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 .
Responsive to communication filed on 11 Oct 2023.
Claims 11-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements dated 11 Oct 2023, 4 Feb 2025, and 10 Jul 2026 have been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 11 Oct 2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 11 Oct 2023 has been reviewed. It contains 54 words and 6 lines and has no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
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.
The claim limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are as follows:
Claim 11 states multiple “steps of” performing the method of claim 11. The “steps” are a generic placeholder (as described above). All steps are followed by functional language (e.g. “estimating”, “comparing”, “determining”) and lack sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 18 states multiple “means for” performing the actions of the system of claim 18. The “means” are a generic placeholder (as described above). All steps are followed by functional language (e.g. “estimating”, “comparing”, “determining”) and lack sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and further because the specification does not disclose both a computer and algorithm (MPEP 2181(II)(B)) to serve as structure for the “means”, examiner will interpret the means as a generic computer to calculate the algorithms of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitations of claim 18 state “means for” estimating, comparing, and determining forces on a tire. There is a lack of sufficient structure both within the claims and specification. While the specification does disclose mathematical formulae for calculating the forces, there is a lack of physical structure (e.g. generic or specialized computers) to perform said calculations (MPEP 2181(II)(B)). Thus, there is a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim limitation “means for” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the written description does disclose mathematical formulae for calculating the forces, there is a lack of physical structure (e.g. generic or specialized computers) to perform said calculations (MPEP 2181(II)(B)). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within
the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong One - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an
abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2A Prong Two - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step
2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. This evaluation considers any additional elements in the claim beyond any recited judicial
exceptions.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a
practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further
analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More. This evaluation is to evaluate if the additional elements of
the claim provide an inventive concept.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim
from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed
in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant
Extra-Solution Activities are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -
understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
The additional elements are evaluated to determine if any additional element or combination of
elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply
append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a
high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claims 11-17
Claim 11:
Step 1: Claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-17 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“a first step of estimating a force experienced by the tire as a function of a vehicle model and a state observer;” This limitation can reasonably read to entail making an evaluation, based on a model and state observer, on a force affecting a tire. This limitation can be performed within the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation recites the use of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this limitation recites the use of a function of a model and state observer to calculate a force, the limitation further recites the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical calculation, which is a mathematical concept.
“a second step of estimating a force experienced by the tire as a function of a thermomechanical model of the tire;” This limitation can reasonably read to entail making an evaluation, based on a thermomechanical model, on a force affecting a tire. This limitation can be performed within the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation recites the use of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this limitation recites the use of a function of a model to calculate a force, the limitation further recites the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical calculation, which is a mathematical concept.
“a step of statistically comparing the forces determined during the first and second estimating steps,” This limitation can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation based on two, prior, evaluations. This limitation can be performed within the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation recites the use of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this limitation recites the use of statistically comparing two known values, the limitation further recites the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical calculation, which is a mathematical concept.
“a step of determining, as a function of a result of the comparing step, a value of the adhesion potential of the tire on the rolling surface.” This limitation can reasonably read to entail making an evaluation, based on previously garnered knowledge, on a force affecting a tire. This limitation can be performed within the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation recites the use of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this limitation recites the use of determining the force as a function of a previously stated mathematical calculation, the limitation further recites the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical calculation, which is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation:
“the tire being installed on a vehicle” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is simply limiting the judicial exceptions to estimation of a force on a tire installed on a vehicle.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 12:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 12.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation:
“the vehicle model is a bicycle model,” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is simply limiting the model in the judicial exception to one of a bicycle.
“the state observer is a Kalman filter.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is simply limiting the state observer in the judicial exception to a Kalman filter.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 13:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 13.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation:
“the comparing step employs a Bayesian logic method.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is simply limiting the comparison step to one that utilizes Bayesian logic.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 14:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 14.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation:
“the comparing step employs a Monte-Carlo Markov Chain method.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is simply limiting the comparison step to one that utilizes a Monte-Carlo Karkov Chain method.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 15.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation:
“the thermomechanical model of the tire comprises a model of longitudinal forces, transverse forces, a self-aligning torque and a balance of elementary shearing and slipping forces of the tire at a transition point between adhering and sliding contact regions.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is simply limiting the thermomechanical model to one that utilizes the multitude of forces within the claim limitation.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 16:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 16.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation:
“further comprising, at least before the second estimating step, a step of reducing the tire model.” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as it is simply detailing when a judicial exception should be applied in the process.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 17:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 17.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation:
“all of the steps are performed in real time.” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as it is simply detailing at what pace a judicial exception should be executed in the process.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claims 18-20:
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed to a system, which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Claim 18 is similar in claim structure and limitations to claim 11. Thus, the rationale for rejection for claim 11 will apply to claim 18.
Claim 19:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 19, the judicial exception of independent claim 18 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 19.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation:
“the means are installed on the vehicle.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is simply limiting the means to those installed on the vehicle of the judicial exception.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 20:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 18 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 20.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 20 additionally recites the limitation:
“further comprising sensors installed on the vehicle.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is simply stating that sensors are installed on the vehicle of the judicial exception.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
NOTE: Examiner references non-patent literature in this rejection. When doing so, examiner will quote the reference by stating the page number and paragraph number within the stated page (e.g. “Pg. 5 Par. 3” will reference to the third full paragraph in page 5).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajamani_2010 (“Tire-road friction-Coefficient Estimation”).
Claim 11. Rajamani_2010 teaches “A method for estimating adhesion potential of a tire on a
rolling surface, (Pg. 16 Par. 2: “We now consider an extended Kalman filter (EKF)-based method for estimating tire-road friction.”) the tire being installed on a vehicle, (Pg. 18, Fig. 13) the method comprising the following steps: a first step of estimating a force experienced by the tire as a function of a vehicle model and a state observer; (Pg. 16 Par. 2: “The EKBF estimates the state and tire forces…”) a second step of estimating a force experienced by the tire as a function of a thermomechanical model of the tire (Pg. 18 Par. 2 “For simulation purposes, an analytical tire model is used to generate longitudinal and lateral forces as a function of tire slip ratio, slip angle, road friction coefficient, normal tire force, and a set of tire parameters [24].”); a step of statistically comparing the forces determined during the first and second estimating steps, (Pg. 16 Par. 2: “The resulting force, slip, and slip-angle estimates are compared statistically with those that result from a nominal analytic tire model…”) and a step of determining, as a function of a result of the comparing step, a value of the adhesion potential of the tire on the rolling surface.” (Pg. 16 Par. 2: “The resulting… estimates are compared statistically… to select the most likely value of µ from a set of hypothesized values.” NOTE: EKBF = extended Kalman-Bucy filter, which is used as a state observer. Also, µ = tire-road friction coefficient.)
Claim 12. Rajamani_2010 teaches the limitations of claim 11. Rajamani_2010 further teaches “the vehicle model is a bicycle model, (Pg. 18, Fig. 13. NOTE: The bottom figure in figure 13 is a bicycle model, as can be seen on page 4 and figure 3 “Consider a bicycle-type model… as shown in Figure 3”) and wherein the state observer is a Kalman filter.” (Pg. 16 Par. 2: “The EKBF estimates the state and tire forces…”).
Claim 13. Rajamani_2010 teaches the limitations of claim 11. Rajamani_2010 also teaches “the comparing step employs a Bayesian logic method.” (Pg. 17, Fig. 12. NOTE: The Bayesian Hypothesis Selection is comparing the estimations of the EKBF and the Tire Modeling (i.e. nominal analytic tire model) to find µ).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Rajamani_2010 (“Tire-road friction-Coefficient Estimation”) in view of Ekvall_2019 (“Markov chain Monte Carlo”).
Claim 14. Rajamani_2010 teaches the limitations of claim 11. While Rajamani_2010 teaches a
method for estimating friction, it does not explicitly state that “the comparing step employs a Monte-Carlo Markov Chain method.”
Ekvall_2019, however, teaches “a Monte-Carlo Markov Chain method.” (Pg. 2, Par. 2: “… in a wide range of settings, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) can be used in place of i.i.d. sampling [cf. 1, 11]. Because of this, after the seminal paper by Gelfand and Smith [3], MCMC has become integral to Bayesian analysis where such complicated distributions often arise…” NOTE: i.i.d. = independent and identically distributed).
Rajamani_2010 and Ekvall_2019 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called probability distribution estimation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rajamani_2010 and Ekvall_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been that the Markov chain Monte Carlo is useful in cases where gathering independent and identically distributed observations is infeasible (Ekvall_2019 Pg. 2, Par. 2: “The power of MCMC, however, is that the useful properties of µh discussed above (LLN and CLT) continue to hold for much more general chains. Such chains can be constructed in many cases where i.i.d. sampling is infeasible and, hence, MCMC is more widely applicable than ordinary MC.”), such as the case of gathering real-time data on forces affecting the tires of a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Markov chain Monte Carlo method of Ekvall_2019 with the friction estimation method of Rajamani_2010 to obtain a friction estimation method capable of real time data collection and comparison.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Rajamani_2010 (“Tire-road friction-Coefficient Estimation”) in view of Fevrier_2018_1 (EP 2057567 B1).
Claim 15. Rajamani_2010 teaches the limitations of claim 11. While Rajamani_2010 teaches a
thermomechanical model of a tire, it does not explicitly state the model comprises “a model of longitudinal forces, transverse forces, a self-aligning torque and a balance of elementary shearing and slipping forces of the tire at a transition point between adhering and sliding contact regions.”
Fevrier_2018_1, however, teaches “a model of longitudinal forces, transverse forces, a self-aligning torque (Pg. 4, Par. 7: “The forces transmitted by the tire between the ground and the vehicle include longitudinal forces Fx, transverse forces Fy, and a self-aligning torque Mz”) and a balance of elementary shearing and slipping forces of the tire at a transition point between adhering and sliding contact regions.” (Pg. 2, Par. 5: “…the first model comprises equations related to equilibrium conditions of the elementary shear and slip forces of the tread in the contact area…”).
Rajamani_2010 and Fevrier_2018_1 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called tire force estimation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rajamani_2010 and Fevrier_2018_1. The rationale for doing so would have been that the model of Fevrier_2018_1 would be able to provide as close to realistic values of the forces, mentioned above, to the model of Rajamani_2010. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the model of Rajamani_2010 with the model of Fevrier_2018_1 to obtain a model that is more realistic in terms of its estimates.
Claim 17. Rajamani_2010 teaches the limitations of claim 11. Fevrier_2018_1 further teaches “all of the steps are performed in real time.” (Pg. 3, Par. 6: “… the method of the invention can thus be applied to the simulation in real time of the dynamic behavior of a vehicle.”).
Claims 16 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Rajamani_2010 (“Tire-road friction-Coefficient Estimation”) in view of Fevrier_2018_2 (EP 2062176 B1).
Claim 16. Rajamani_2010 teaches the limitations of claim 11. While Rajamani_2010 teaches an
estimation method for tire friction, it does not state “at least before the second estimating step, a step of reducing the tire model.”
Fevrier_2018_2, however, teaches “at least before the second estimating step, a step of reducing the tire model.” (Pg. 3, Par. 4: “The calculation times can be further reduced by providing that each iterative phase is preceded by a preparatory phase during which contingent quantities, including the dimensions of the contact area, are calculated by means of a subset of said equations and according to the values assigned to the dynamic parameters and the specific parameters, each contingency quantity being exploited in said iterative phase with a value that has been assigned to it during the preparatory phase.” NOTE: The preparatory phases come before each model is calculated (there being 3 in total).
Rajamani_2010 and Fevrier_2018_2 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called tire force estimation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rajamani_2010 and Fevrier_2018_2. The rationale for doing so would have been that the model reduction of Fevrier_2018_2 would allow the tire model of Rajamani_2010 to be more quickly calculated to increase responsiveness in the calculations of the tire to road adhesion estimation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rajamani_2010 and Fevrier_2018_2 to obtain a method of estimating tire to road adhesion with reduced computational time.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Rajamani_2010 (“Tire-road friction-Coefficient Estimation”) in view of Hac_2003 (US 6549842 B1).
Claim 18. Rajamani_2010 teaches “… the tire being installed on a vehicle, … , means for estimating a force experienced by the tire as a function of a vehicle model and of a state observer; estimating a force experienced by the tire as a function of a thermomechanical model of the tire; means for statistically comparing the forces determined during the first and second estimating steps; and means for determining, as a function of a result of the comparing step, a value of the adhesion potential on the rolling surface (see the rationale for rejection for claim 11).
Rajamani_2010 does not teach “A system for estimating a tire's adhesion potential on a rolling surface,”.
Hac_2003, however, teaches “A system for estimating a tire's adhesion potential on a rolling surface,” (Par. 2: “The present invention relates to surface coefficients of adhesion and, in particular, to a method and system for estimating the individual wheel surface coefficient of adhesion using tire forces.”)
Rajamani_2010 and Hac_2003 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called tire force estimation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rajamani_2010 and Hac_2003. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow the method of Rajamani_2010 to be performed on a system. The system could then be utilized during operation of a vehicle to obtain data on forces acting on the tires and estimate an adhesion potential based on the forces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rajamani_2010 and Hac_2003 to obtain a system capable of performing the calculations of Rajamani_2010.
Claim 19. Rajamani_2010 and Hac_2003 teach the limitations of claim 18. Hac_2003 further teaches “the means are installed on the vehicle.” (Fig. 1 and 5, Par. 8: “… controller 68 sends commands to actuators 52, 54, 56, 58, corresponding to wheels 12, 14, 16, 18 that are slipping or are about to slip…”).
Claim 20. Rajamani_2010 and Hac_2003 teach the limitations of claim 18. Rajamani_2010 also teaches “sensors installed on the vehicle.” (Pg. 16: “The EKBF estimates the state and tire forces of an eight-degree-of-freedom (8DOF) vehicle from vehicle-mounted sensors.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W LYON whose telephone number is (571)270-0757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:30, Friday 8:30-12:30.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/AWL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights