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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite “…of the wheel at the given time frame…” in lines 1-2, and “…before the given time frame
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite “…at the given time frame is realized…”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite “…at the given time frame is realized…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Independent Claim 1 recites a computer implemented method for estimating a value of a given transient tire load, and independent Claim 11 recites a method for estimating a transient tire load. Thus, the claims are to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for estimating a value of a given transient tire load of at least one wheel of a vehicle at a given time frame, the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring a value of a given equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the given time frame;
obtaining at least one value of the equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at at least one time frame before the given time frame;
obtaining at least one value of the transient tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the at least one time frame before the given time frame; and
determining the value of the given transient tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle based on:
the value of the given equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the given time frame,
the at least one value of the equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the at least one time frame before the given time frame, and
the at least one value of the transient tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the at least one time frame before the given time frame [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., that the method is computer-implemented, “acquiring a value of a given equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the given time frame”, “obtaining at least one value of the equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at at least one time frame before the given time frame”, and “obtaining at least one value of the transient tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the at least one time frame before the given time frame”).
The examiner submits that each of the additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the determination of the abstract idea is performed. The acquiring, obtaining, and obtaining steps are merely gathering of data for use in the abstract idea, and the computer is merely generic computer hardware.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites essentially the same acquiring, obtaining, obtaining, and determining steps as Claim 1, and is also not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, and are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kretschmann et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0156650, hereinafter “Kretschmann”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kretschmann teaches a computer-implemented method (Fig. 4, control apparatus 20) for estimating a value of a given transient tire load of at least one wheel of a vehicle at a given time frame (Abstract, dynamic wheel loads recalculated from previously calculated static wheel loads; Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of: acquiring a value of a given equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the given time frame (paragraph [0048], calculate static wheel loads; Fig. 1, step S1); obtaining at least one value of the equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at at least one time frame before the given time frame (paragraph [0048], calculate static wheel loads is repeated over time, see paragraph [0153], static wheel loads supplied at a certain clock rate in step S1); obtaining at least one value of the transient tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the at least one time frame before the given time frame (step S1, dynamic wheel loads are calculated, paragraph [0133], paragraph [0153], dynamic wheel loads are supplied according to clock rate); and determining the value of the given transient tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle based on: the value of the given equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the given time frame, the at least one value of the equilibrium tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the at least one time frame before the given time frame, and the at least one value of the transient tire load of the at least one wheel of the vehicle at the at least one time frame before the given time frame (paragraph [0103], model parameters calculated in step d based on mean values of static wheel loads; paragraph [0111], renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads based on model from previously calculated static wheel loads, and model parameters calculated in step d are used in step f; paragraph [0048], the previously calculated static wheel loads were calculated based on dynamic wheel loads, also step S3, paragraphs [0161]-[0163]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the equilibrium tire load at a specific time frame is the tire load determined by considering only forces applied to the vehicle at the specific time frame (S1, paragraphs [0131]-[0133]), and the transient tire load at the specific time frame is the tire load determined by considering the forces applied to the vehicle at the specific time frame and at least one time frame before the specific time frame (paragraph [0111] and S3, renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads from previously calculated static wheel loads would include forces from other time frames).
Regarding Claim 3, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the at least one time frame before the given time frame is directly preceding the given time frame (paragraph [0111] and S3, renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads from previously calculated static wheel loads).
Regarding Claim 4, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the at least one time frame before the given time frame are two time frames (paragraph [0111] and S3, renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads from previously calculated static wheel loads).
Regarding Claim 5, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 4. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the two time frames before the given time frames are the two time frames directly preceding the given time frame (paragraph [0111] and S3, renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads from previously calculated static wheel loads).
Regarding Claim 6, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 5. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the step of acquiring is based on an estimation a using model of vehicle dynamics (first model, paragraphs [0038]-[0043], and second model, paragraphs [0052]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 6. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the step of determining involves predetermined optimized parameters (paragraphs [0049], model parameters).
Regarding Claim 8, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the method is performed for each wheel of the vehicle independently (paragraph [0153], respective dynamic and static wheel loads, paragraph [0162]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 6. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the method is performed for front and rear wheels of the vehicle independently (paragraph [0153], respective dynamic and static wheel loads, paragraph [0162]; it is noted that performing the method for each wheel independently would include performing the method for front and rear wheels of the vehicle independently).
Regarding Claim 10, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 6. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the method is performed for left and right wheels of the vehicles independently (paragraph [0153], respective dynamic and static wheel loads, paragraph [0162]; it is noted that performing the method for each wheel independently would include performing the method for left and right wheels of the vehicle independently).
Regarding Claim 11, Kretschmann teaches a method for estimating transient tire load of a wheel (Abstract, dynamic wheel loads recalculated from previously calculated static wheel loads; Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of: acquiring a given equilibrium tire load of the wheel at a given time frame (paragraph [0048], calculate static wheel loads; Fig. 1, step S1); obtaining an equilibrium tire load of the wheel at a time frame before the given time frame (paragraph [0048], calculate static wheel loads is repeated over time, see paragraph [0153], static wheel loads supplied at a certain clock rate in step S1); obtaining a transient tire load of the wheel at the time frame before the given time frame (step S1, dynamic wheel loads are calculated, paragraph [0133], paragraph [0153], dynamic wheel loads are supplied according to clock rate); and determining the transient tire load of the wheel based on each of: the given equilibrium tire load of the wheel at the given time frame, the equilibrium tire load of the wheel at the time frame before the given time frame, and the transient tire load of the wheel at the time frame before the given time frame (paragraph [0103], model parameters calculated in step d based on mean values of static wheel loads; paragraph [0111], renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads based on model from previously calculated static wheel loads, and model parameters calculated in step d are used in step f; paragraph [0048], the previously calculated static wheel loads were calculated based on dynamic wheel loads, also step S3, paragraphs [0161]-[0163]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the equilibrium tire load is determined by considering forces applied to a vehicle at a specific time frame (S1, paragraphs [0131]-[0133]), and the transient tire load is determined by considering the forces applied to the vehicle at the specific time frame and at least one time frame before the specific time frame (paragraph [0111] and S3, renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads from previously calculated static wheel loads would include forces from other time frames).
Regarding Claim 13, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 12. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the at least one time frame before the given time frame include a time frame directly preceding the given time frame (paragraph [0111] and S3, renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads from previously calculated static wheel loads).
Regarding Claim 14, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 12. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the time frame before the given time frame includes two time frames before the given time frame (paragraph [0111] and S3, renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads from previously calculated static wheel loads).
Regarding Claim 15, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 12. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the equilibrium tire load of the wheel is acquired using standard vehicle dynamics parameters (paragraphs [0049], model parameters; second model, paragraphs [0052]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the equilibrium tire load of the wheel at the time frame before the given time frame is determined based on variables describing the vehicle dynamic parameter at the time frame before the given time frame (second model, paragraphs [0052]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the transient tire load of the wheel based as the given time frame is determined based on each of the acquired value of the equilibrium tire load at the given time frame and the at least one value of the equilibrium tire load at time frames before the given time frame and the at least one value of the transient tire load at the time frames before the given time frame obtained provide a basis for the determination of the value of the transient tire load at the given time frame (paragraph [0111], renewed calculation of dynamic wheel loads from previously calculated static wheel loads; the previously calculated static wheel loads were calculated based on previously calculated dynamic wheel loads, see paragraph [0048]; also step S3, paragraphs [0161]-[0163]).
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(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretschmann in view of Kuroda et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5675518, hereinafter “Kuroda”)
Regarding Claim 17, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the transient tire load of the wheel at the time frame before the given time frame, when the vehicle starts moving after the given time frame (paragraphs [0022], [0100], and [0166], initial phase directly after start of travel of the vehicle; stationary state). Kretschmann does not specifically teach is based on assumptions that acceleration of the vehicle is zero before vehicle starts moving, and only gravitational force is applied to the tire. However, Kuroda teaches in column 8, lines 40-44, that during a stationary state of a vehicle, only gravitational acceleration is detected without any acceleration due to behaviors of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the stationary state information taught in Kuroda in the initial phase of Kretschmann, because a stationary vehicle is only acted on by accelerations from gravity (see Kuroda, column 8, lines 40-44).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretschmann in view of Quian et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0126239, hereinafter “Qian”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Kretschmann does not specifically teach wherein the determination of transient tire load at the given time frame being realized by using a second order filter. However, Qian teaches use of a second order filter to remove noise from target state data in paragraph [0105]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply a second order filter, such as is taught in Qian, to the measurement(s) that are used to determine the dynamic wheel loads of Kretschmann (e.g., deformation, pressure, and/or acceleration, see Abstract of Kretschmann), in order to remove noise (see Qian, paragraph [0105]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Kretschmann does not specifically teach wherein the determination of transient tire load at the given time frame being realized by using a third order filter. However, Qian teaches use of a higher order filter (i.e., third order) to remove noise from target state data in paragraph [0105]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply a third order filter, such as is taught in Qian, to the measurement(s) that are used to determine the dynamic wheel loads of Kretschmann (e.g., deformation, pressure, and/or acceleration, see Abstract of Kretschmann), in order to remove noise (see Qian, paragraph [0105]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Lisa M Caputo can be reached at (571)272-2388. 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.
CYNTHIA L. DAVIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2863
/C.L.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/LISA M CAPUTO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863