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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/11/2026. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-20 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-20 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Request for Continued Examination
Receipt is acknowledged of a Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 02/11/2026.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant's arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Claims 8 and 15 both recite the newly amended language of:
… wherein said determining comprises deeming a subset of said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects to be (quasi-)stationary if a difference between the longitudinal speed of the vehicle as estimated relative to said ambient terrestrial object and the longitudinal speed of the vehicle as estimated relative to at least one ambient terrestrial object previously deemed to be (quasi-)stationary is less than a threshold value stored in a memory of the measurement system, and using only said (quasi-)stationary subset to determine said longitudinal speed …
Examiner, based on the language used and the remarks made, understands the above limitation to, effectively, mean that:
(1) A vehicle has a system that measures the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle relative to a plurality of ambient terrestrial objects and to determine a longitudinal speed of the vehicle relative to the plurality of ambient terrestrial objects.
(2) The system has a stored subset of the plurality of ambient terrestrial objects which have been deemed stationary or quasi-stationary and from which has a reference set of values.
(3) The system measures a new object, in which the system is uncertain if the new object is an ambient terrestrial object which is stationary or quasi-stationary (or is otherwise comparable to a value in the reference set of values).
(3) The system compares the difference between the longitudinal speed of the vehicle relative to the new object against at least one value from the reference set of values.
(4) If the difference is less than a predetermined threshold value, then it's unclear whether the calculation uses the determination in any way
(5) The system only uses the reference set of values to determine the longitudinal speed.
Most specifically, Examiner asserts Steps (4) and (5) above both omit key information.
Regarding Step (4), Step (4) checks a threshold, but does not do anything with that information. It is noted that Applicant’s arguments, specifically P13, Paragraph 2:
Claim 8 estimates traction by building a data pool of virtual wheel radii across multiple acquisitions and then comparing a statistical aggregate of that pool of reference values associated with known traction coefficients.
Examiner understands, based on information and review, that the system is verifying that the information regarding a new object is falling in line with the accepted subset. Applicant notes on P13, Paragraph 2, that:
By requiring that the longitudinal speed be determined exclusively from a subset of ambient objects that pass the claimed sequential consistency rule, the amendment reduces contamination of the longitudinal speed estimate by moving objects and thereby reduces bias and variance in the virtual wheel radius values accumulate in the data pool.
Examiner follows that line of reasoning, but that is not captured in the language of the claim. As claimed, the system compares the new value against at least one of the subset values to determine if the difference “is less than a threshold value stored in a memory of the measurement system” but notes no determinations based on whether the value is above or below the threshold value.
As Examiner understands it, if the difference exceeds the threshold, then the information related to the new object would be ignored, but if it was less than the threshold, then perhaps it causes the system to provide the driver with the longitudinal speed from the subset it is closest to. It is unclear what happens based on the comparison of the threshold as the following line states that the longitudinal speed is only determined from the stored set of reference values.
This relates to the omission regarding Step (5). Step (5) iterates the point that longitudinal speed is only determined from the stored set of reference values. However, in Step (3) from Examiner’s breakdown of the claim language above, the system determines a longitudinal speed relative to the new object. Despite Applicant being explicit regarding that longitudinal speed is only determined from the stored set of reference values, the system has determined a longitudinal speed related to this new object. Examiner believes Applicant means that the ultimate value, perhaps shown to the driver of the vehicle or used in subsequent processes, is solely determined from the stored set of reference values once the comparison of Step (4) is over, but it is unclear from the language as currently written.
Applicant is required to amend or clarify these claims as to no longer omit essential elements.
For the purposes of the analysis below, Examiner understands the language to (1) ignore any analysis or values if the difference is greater than the threshold, and (2) that the calculating of the longitudinal speed related to this new object does not conflict with the final determination using “only” the store reference values.
Claims 9-14 are rejected for depending on rejected Claim 8.
Claims 16-20 are rejected for depending on rejected Claim 15.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickolaou (US 20130138288 A1), in view of Yamakado (US 5726886 A), in view of Kimbrough (US 6370467 B1), and further in view of Herp (JP 2001514992 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Nickolaou discloses:
A method, comprising:
measuring a rotational speed of a wheel of a vehicle (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “Speed sensors 20-26 may utilize a variety of different sensor types and techniques, including those that use rotational wheel speed”),
determining a longitudinal acceleration of said vehicle relative to a plurality of ambient terrestrial objects using a measurement system onboard said vehicle (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals”),
determining a longitudinal speed of said vehicle relative to said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects using said measurement system (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals”),
judging a slippage state of said vehicle using said longitudinal acceleration (Nickolaou, FIG. 2, [0022], “At step 130, the method compares the actual acceleration of the vehicle to the expected acceleration”), and …
… wherein said measurement system is structured to radiate electromagnetic energy and to receive reflections of said electromagnetic energy reflected from said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals”).
Nickolaou discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… if a result of said judging indicates said vehicle is in a low-slippage state, estimating a coefficient of traction using said rotational speed and said longitudinal speed, wherein …
However, Yamakado, in a similar field of endeavor (Moving Object Controller Containing A Differential Of Acceleration Measurer), discloses:
… if a result of said judging indicates said vehicle is in a low-slippage state, estimating a coefficient of traction using said rotational speed and said longitudinal speed (Yamakado, C13, L43-51, “In the examples of the present invention described above, information corresponding to the forward/backward differential of acceleration is used. So, the time when wheels 102 start to lock, or the time when the maximum friction force is exceeded can be detected. The brake oil pressure can be reduced before the wheels 102 are fully locked, so that wheels 102 lock less frequently under braking, thereby preventing undesirable changes of the movement of automobile 100.” Examiner notes that this shows Yamakado accesses the coefficient of friction to properly adjust the disclosed system), wherein …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nickolaou with the coefficient of friction assessment of Yamakado. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of coefficient of friction assessments as disclosed by Yamakado and how to use them to modify the system of Nickolaou. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of accessing the coefficient of friction to better control and access the state of the vehicle.
The combination of Nickolaou and Yamakado discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… said estimating comprises calculating a virtual wheel radius by dividing the determined longitudinal speed by the measured rotational speed and mathematically combining an estimated virtual wheel radius and at least one other estimated virtual wheel radius, and …
However, Kimbrough, in a similar field of endeavor (Method of calculating optimal wheelslips for brake controller), discloses:
… said estimating comprises calculating a virtual wheel radius by dividing the determined longitudinal speed by the measured rotational speed and mathematically combining an estimated virtual wheel radius (Kimbrough, C3, Equation 1) and at least one other estimated virtual wheel radius (Kimbrough, FIG. 4, showing calculations over time), and …
Kimbrough’s Equation 1 is:
λ
=
1
-
ω
ρ
υ
With λ as the wheel slip, ω as the rotational rate, ρ as the wheel radius, and υ as the longitudinal velocity. With some equation manipulation, the above may be rewritten as:
ρ
=
1
-
λ
υ
ω
=
1
-
λ
υ
ω
The above rewritten equation calculates the wheel radius by dividing the determined longitudinal speed by the measured rotational speed, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nickolaou and Yamakado with the known wheel slip equation of Kimbrough. PHOSITA would have known about the known used ratio of the wheel radius by dividing the determined longitudinal speed by the measured rotational speed as disclosed by Kimbrough and how to use them to modify the combination of Nickolaou and Yamakado. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of the known quotient in applicable equations.
The combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Kimbrough discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… comparing said virtual wheel radius with reference values derived from previous measurements under known traction coefficients, and …
However, Herp, in a similar field of endeavor (Method And Apparatus For Determining A Reference Speed Of A Motor Vehicle), discloses:
… comparing said virtual wheel radius with reference values derived from previous measurements under known traction coefficients (Herp, [0055], “In general, it can be said that a high acceleration and / or a large slip will result in a small weighting factor, and vice versa. The cause lies in the relationship between the coefficient of friction, traction slip and vehicle speed known from the literature”), and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Kimbrough with the known relationship of traction to speed of Herp. PHOSITA would have known about the known relationship of traction to speed as disclosed by Herp and how to use them to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Kimbrough. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of the known relationship of traction to speed when analyzing aspects of the wheels and wheel motion and predictions.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp discloses Claim 1, and Nickolaou further discloses:
… said measurement system comprises at least one of a radar, a Doppler radar, and a laser that radiates said electromagnetic energy (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals,” and FIG. 1, [0014], “incline sensor 36 is not limited to any particular type, including those that are affected by static acceleration due to gravity and provide information regarding the angle at which the vehicle is tilted, with respect to the Earth, as well as those that use RADAR, LIDAR, laser, and/or cameras”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp discloses Claim 1, and Nickolaou further discloses:
… said measurement system comprises a camera (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0014], “incline sensor 36 is not limited to any particular type, including those that are affected by static acceleration due to gravity and provide information regarding the angle at which the vehicle is tilted, with respect to the Earth, as well as those that use RADAR, LIDAR, laser, and/or cameras”), and
said measurement system uses said camera to identify at least one individual object belonging to said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals,” and FIG. 1, [0014], “incline sensor 36 is not limited to any particular type, including those that are affected by static acceleration due to gravity and provide information regarding the angle at which the vehicle is tilted, with respect to the Earth, as well as those that use RADAR, LIDAR, laser, and/or cameras”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… said judging requires said longitudinal acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state.
However, Nickolaou discloses in FIG. 2, [0022]:
step 130 uses acceleration readings from sensors 20-26 to determine an actual acceleration value (a measured value), uses engine commands from module 70 to determine an expected acceleration value (a derived or calculated value; for instance, via a look-up table or algorithm), and then subtracts the actual acceleration from the expected acceleration to arrive at the acceleration difference (.DELTA..sub.acceleration), or vice versa.
The triggering amount for determining slipping is result-effective variable. In that, if the amount is too low it would trigger more often and likely incorrectly, and if the amount is too high it would not trigger except in extreme situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “said judging requires said longitudinal acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state,” since determining the optimum triggering amount is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp discloses Claim 1, and Yamakado further discloses:
… determining a transverse acceleration of said vehicle relative to said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects using said measurement system (Yamakado, FIGS. 11(a)-11(e), C11, L34-38, “FIGS. 11(a) to 11(e) show how to detect the traverse slipping of an automobile on the basis of the differential of acceleration transverse to the longitudinal axis of the automobile 100 (hereinafter differential of transverse acceleration)”), and
determining a transverse speed of said vehicle relative to said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects using said measurement system (Yamakado, C2, L32-36, “The derivation of the differential of acceleration in a direction transverse to the automobile may be obtained for controlling the steering of the automobile. Thus, transverse movement (lateral skidding) of the automobile may be detected, and a suitable steering compensation applied”), wherein
said judging uses at least one of said transverse acceleration and said transverse speed (Yamakado, FIGS. 11(a)-11(e), C11, L34-38, “FIGS. 11(a) to 11(e) show how to detect the traverse slipping of an automobile on the basis of the differential of acceleration transverse to the longitudinal axis of the automobile 100 (hereinafter differential of transverse acceleration)”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp with the transverse movement of Yamakado. PHOSITA would have known about the affects of transverse movement as disclosed by Yamakado and how to use them to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar (devices, methods, or products) in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of sensors to detect and account for transverse movement.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp discloses Claim 1, and Yamakado further discloses:
… determining a transverse acceleration of said vehicle relative to said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects using said measurement system (Yamakado, FIGS. 11(a)-11(e), C11, L34-38, “FIGS. 11(a) to 11(e) show how to detect the traverse slipping of an automobile on the basis of the differential of acceleration transverse to the longitudinal axis of the automobile 100 (hereinafter differential of transverse acceleration)”), and
determining a transverse speed of said vehicle relative to said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects using said measurement system (Yamakado, FIGS. 11(a)-11(e), C11, L34-38, “FIGS. 11(a) to 11(e) show how to detect the traverse slipping of an automobile on the basis of the differential of acceleration transverse to the longitudinal axis of the automobile 100 (hereinafter differential of transverse acceleration)”),
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp with the transverse movement of Yamakado. PHOSITA would have known about the affects of transverse movement as disclosed by Yamakado and how to use them to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar (devices, methods, or products) in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of sensors to detect and account for transverse movement.
The combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… said judging requires each of said longitudinal acceleration and said transverse acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state, and
said judging requires transverse speed to be less than 1% of said longitudinal speed for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state.
However, Nickolaou discloses in FIG. 2, [0022]:
step 130 uses acceleration readings from sensors 20-26 to determine an actual acceleration value (a measured value), uses engine commands from module 70 to determine an expected acceleration value (a derived or calculated value; for instance, via a look-up table or algorithm), and then subtracts the actual acceleration from the expected acceleration to arrive at the acceleration difference (.DELTA..sub.acceleration), or vice versa.
The triggering amount for determining slipping is result-effective variable. In that, if the amount is too low it would trigger more often and likely incorrectly, and if the amount is too high it would not trigger except in extreme situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “said judging requires said longitudinal acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state, and said judging requires transverse speed to be less than 1% of said longitudinal speed for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state,” since determining the optimum triggering amount is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Kimbrough, and Herp discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… said measurement system performs said determining of said longitudinal speed such that said longitudinal speed represents an actual longitudinal speed of said vehicle with an accuracy of ±0.05%.
However, both Nickolaou and Yamakado generally discuss accuracy and providing accurate results. The accuracy of the device is result-effective variable. In that, if the accuracy is too low it would fail to accurately measure, and likely incorrectly, and if the accuracy is too high it would take considerable power, memory, and processing capacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “said measurement system performs said determining of said longitudinal speed such that said longitudinal speed represents an actual longitudinal speed of said vehicle with an accuracy of ±0.05%,” since determining the optimum accuracy is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickolaou (US 20130138288 A1), in view of Yamakado (US 5726886 A), and further in view of Herp (JP 2001514992 A).
Regarding Claim 15, Nickolaou discloses:
A system, comprising:
a rotational speed sensor structured to measure a rotational speed of a wheel of a vehicle (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “Speed sensors 20-26 may utilize a variety of different sensor types and techniques, including those that use rotational wheel speed”),
a measurement system structured to determine a longitudinal acceleration of said vehicle relative to a plurality of ambient terrestrial objects and to determine a longitudinal speed of said vehicle relative to said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals”),
a data processing system (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0009], control module 40) structured to judge a slippage state of said vehicle using said longitudinal acceleration (Nickolaou, FIG. 2, [0022], “At step 130, the method compares the actual acceleration of the vehicle to the expected acceleration”) and, …
… said measurement system is mounted onboard said vehicle, and said measurement system is structured to radiate electromagnetic energy and to receive reflections of said electromagnetic energy reflected from said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals”).
Nickolaou discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein said determining comprises deeming a subset of said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects to be (quasi-)stationary if a difference between the longitudinal speed of the vehicle as estimated relative to said ambient terrestrial object and the longitudinal speed of the vehicle as estimated relative to at least one ambient terrestrial object previously deemed to be (quasi-)stationary is less than a threshold value stored in a memory of the measurement system, and using only said (quasi-)stationary subset to determine said longitudinal speed …
However, as noted in Examiner’s understanding of this claim language above, Examiner understands Applicant to be effectively claiming the comparison of a new value against a set of reference values to determine if the new value falls in line with the set of reference values before providing information to the user.
Examiner takes Official Notice on the use of threshold values, as those are commonly used in the art and related arts, and PHOSITA would be well aware of their use in shifting through data.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nickolaou with threshold values to monitor and sort through information. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of threshold values in comparing new information to known sets of information.
Additionally, as Applicant has argued that Nickolaou only discloses measuring a single object. Without agreeing with Applicant, Examiner notes that even if that were the case, for Nickolaou to be able to measure multiple objects at once would be a mere duplication of parts.
Pursuant to MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B): Duplication of Parts:
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Examiner understands the ability to measure multiple objects at once as being a mere duplication of parts. Thus, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nickolaou with additional means to measuring multiple ambient objects at once for analysis. PHOSITA would have known about the ability to measure an ambient object as disclosed by Nickolaou and how to add additional systems to modify Nickolaou to measure multiple objects. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as Duplication of Parts.
Nickolaou discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… if a result of said judging indicates said vehicle is in a low-slippage state, estimates a coefficient of traction using said rotational speed and said longitudinal speed …
However, Yamakado, in a similar field of endeavor (Moving Object Controller Containing A Differential Of Acceleration Measurer), discloses:
… if a result of said judging indicates said vehicle is in a low-slippage state, estimates a coefficient of traction using said rotational speed and said longitudinal speed (Yamakado, C13, L43-51, “In the examples of the present invention described above, information corresponding to the forward/backward differential of acceleration is used. So, the time when wheels 102 start to lock, or the time when the maximum friction force is exceeded can be detected. The brake oil pressure can be reduced before the wheels 102 are fully locked, so that wheels 102 lock less frequently under braking, thereby preventing undesirable changes of the movement of automobile 100.” Examiner notes that this shows Yamakado accesses the coefficient of friction to properly adjust the disclosed system) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nickolaou with the coefficient of friction assessment of Yamakado. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of coefficient of friction assessments as disclosed by Yamakado and how to use them to modify the system of Nickolaou. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of accessing the coefficient of friction to better control and access the state of the vehicle.
The combination of Nickolaou and Yamakado discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… by comparing a statistical aggregate of virtual wheel radii in a data pool with a set of reference values, each associated with a known coefficient of traction, …
However, Herp, in a similar field of endeavor (Method And Apparatus For Determining A Reference Speed Of A Motor Vehicle), discloses:
… by comparing a statistical aggregate of virtual wheel radii in a data pool with a set of reference values, each associated with a known coefficient of traction (Herp, [0055], “In general, it can be said that a high acceleration and / or a large slip will result in a small weighting factor, and vice versa. The cause lies in the relationship between the coefficient of friction, traction slip and vehicle speed known from the literature”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nickolaou and Yamakado with the known relationship of traction to speed of Herp. PHOSITA would have known about the known relationship of traction to speed as disclosed by Herp and how to use them to modify the combination of Nickolaou and Yamakado. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of the known relationship of traction to speed when analyzing aspects of the wheels and wheel motion and predictions.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Herp discloses Claim 15, and Nickolaou further discloses:
… said measurement system comprises at least one of a radar, a Doppler radar, and a laser that radiates said electromagnetic energy (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals,” and FIG. 1, [0014], “incline sensor 36 is not limited to any particular type, including those that are affected by static acceleration due to gravity and provide information regarding the angle at which the vehicle is tilted, with respect to the Earth, as well as those that use RADAR, LIDAR, laser, and/or cameras”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Herp discloses Claim 15, and Nickolaou further discloses:
… said measurement system comprises a camera (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0014], “incline sensor 36 is not limited to any particular type, including those that are affected by static acceleration due to gravity and provide information regarding the angle at which the vehicle is tilted, with respect to the Earth, as well as those that use RADAR, LIDAR, laser, and/or cameras”), and
said measurement system is structured to use said camera to identify at least one individual object belonging to said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals,” and FIG. 1, [0014], “incline sensor 36 is not limited to any particular type, including those that are affected by static acceleration due to gravity and provide information regarding the angle at which the vehicle is tilted, with respect to the Earth, as well as those that use RADAR, LIDAR, laser, and/or cameras”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Herp discloses Claim 15, but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
… said judging requires said longitudinal acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state.
However, Nickolaou discloses in FIG. 2, [0022]:
step 130 uses acceleration readings from sensors 20-26 to determine an actual acceleration value (a measured value), uses engine commands from module 70 to determine an expected acceleration value (a derived or calculated value; for instance, via a look-up table or algorithm), and then subtracts the actual acceleration from the expected acceleration to arrive at the acceleration difference (.DELTA..sub.acceleration), or vice versa.
The triggering amount for determining slipping is result-effective variable. In that, if the amount is too low it would trigger more often and likely incorrectly, and if the amount is too high it would not trigger except in extreme situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “said judging requires said longitudinal acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state,” since determining the optimum triggering amount is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Herp discloses Claim 15, but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
… said judging requires each of said longitudinal acceleration and said transverse acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state.
However, Nickolaou discloses in FIG. 2, [0022]:
step 130 uses acceleration readings from sensors 20-26 to determine an actual acceleration value (a measured value), uses engine commands from module 70 to determine an expected acceleration value (a derived or calculated value; for instance, via a look-up table or algorithm), and then subtracts the actual acceleration from the expected acceleration to arrive at the acceleration difference (.DELTA..sub.acceleration), or vice versa.
The triggering amount for determining slipping is result-effective variable. In that, if the amount is too low it would trigger more often and likely incorrectly, and if the amount is too high it would not trigger except in extreme situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “said judging requires each of said longitudinal acceleration and said transverse acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state,” since determining the optimum triggering amount is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Herp discloses Claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose:
… said measurement system is structured to determine said longitudinal speed such that said longitudinal speed represents an actual longitudinal speed of said vehicle with an accuracy of ±0.05%.
However, both Nickolaou and Yamakado generally discuss accuracy and providing accurate results. The accuracy of the device is result-effective variable. In that, if the accuracy is too low it would fail to accurately measure, and likely incorrectly, and if the accuracy is too high it would take considerable power, memory, and processing capacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “said measurement system performs said determining of said longitudinal speed such that said longitudinal speed represents an actual longitudinal speed of said vehicle with an accuracy of ±0.05%,” since determining the optimum accuracy is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickolaou (US 20130138288 A1), in view of Yamakado (US 5726886 A), in view of Herp (JP 2001514992 A), and in further view of Johansson (US 20190226841 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Nickolaou discloses:
A method, comprising:
determining a longitudinal acceleration of a vehicle relative to a plurality of ambient terrestrial objects (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals”)
determining a longitudinal speed of said vehicle relative to said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals”), wherein said determining comprises deeming a subset of said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects to be (quasi-)stationary if a difference between the longitudinal speed of the vehicle as estimated relative to said ambient terrestrial object and the longitudinal speed of the vehicle as estimated relative to at least one ambient terrestrial object previously deemed to be (quasi-)stationary is less than a threshold value stored in a memory of the measurement system (Examiner takes official notice that the used of threshold values for comparison are well known in the art), and using only said (quasi-)stationary subset to determine said longitudinal speed (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals”)
judging a slippage state of said vehicle using at least said longitudinal acceleration of said vehicle (Nickolaou, FIG. 2, [0022], “At step 130, the method compares the actual acceleration of the vehicle to the expected acceleration”),
performing, while a result of said judging indicates said vehicle is in a low- slippage state, a plurality of data acquisitions (Nickolaou, FIG. 2, [0022], “At step 130, the method compares the actual acceleration of the vehicle to the expected acceleration”), each individual data acquisition comprising:
measuring a first rotational speed of a first wheel of said vehicle (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “Speed sensors 20-26 may utilize a variety of different sensor types and techniques, including those that use rotational wheel speed”), …
Nickolaou discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein said determining comprises deeming a subset of said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects to be (quasi-)stationary if a difference between the longitudinal speed of the vehicle as estimated relative to said ambient terrestrial object and the longitudinal speed of the vehicle as estimated relative to at least one ambient terrestrial object previously deemed to be (quasi-)stationary is less than a threshold value stored in a memory of the measurement system, and using only said (quasi-)stationary subset to determine said longitudinal speed …
However, as noted in Examiner’s understanding of this claim language above, Examiner understands Applicant to be effectively claiming the comparison of a new value against a set of reference values to determine if the new value falls in line with the set of reference values before providing information to the user.
Examiner takes Official Notice on the use of threshold values, as those are commonly used in the art and related arts, and PHOSITA would be well aware of their use in shifting through data.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nickolaou with threshold values to monitor and sort through information. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of threshold values in comparing new information to known sets of information.
Additionally, as Applicant has argued that Nickolaou only discloses measuring a single object. Without agreeing with Applicant, Examiner notes that even if that were the case, for Nickolaou to be able to measure multiple objects at once would be a mere duplication of parts.
Pursuant to MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B): Duplication of Parts:
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Examiner understands the ability to measure multiple objects at once as being a mere duplication of parts. Thus, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nickolaou with additional means to measuring multiple ambient objects at once for analysis. PHOSITA would have known about the ability to measure an ambient object as disclosed by Nickolaou and how to add additional systems to modify Nickolaou to measure multiple objects. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as Duplication of Parts.
Nickolaou discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… estimating a coefficient of traction using said virtual wheel radius data of said data pool …
However, Yamakado, in a similar field of endeavor (Moving Object Controller Containing A Differential Of Acceleration Measurer), discloses:
… estimating a coefficient of traction using said virtual wheel radius data of said data pool (Yamakado, C13, L43-51, “In the examples of the present invention described above, information corresponding to the forward/backward differential of acceleration is used. So, the time when wheels 102 start to lock, or the time when the maximum friction force is exceeded can be detected. The brake oil pressure can be reduced before the wheels 102 are fully locked, so that wheels 102 lock less frequently under braking, thereby preventing undesirable changes of the movement of automobile 100.” Examiner notes that this shows Yamakado accesses the coefficient of friction to properly adjust the disclosed system).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nickolaou with the coefficient of friction assessment of Yamakado. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of coefficient of friction assessments as disclosed by Yamakado and how to use them to modify the system of Nickolaou. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of accessing the coefficient of friction to better control and access the state of the vehicle.
The combination of Nickolaou and Yamakado discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… by comparing a statistical aggregate of virtual wheel radii in said data pool with a set of reference values, each associated with a known coefficient of traction …
However, Herp, in a similar field of endeavor (Method And Apparatus For Determining A Reference Speed Of A Motor Vehicle), discloses:
… by comparing a statistical aggregate of virtual wheel radii in said data pool with a set of reference values, each associated with a known coefficient of traction (Herp, [0055], “In general, it can be said that a high acceleration and / or a large slip will result in a small weighting factor, and vice versa. The cause lies in the relationship between the coefficient of friction, traction slip and vehicle speed known from the literature”), and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nickolaou and Yamakado with the known relationship of traction to speed of Herp. PHOSITA would have known about the known relationship of traction to speed as disclosed by Herp and how to use them to modify the combination of Nickolaou and Yamakado. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of the known relationship of traction to speed when analyzing aspects of the wheels and wheel motion and predictions.
The combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Herp discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… estimating a first virtual wheel radius using said first rotational speed and said longitudinal speed, and
adding said first virtual wheel radius to a data pool as virtual wheel radius data, and …
However, Johansson, in a similar field of endeavor (ESTIMATION OF ABSOLUTE WHEEL ROLL RADII AND ESTIMATION OF VERTICAL COMPRESSION VALUE), discloses:
… estimating a first virtual wheel radius using said first rotational speed and said longitudinal speed (Johansson, FIG. 6, [0104], “The method 60 comprises a step of first measurements 62. The first measurements 62 include measuring a yaw rate signal, indicative of a yaw rate of the vehicle, measuring a wheel speed signal, indicative of an angular velocity of a first wheel of the vehicle, as well as measuring a further wheel speed signal, indicative of an angular velocity of a second wheel of the vehicle”), and
adding said first virtual wheel radius to a data pool as virtual wheel radius data (Johansson, FIG. 8, [0112], “In the second measurement step 82, the values of same set of quantities at a later point in time are collected. Similarly, the third measurement step 83 collects the values of the set of quantitates at still a further point in time,” and FIG. 8, [0113], “Based on the three set of measurements 81, 82 and 83, absolute roll radii are determined (reference numeral 86) and a vertical compression value is determined (reference numeral 88). Steps 86 and 88 are illustrated as being carried out simultaneously. However, as will be apparent to the skilled person, these steps may be carried out sequentially, simultaneously, independently or any combination thereof”), and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Herp with the radius estimation of Johansson. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of radius estimation as disclosed by Johansson and how to use them to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Herp. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use rotational movement to estimate the wheel radius for monitoring the condition of the wheel.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Herp, and Johansson discloses Claim 8, and Nickolaou further discloses:
… said determining of said longitudinal acceleration and said determining of said longitudinal speed are performed using a measurement system onboard said vehicle (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0009], control module 40),
said measurement system is structured to radiate electromagnetic energy and to receive reflections of said electromagnetic energy reflected from said plurality of ambient terrestrial objects (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “speed sensors 20-26 determine vehicle speed relative to the ground by directing radar, laser and/or other signals towards the ground or stationary objects and analyzing the reflected signals”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Herp, and Johansson discloses Claim 8, and Nickolaou further discloses:
… wherein each individual data acquisition comprises:
measuring a second rotational speed of a second wheel of a vehicle (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “Speed sensors 20-26 may utilize a variety of different sensor types and techniques, including those that use rotational wheel speed”)
estimating a second virtual wheel radius using said second rotational speed and said longitudinal speed, and
adding said second virtual wheel radius to a data pool as virtual wheel radius data.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Herp, and Johansson discloses Claim 8, and Nickolaou further discloses:
… wherein each individual data acquisition comprises:
measuring a third rotational speed of a third wheel of a vehicle (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “Speed sensors 20-26 may utilize a variety of different sensor types and techniques, including those that use rotational wheel speed”) …
… measuring a fourth rotational speed of a fourth wheel of a vehicle (Nickolaou, FIG. 1, [0011], “Speed sensors 20-26 may utilize a variety of different sensor types and techniques, including those that use rotational wheel speed”) …
Additionall, Johansson further discloses:
… estimating a third virtual wheel radius using said third rotational speed and said longitudinal speed (Johansson, FIG. 6, [0104], “The method 60 comprises a step of first measurements 62. The first measurements 62 include measuring a yaw rate signal, indicative of a yaw rate of the vehicle, measuring a wheel speed signal, indicative of an angular velocity of a first wheel of the vehicle, as well as measuring a further wheel speed signal, indicative of an angular velocity of a second wheel of the vehicle”),
adding said third virtual wheel radius to a data pool as virtual wheel radius data (Johansson, FIG. 8, [0112], “In the second measurement step 82, the values of same set of quantities at a later point in time are collected. Similarly, the third measurement step 83 collects the values of the set of quantitates at still a further point in time,” and FIG. 8, [0113], “Based on the three set of measurements 81, 82 and 83, absolute roll radii are determined (reference numeral 86) and a vertical compression value is determined (reference numeral 88). Steps 86 and 88 are illustrated as being carried out simultaneously. However, as will be apparent to the skilled person, these steps may be carried out sequentially, simultaneously, independently or any combination thereof”),
estimating a fourth virtual wheel radius using said second rotational speed and said longitudinal speed (Johansson, FIG. 6, [0104], “The method 60 comprises a step of first measurements 62. The first measurements 62 include measuring a yaw rate signal, indicative of a yaw rate of the vehicle, measuring a wheel speed signal, indicative of an angular velocity of a first wheel of the vehicle, as well as measuring a further wheel speed signal, indicative of an angular velocity of a second wheel of the vehicle”), and
adding said fourth virtual wheel radius to a data pool as virtual wheel radius data (Johansson, FIG. 8, [0112], “In the second measurement step 82, the values of same set of quantities at a later point in time are collected. Similarly, the third measurement step 83 collects the values of the set of quantitates at still a further point in time,” and FIG. 8, [0113], “Based on the three set of measurements 81, 82 and 83, absolute roll radii are determined (reference numeral 86) and a vertical compression value is determined (reference numeral 88). Steps 86 and 88 are illustrated as being carried out simultaneously. However, as will be apparent to the skilled person, these steps may be carried out sequentially, simultaneously, independently or any combination thereof”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Herp, and Johansson with the radius estimation of Johansson. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of radius estimation as disclosed by Johansson and how to use them to modify the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Herp, and Johansson. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use rotational movement to estimate the wheel radius for monitoring the condition of the wheel.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Herp, and Johansson discloses Claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
… said plurality of data acquisitions comprises at least 200 data acquisitions, and
said performing of said plurality of data acquisitions is effected in a contiguous time period of less than one second in duration.
However, Nickolaou, Yamakado, and Johansson all generally discuss data acquisition. The speed and amount of data acquisitions is result-effective variable. In that, if the speed and amount is too low it would fail to accurately measure, and likely incorrectly, and if the speed and amount is too high it would take considerable power, memory, and processing capacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “said plurality of data acquisitions comprises at least 200 data acquisitions, and said performing of said plurality of data acquisitions is effected in a contiguous time period of less than one second in duration” since determining the optimum speed and amount of data acquisition is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Herp, and Johansson discloses Claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
… said judging requires said longitudinal acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s” for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state.
However, Nickolaou discloses in FIG. 2, [0022]:
step 130 uses acceleration readings from sensors 20-26 to determine an actual acceleration value (a measured value), uses engine commands from module 70 to determine an expected acceleration value (a derived or calculated value; for instance, via a look-up table or algorithm), and then subtracts the actual acceleration from the expected acceleration to arrive at the acceleration difference (.DELTA..sub.acceleration), or vice versa.
The triggering amount for determining slipping is result-effective variable. In that, if the amount is too low it would trigger more often and likely incorrectly, and if the amount is too high it would not trigger except in extreme situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “said judging requires said longitudinal acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s” for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state,” since determining the optimum triggering amount is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Nickolaou, Yamakado, Herp, and Johansson discloses Claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
… said judging requires each of said longitudinal acceleration and said transverse acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state.
However, Nickolaou discloses in FIG. 2, [0022]:
step 130 uses acceleration readings from sensors 20-26 to determine an actual acceleration value (a measured value), uses engine commands from module 70 to determine an expected acceleration value (a derived or calculated value; for instance, via a look-up table or algorithm), and then subtracts the actual acceleration from the expected acceleration to arrive at the acceleration difference (.DELTA..sub.acceleration), or vice versa.
The triggering amount for determining slipping is result-effective variable. In that, if the amount is too low it would trigger more often and likely incorrectly, and if the amount is too high it would not trigger except in extreme situations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “said judging requires each of said longitudinal acceleration and said transverse acceleration to have a magnitude of less than 0.5 m/s* for said result to indicate said vehicle is in a low-slippage state,” since determining the optimum triggering amount is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights