DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10 recites the limitation “wheel slip and generated wheel force” which should be changed to “the wheel slip and the generated wheel force”.
Claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation “one or more operating parameters” which should be changed to “the one or more operating parameters”.
Claim 8, line 1 recites the limitation “according claim 1” which should be changed to “according to claim 1”.
Claim 8, line 2 recites the limitation “a relationship between wheel slip and generated wheel force” which should be changed to “the relationship between the wheel slip and the generated wheel force”.
Claim 11, line 2 recites the limitation “wheel slip” which should be changed to “the wheel slip”.
Claim 20, line 1 recites the limitation “a control unit” which should be changed to “the control unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 6 and 18 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the one or more estimated tire parameters" in lines 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said program product" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 7, 11, and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Laine et al. (US 2019/0176784 A1).
For claim 1, Laine et al. discloses a method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle 100, the method comprising:
[obtaining input data related to one or more parameters of a tire on the heavy-duty vehicle] (page 5, paragraph [0067], via the various sensors 228, 230, 232, 234, and other suitable sensors),
[determining at least part of the one or more tire parameters based on the input data] (page 5, paragraph [0074], “rolling radius of the wheel”),
configuring a tire model 400, [wherein the tire model defines a relationship between wheel slip and generated wheel force] (page 6, paragraph [0090]), [wherein the tire model is parameterized by the one or more tire parameters] (page 5, paragraph [0070] and page 6, paragraphs [0085] and [0090], where the model uses at least three longitudinal wheel force values and three corresponding longitudinal wheel slip values), and
[controlling the motion of the heavy-duty vehicle based on the relationship between wheel slip and generated wheel force by sending wheel slip requests from a vehicle motion management function 112 of the heavy-duty vehicle to one or more motion support device control units 104 of the heavy-duty vehicle] (page 7, paragraphs [0103] and [0104]).
For claim 2, Laine et al. discloses the method [wherein the input data comprises input data from one or more sensors arranged to measure one or more operating parameters of the tire] (page 5, paragraph [0067]).
For claim 3, Laine et al. discloses the method [wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise any of: vehicle speed, wheel rotation speed, tire pressure, tire temperature, tire acceleration, tire strain, tire GPS position, weather, ambient temperature, rain classification data, normal load, slip angle, steer angle, and applied torque] (page 5, paragraph [0067]).
For claim 6, Laine et al. discloses the method [wherein the one or more estimated tire parameters comprise any of: tire wear, tire longitudinal stiffness, tire lateral stiffness, tire rolling resistance, tire peak friction, tire rolling radius, tire contact patch properties, tire balance properties and wheel alignment properties] (page 5, paragraph [0074]).
For claim 7, Laine et al. discloses the method comprising [repeatedly updating at least part of the one or more tire parameters based on updated input data] (page 7, paragraph [0104]).
For claim 11, Laine et al. discloses the method [wherein the tire model is configured to define a relationship between wheel slip and both propulsion and braking wheel forces] (page 4, paragraph [0064]).
For claim 13, Laine et al. discloses the method further comprising [coordinating one or more motion support devices 104 of the heavy-duty vehicle] (page 7, paragraph [0105]) [to reduce a tire wear rate under constraints comprising fulfillment of a motion request] (intended use).
For claim 14, Laine et al. discloses the method further comprising [coordinating one or more motion support devices of the heavy-duty vehicle] (page 7, paragraph [0105]) [to reduce a tire rolling resistance under constraints comprising fulfillment of a motion request] (intended use).
For claim 15, Laine et al. discloses the method further comprising [coordinating one or more motion support devices of the heavy-duty vehicle] (page 7, paragraph [0105]) [to reduce a stopping distance of the heavy-duty vehicle] (intended use).
For claim 16, Laine et al. discloses the method further comprising [coordinating one or more motion support devices of the heavy-duty vehicle] (page 7, paragraph [0105]) [to increase a travelled range capability of the heavy-duty vehicle].
For claim 17, Laine et al. discloses [a computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim l when said program is run on a computer or on processing circuitry of a control unit] (page 1, paragraph [0049]).
For claim 18, Laine et al. discloses [a computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim l when said program product is run on a computer or on processing circuitry of a control unit] (page 4, paragraph [0050]).
For claim 19, Laine et al. discloses [a control unit 202 for determining an allowable vehicle state space of an articulated vehicle, the control unit being configured to perform the steps of the method according claim l] (page 4, paragraph [0065]).
For claim 20, Laine et al. discloses a vehicle 100 comprising a control unit 202 according to claim 19.
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.
Claims 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine et al. (US 2019/0176784 A1) in view of Kuwajima et al. (US 6,692,089 B2).
For claim 4, Laine et al. does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the input data comprises data obtained from memory related to tire design.
Kuwajima et al. discloses a brake control device includes a memory 14, wherein tire characteristics to be stored in the memory are preferably supplied without constraint from an external device or a data recording medium; even if tires are worn and tire friction characteristics change, changed characteristics can be supplied if necessary] (col. 8, lines 39 – 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the memory and tire design data of Kuwajima et al. with the method of Laine et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for control of a braking force quantitatively such that slip ratio becomes optimum and can reduce a time lag before the control starts to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle.
For claim 5, Laine et al. modified as above discloses the method wherein the data related to tire design comprises any of: tire nominal dimension, [tire structural characteristics] (col. 8, liens 39 – 43), tire chemical composition, tire history.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine et al. (US 2019/0176784 A1) in view of Shiozawa et al. (US 2011/0209521 A1).
For claim 8, Laine et al. does not explicitly disclose the method [wherein the tire model is configured to define a relationship between wheel slip and generated wheel force in longitudinal direction] (page 6, paragraph [0090]), but does not explicitly disclose a lateral direction.
Shiozawa et al. discloses a tire characteristic curve which represents a general relationship between a wheel slip angle and a lateral force of a wheel] (fig. 10, page 5, paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the tire characteristic curve of Shiozawa et al. with the method of Laine et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for determining a grip characteristic parameter indicative of a gripping characteristic of the wheel, thus improving overall accuracy of tire parameters.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine et al. (US 2019/0176784 A1) in view of Zhuang et al. (CN 204514617 U).
For claim 9, Laine et al. does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the tire model is configured to model a rolling resistance of the tire.
Zhuang et al. discloses [a utility model testing device can be used to test mechanical properties of tires, such as side slip, longitudinal slip, side roll, side roll and side slip combined, side roll and longitudinal slip combined, rolling resistance, and side roll, side slip and longitudinal slip combined, to obtain test characteristic curves of the test tire under corresponding working conditions] (page 50, paragraph [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the rolling resistance model of Zhuang et al. with the method of Laine et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved monitoring of tire characteristics, thus providing for improved accurate and reliable estimation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine et al. (US 2019/0176784 A1) in view of Singh (US 2018/0272813 A1).
For claim 10, Laine et al. does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the tire model is configured to model a wear rate of the tire.
Singh discloses [a system 50 utilizes a tire wear estimation model that receives multiple input parameters to generate a high-accuracy estimation of a rate of tire wear] (page 2, paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the tire wear rate model of Singh with the method of Laine et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved monitoring of tire characteristics, thus providing for improved accurate and reliable estimation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine et al. (US 2019/0176784 A1) in view of Miyashita et al. (US 2005/0065666 A1).
For claim 12, Laine et al. does not explicitly disclose the method wherein the tire model is configured to model a self-aligning torque of the tire.
Miyashita et al. discloses [a tire dynamic model in a sub-routine or a sub-program is an analytic model for calculating a self-aligning torque] (page 12, paragraph [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the self-aligning torque model of Miyashita et al. with the method of Laine et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved monitoring of tire characteristics, thus providing for improved accurate and reliable estimation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. 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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611