driving resistance force value (Wang, [0062] regarding using the estimated driving resistance force to calculate the load distribution).
Kroeger and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger to incorporate driving resistance force estimation based on vehicle mass and angular wheel velocity, as disclosed by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling verification of vehicle mass.
Yuan teaches the determination that the vehicle mass value is convergent (Yuan, “3.4 Convergence determination and stop” regarding the estimation stopping when the estimated mass is convergent).
Kroeger and Yuan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate determining the vehicle mass is convergent, as disclosed by Yuan, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of the vehicle mass.
Ustunel teaches setting a vehicle mass value to an initial value (Ustunel, [0022] regarding knowing the mass of the vehicle); and
determining at least one vehicle load value, wherein the at least one vehicle load value includes a fuel level value and a seat occupancy value for at least one seat of an associated vehicle (Ustunel, [0022] regarding mass estimation including seat occupancy and fuel level).
Kroeger and Ustunel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate vehicle load estimation, as disclosed by Ustunel, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of the vehicle mass.
Hac teaches calculating, based on the vehicle load value and the vehicle specific look-up table a moment of inertia value of the vehicle (Hac, [0054] regarding calculating the vehicle yaw moment of inertia using the calculated mass value and other known vehicle properties, the other known vehicle properties including the length of the vehicle wheelbase (See equations 13, 14, and 15). By using the length of the vehicle wheelbase, there must be a stored database (i.e., table) for the computer to lookup the length of the vehicle wheelbase for inputting into the moment of inertia equation.)
Kroeger and Hac are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate calculating vehicle moment of inertia using a table with all known fixed vehicle properties, as disclosed by Hac, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the stability of the vehicle.
Kroeger, as modified, teaches a method and system for vehicle center of gravity and moment of inertia estimation.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, and Hac teaches the method and system as claimed in claims 1 and 10, respectively. Wang further teaches wherein estimating the estimated driving resistance force value includes using a recursive least square function (Wang, [0049] regarding using recursive least square to calculate the driving force).
Kroeger and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger to incorporate estimating driving resistance force using a recursive least square function, as disclosed by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling improving driving resistance force calculation.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, and Hac, and further in view of Kamiyama (US 2023/0094446).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, and Hac teaches the method and system as claimed in claims 1 and 10, respectively, but fails to teach wherein determining the seat occupancy value for at least one seat includes using data associated with at least one corresponding seatbelt sensor.
Kamiyama teaches wherein determining the seat occupancy value for at least one seat includes using data associated with at least one corresponding seatbelt sensor (Kamiyama, [0034] regarding detecting number of occupants by detecting occupants wearing seat belts).
Kroeger and Kamiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate occupancy detection through a seatbelt sensor, as disclosed by Kamiyama, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of user detection.
Claims 4, 6-7, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, and Hac, and further in view of Bellinger (US 2003/0040861).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, and Hac teaches the method and system as claimed in claims 1 and 10, respectively, but fails to teach further comprising estimating, in response to a determination that the longitudinal acceleration value is greater than the threshold, an estimated vehicle mass value based on the driving resistance force value.
Bellinger teaches further estimating, in response to a determination that the longitudinal acceleration value is greater than the threshold (Bellinger, Abstract regarding computing a vehicle mass when the vehicle acceleration is above an acceleration threshold), an estimated vehicle mass value based on the driving resistance force value (Bellinger, Abstract regarding using an instantaneous vehicle drive force to estimate an instantaneous vehicle mass).
Kroeger and Bellinger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate estimating vehicle mass based on the driving resistance force, as disclosed by Bellinger, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of vehicle mass estimation.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, Hac, and Bellinger teaches the method and system as claimed in claims 4 and 13, respectively. Kroeger, as modified, setting, the vehicle mass value to the estimated vehicle mass value (Kroeger, Fig. 3 & Col. 3, lines 48-52 regarding m representing the mass of the vehicle being used in the equation to calculate the coordinates center of gravity. The mass of the vehicle being used is the estimated vehicle mass value, as calculated in Wang.).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, Hac, and Bellinger teaches the method and system as claimed in claims 4 and 13, respectively. Yuan further teaches wherein estimating the vehicle mass value includes using a recursive least square function (Yuan, Abstract, regarding a recursive least square vehicle mass estimation method).
Kroeger and Yuan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate estimating vehicle mass using a recursive least square function, as disclosed by Yuan, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of the vehicle mass.
Regarding claim 19, Kroeger discloses an apparatus for vehicle center of gravity estimation, the apparatus comprising:
a processor (Kroeger, claim 1 regarding a computer processor); and
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Kroeger, Col. 3, lines 56-58 regarding a storage medium):
calculate, based on the vehicle load value and a vehicle specific look-up table, a center of gravity value of the vehicle (Kroeger, Fig. 3 & Col. 3, lines 48-52 regarding m representing the mass of the vehicle and r being the wheel radius being used in the equation to calculate the coordinates center of gravity. By using the wheel radius, there must be a stored database (i.e., table) for the computer to lookup the wheel radius for inputting into the center of gravity equation.); and
set the vehicle mass value to the estimated vehicle mass value (Kroeger, Fig. 3 & Col. 3, lines 48-52 regarding m representing the mass of the vehicle being used in the equation to calculate the coordinates center of gravity. The mass of the vehicle being used is the estimated vehicle mass value, as calculated in Wang.); and
selectively control at least one aspect of a vehicle system of the vehicle using the at least one of the center of gravity value of the vehicle and the moment of inertia value of the vehicle set based on the vehicle load value (Kroeger, Col. 1, lines 62-65 regarding adapting vehicle control systems based on the center of gravity).
Kroeger fails to disclose how to set a vehicle mass value to an initial value and a driving resistance force value to an initial value;
receive at least a longitudinal acceleration value and an angular wheel velocity value;
in response to the longitudinal acceleration value being less than a threshold:
estimate a driving resistance force value based on the estimated vehicle mass value and the angular wheel velocity value;
set the driving resistance force value to the estimated driving resistance force value;
in response to a determination that the vehicle mass value is convergent, determine at least one vehicle load value, wherein the at least one vehicle load value includes a fuel level value and a seat occupancy value for at least one seat of an associated vehicle;
calculate, based on the vehicle load value and a vehicle specific look-up table, a moment of inertia value of the vehicle
in response to a determination that the longitudinal acceleration value is greater than the threshold:
estimate a vehicle mass value based on the driving resistance force value.
Wang teaches how to set a driving resistance force value to an initial value (regarding having the driving resistance force be 0 until a force is calculated);
receive at least a longitudinal acceleration value and an angular wheel velocity value (Wang, [0039] regarding an acceleration sensor 70 & [0053] regarding a wheel speed sensor);
in response to the longitudinal acceleration value being less than a threshold (Wang, [0049] regarding calculating the driving force when the longitudinal acceleration is less than a threshold):
estimate a driving resistance force value based on an estimated vehicle mass value and the angular wheel velocity value (Wang, [0043] & [0050] regarding a reference driving force based on vehicle mass and vehicle speed & [0053] regarding vehicle speed being calculated from wheel speed); and
set the driving resistance force value to the estimated driving resistance force value (Wang, [0049] regarding calculating the driving force).
Kroeger and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger to incorporate driving resistance force estimation based on vehicle mass and angular wheel velocity, as disclosed by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling verification of vehicle mass.
Yuan teaches the determination that the vehicle mass value is convergent (Yuan, “3.4 Convergence determination and stop” regarding the estimation stopping when the estimated mass is convergent).
Kroeger and Yuan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate determining the vehicle mass is convergent, as disclosed by Yuan, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of the vehicle mass.
Ustunel teaches how to set a vehicle mass value to an initial value (Ustunel, [0022] regarding knowing the mass of the vehicle); and
determine at least one vehicle load value, wherein the at least one vehicle load value includes a fuel level value and a seat occupancy value for at least one seat of an associated vehicle (Ustunel, [0022] regarding mass estimation including seat occupancy and fuel level).
Kroeger and Ustunel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate vehicle load estimation, as disclosed by Ustunel, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of the vehicle mass.
Hac teaches how to calculate, based on the vehicle load value and a vehicle specific look-up table, a moment of inertia value of the vehicle (Hac, [0054] regarding calculating the vehicle yaw moment of inertia using the calculated mass value and other known vehicle properties, the other known vehicle properties including the length of the vehicle wheelbase (See equations 13, 14, and 15). By using the length of the vehicle wheelbase, there must be a stored database (i.e., table) for the computer to lookup the length of the vehicle wheelbase for inputting into the moment of inertia equation.).
Kroeger and Hac are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate calculating vehicle moment of inertia using a table with all known fixed vehicle properties, as disclosed by Hac, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the stability of the vehicle.
Bellinger teaches in response to a determination that the longitudinal acceleration value is greater than the threshold (Bellinger, Abstract regarding computing a vehicle mass when the vehicle acceleration is above an acceleration threshold. The range that the acceleration is within can be considered to be from the threshold to the maximum acceleration of the vehicle):
estimate a vehicle mass value based on the driving resistance force value (Bellinger, Abstract regarding using an instantaneous vehicle drive force to estimate an instantaneous vehicle mass).
Kroeger and Bellinger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate estimating vehicle mass based on the driving resistance force, as disclosed by Bellinger, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of vehicle mass estimation.
Kroeger, as modified, teaches an apparatus for vehicle center of gravity and moment of inertia estimation.
Regarding claim 20, Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, and Hac, and Bellinger teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 19. Wang further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to estimate the estimated driving resistance force value using a recursive least square function (Wang, [0049] regarding using recursive least square to calculate the driving force).
Kroeger and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger to incorporate estimating driving resistance force using a recursive least square function, as disclosed by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling improving driving resistance force calculation.
Yuan further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to estimate the estimated vehicle mass value using a recursive least square function (Yuan, Abstract, regarding a recursive least square vehicle mass estimation method).
Kroeger and Yuan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate estimating vehicle mass using a recursive least square function, as disclosed by Yuan, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of the vehicle mass.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, Hac, and Bellinger, and further in view of Kamiyama.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Kroeger in view of Ustunel, Yuan, Wang, Hac, and Bellinger teaches the method and system as claimed in claims 4 and 13, respectively, but fails to teach wherein determining the seat occupancy value for at least one seat includes using data associated with at least one corresponding seatbelt sensor.
Kamiyama teaches wherein determining the seat occupancy value for at least one seat includes using data associated with at least one corresponding seatbelt sensor (Kamiyama, [0034] regarding detecting number of occupants by detecting occupants wearing seat belts).
Kroeger and Kamiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety and mass estimation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroeger, as modified, to incorporate occupancy detection through a seatbelt sensor, as disclosed by Kamiyama, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of user detection.
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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights