Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-14 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No EP22175818.8, filed on 05/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2023, 04/15/2025 and 11/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 recites “wherein obtaining the second projected area function includes estimating the second projected frontal area as a projected area of a cuboid on a plane perpendicular to air-attack (va)”. The terminology “perpendicular to air attack (va)” is technically imprecise because va denotes an air vector indicating a direction of air attack. The specification [0033] explains that the projected frontal area is obtained by projecting a cuboid onto a plane perpendicular to the air vector(va). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 13 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 9 and 13 recite the limitation "the method" in its limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends on claim 8, which is directed to a device and recites operations by processing circuitry, and the recitation “the method” lacks a clear antecedent basis. It is therefore unclear what method the processing circuitry is configured to cause the device to perform. Claim 13 depends on claim 12, which is directed to a computer program, and claim 12 does not previously introduce a particular “method” to which “the method” clearly refers.
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.
Claim 12-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 12 and 13 recite a computer program comprising computer code. Although claim 12 states that the code runs on processing circuitry, the processing circuitry is not part of the claimed computer program. Paragraph [0069] of the specification separately describes the computer program as program code that performs the method when executed on a computer. Paragraphs [0070–0071] separately describe the computer program product and the medium/data carrier on which the program may be stored or carried. Thus, claims 12 and 13 encompass a computer program per se and therefore do not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 14 recites a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium. Paragraph [0071] of the specification expressly states that the data carrier may be a transitory data carrier, such as modulated electromagnetic or optical waves, or a non-transitory data carrier. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of ¶71, claim 14 encompasses a transitory propagating signal. A transitory propagating signal does not fall within any of the four statutory categories. A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(II)
Accordingly, claims 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as encompassing non-statutory subject matter. Examiner suggest that claim 14 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” computer readable storage medium to overcome this rejection. Even though this is not a statutory category of invention, in the interest of compact prosecution, the analysis of claim 12-14 will continue below.
Claims 1-14 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 claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-7 is directed to method or process that falls on one of statutory category.
Claim 8-11 is directed to system or machine that falls on one of statutory category.
Claim 12-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 12 and 13 recite a computer program comprising computer code. Although claim 12 states that the code runs on processing circuitry, the processing circuitry is not part of the claimed computer program. ((See MPEP 2106.03) “Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;”) Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. Paragraph [0069] of the specification separately describes the computer program as program code that performs the method when executed on a computer. Paragraphs [0070–0071] separately describe the computer program product and the medium/data carrier on which the program may be stored or carried. Thus, claims 12 and 13 encompass a computer program per se and therefore do not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 14 recites a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium. Paragraph [0071] of the specification expressly states that the data carrier may be a transitory data carrier, such as modulated electromagnetic or optical waves, or a non-transitory data carrier. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of ¶71, claim 14 encompasses a transitory propagating signal. A transitory propagating signal does not fall within any of the four statutory categories. A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(II)
Accordingly, claims 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as encompassing non-statutory subject matter. Even though this is not a statutory category of invention, in the interest of compact prosecution, the analysis of claim 12-14 will continue below. Therefore claim 12-14 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention and claim 12-14 is not directed to a statutory claimed invention.
Step 2A Prong 1 (Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 1, 8, 12 recites
obtaining a first drag area function ([CdA]*(θ)) indicating a dependence of a drag area of the vehicle combination having the first exterior shape on air attack angle (θ); (A function ([CdA]*(θ)) that relates a physical output (drag area) to an input variable (angle of attack) is a mathematical relationship expressed as a function. So, it falls under the “Mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
obtaining a first projected area function (Ap*(θ)) indicating a dependence of a projected frontal area of the vehicle combination having the first exterior shape on air attack angle; (Thus is a mathematical relationship between variables e.g., how the projected frontal area dependent on the air attack angle. So, it falls under the “Mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
obtaining a second projected area function (Ap(θ)) indicating a dependence of a projected frontal area of the vehicle combination having the second exterior shape on air attack angle; (Thus is a mathematical relationship between variables e.g., how the projected area changes dependent on the air attack angle. So, it falls under the “Mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).and
predicting a second drag area function ([CdA](θ)) indicating a dependence of a drag area of the vehicle combination having the second exterior shape on air attack angle, based on a rescaling of the first drag area function by a ratio (Ap(θ)/Ap*(θ)) of the second projected area function to the first projected area function. (Thus is a mathematical equation/relationship between variables to calculate the second drag area function. So, it falls under the “Mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of an computer-implemented method in claim 1 which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, the computer-implemented method of predicting a drag area of a vehicle combination after hypothetically changing an exterior shape of the vehicle combination from a first exterior shape to a second exterior shape is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements of a device for predicting a drag area of a vehicle combination after hypothetically changing an exterior shape of the vehicle combination from a first exterior shape to a second exterior shape, the device comprising processing circuitry configured to cause the device in claim 8 which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional elements of a computer program for predicting a drag area of a vehicle combination after hypothetically changing an exterior shape of the vehicle combination from a first exterior shape to a second exterior shape, the computer program comprising computer code that, when running on processing circuitry of a device in claim 12 which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of an computer-implemented method in claim 1 which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, the computer-implemented method of predicting a drag area of a vehicle combination after hypothetically changing an exterior shape of the vehicle combination from a first exterior shape to a second exterior shape is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements of a device for predicting a drag area of a vehicle combination after hypothetically changing an exterior shape of the vehicle combination from a first exterior shape to a second exterior shape, the device comprising processing circuitry configured to cause the device in claim 8 which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional elements of a computer program for predicting a drag area of a vehicle combination after hypothetically changing an exterior shape of the vehicle combination from a first exterior shape to a second exterior shape, the computer program comprising computer code that, when running on processing circuitry of a device in claim 12 which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 8 and 12 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further recites wherein obtaining the second projected area function includes estimating the second projected frontal area as a projected area of a cuboid on a plane perpendicular to air-attack (va). Thus is a mathematical relationship between variables e.g., estimating projected area dependent on the air attack angle see para [0037]. So, it falls under the “Mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 1.
Claim 3 further recites wherein changing the exterior shape of the vehicle combination includes adding or removing at least one trailer to the vehicle combination, and wherein estimating the second projected frontal area includes modifying a side area (As) of the cuboid by adding or removing thereto a side area (As2) of the at least one trailer. The limitation explicitly recites mathematical calculation and relationships specifically, calculating a new projected frontal area by adding or subtracting geometric surface areas. Also, the step of "estimating" a projected frontal area based on geometric modifications represents a series of steps that can be practically performed entirely within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these claim limitations recite an abstract idea because they fall within the recognized judicial exceptions of both Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 1.
Claim 4 further recites wherein the method includes obtaining the first drag area function from at least one of wind tunnel experiments and numerical simulations. This limitation is considered as mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity See MPEP 2106.05(g) ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 1.
Claim 5 further recites wherein the method further includes assuming that changing to the second exterior shape from the first exterior shape corresponds to a scaling of the exterior shape of the vehicle combination. Thus is a mathematical equation/relationship between variables to calculate the second drag area function in view of para [0013] and [0053] of the specification. So, it falls under the “Mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 1.
Claim 6 further recites wherein the method further includes obtaining predicted wind information pertinent to a particular route and predicting an energy consumption of the vehicle combination if driving along the particular route using the predicted second drag area function and the obtained predicted wind information. These limitations recite a mathematical concept because a "drag area function" represents a mathematical relation or formula used to perform calculations. Furthermore, the overall steps of "obtaining" prediction data and "predicting" a physical outcome (energy consumption) based on environmental parameters constitute a mental process. The limitations simply gather input data (wind information) and calculate an output value (predicted energy consumption) using a mathematical model (the drag area function). The context of a "vehicle combination" or "particular route" merely establishes a generic technological environment for mathematical calculations. Thus, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea because it recites limitations falling within the recognized judicial exceptions of Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 1.
Claim 7 further recites wherein the method further includes controlling a speed of the vehicle combination based on the predicted energy consumption. It is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea (mathematical calculation) as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) in the field of vehicle speed control. The claim does not recite a particular manner or mechanism for controlling the vehicle speed but merely requires the speed to be controlled “based on” the result of the mathematical prediction. Thus, it falls under the merely apply the instructions the exception as cited in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and potentially particular technological environment/field of use as cited in in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 1.
Claim 9 further recites the device according to claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the device to perform the method. It is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 8.
Claim 10 further recites a vehicle or vehicle combination, comprising a device according to claim 8. It is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 8.
Claim 11 further recites the vehicle or vehicle combination according to claim 10, wherein the device forms part of a cruise control system configured to control a speed of the vehicle or vehicle combination. It is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea (mathematical calculation) as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) in the field of vehicle speed control. The claim does not recite a particular manner or mechanism for controlling the vehicle speed but merely requires the speed to be controlled “based on” the result of the mathematical prediction. The cruise control system merely provides a technological environment for application of mathematical drag-area prediction. Thus, it falls under the merely apply the instructions the exception as cited in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and potentially particular technological environment/field of use as cited in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 8.
Claim 13 further recites the computer program according to claim 12, wherein the computer code is further such that it, when running on said processing circuitry of the device, causes the device to perform the method. It is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
Claim 14 further recites a computer program product comprising a computer program according to claim 12, and a computer-readable storage medium on which the computer program is stored. It is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulf Hammarström et al. ("Coast down measurement with 60-tonne truck and trailer: estimation of transmission, rolling and air resistance." VTI notate (2012).) in view of Ludtke, W. ("A technique for the calculation of the opening-shock forces for several types of solid cloth parachutes." 4th aerodynamic deceleration systems conference. 1972).
Regarding claim 1
Hammarstrom teaches a computer-implemented method of predicting a drag area of a vehicle combination after hypothetically changing an exterior shape of the vehicle combination from a first exterior shape to a second exterior shape, (see page 9-For estimation of regional and national emissions from road traffic in Sweden a computer model, ARTEMIS/HBEFA. For heavy vehicles, emission factors in HBEFA have been estimated by using the simulation model PHEM see para 76-The Cdt*Ayz used could be an underestimation up to: - 54% for truck with trailer - 28% for rigid truck. The PHEM total driving resistance at 20 m/s constant speed and lf=50% for a truck with trailer underestimates driving resistance by 27% if the coast down based estimations would be representative. One should observe that more “simple” input data like the cross sectional area is of the same importance as Cd for driving resistance estimation. See page 19- n this study, measurements represent different modes: [Symbol font/0xB7] with or without trailer. See table 7.7)
the method comprising:
obtaining a first drag area function ([CdA]*(θ)) indicating a dependence of a drag area of the vehicle combination having the first exterior shape on air attack angle (θ); (see page 50- The air resistance is a function of: [Symbol font/0xB7] vehicle speed (v) [Symbol font/0xB7] meteorological wind speed (vl) [Symbol font/0xB7] the angle (a) between the driving direction and meteorological wind. The Cd value is expressed as a function of the angle (b) between the driving direction and the direction of the resulting wind. In table 7.6 and 7.7 the product of the cross sectional area and Cd0 and Cdt respectively are presented. See also page 12 and 19- In this study, measurements represent different modes: [Symbol font/0xB7] with or without trailer)
PNG
media_image1.png
358
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
726
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
obtaining a first projected area function (A*(θ) indicating a dependence of a projected frontal area of the vehicle combination having the first exterior shape on air attack angle; obtaining a second projected area function (Ap(θ)) indicating a dependence of a projected frontal area of the vehicle combination having the second exterior shape on air attack angle; (see page 12-14-
PNG
media_image3.png
550
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Examiner consider the first exterior shape corresponds to rigid truck and the second exterior shape corresponds to the rigid truck with trailer. The projected area was provided by A(b).
predicting a second drag area function ([CdA](θ)) indicating a dependence of a drag area of the vehicle combination having the second exterior shape on air attack angle, . (see page 12-14 and see table 7.7 )
PNG
media_image4.png
728
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Alternative II combines angle dependent aerodynamic behavior and angle dependent projected area. Examiner consider the first exterior shape corresponds to rigid truck and the second exterior shape corresponds to the rigid truck with trailer. The second drag area function provided by the product of the cross-sectional area and Cdt are presented as shown in table 7.7.
Hammarstrom does not teach based on a rescaling of the first drag area function by a ratio (Ap(θ)/Ap*(θ)) of the second projected area function to the first projected area function.
In the related field of invention, Ludtke teaches based on a rescaling of the first drag area function by a ratio (Ap(θ)/Ap*(θ)) of the second projected area function to the first projected area function. (see page 4)
PNG
media_image5.png
268
396
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for updating vehicle parameters used for estimation of emission factors as disclosed by Hammarstrom to include based on a rescaling of the first drag area function by a ratio (Ap(θ)/Ap*(θ)) of the second projected area function to the first projected area function as taught by Ludtke as in the system of Hammarstrom in order to solve the dynamic drag area that are needed for the governing equation. Another motivation is to calculate parachute opening-shock forces based upon wind-tunnel derived drag area time signatures of several solid cloth Parachute types in conjunction with a scale factor and retardation system steady-state parameters have been developed. (See Abstract, Ludtke)
Regarding claim 8
Hammarstrom teaches a device for predicting a drag area of a vehicle combination after hypothetically changing an exterior shape of the vehicle combination from a first exterior shape to a second exterior shape, the device comprising processing circuitry configured to cause the device to:, (see page 9-For estimation of regional and national emissions from road traffic in Sweden a computer model, ARTEMIS/HBEFA. For heavy vehicles, emission factors in HBEFA have been estimated by using the simulation model PHEM see para 76-The Cdt*Ayz used could be an underestimation up to: - 54% for truck with trailer - 28% for rigid truck. The PHEM total driving resistance at 20 m/s constant speed and lf=50% for a truck with trailer underestimates driving resistance by 27% if the coast down based estimations would be representative. One should observe that more “simple” input data like the cross sectional area is of the same importance as Cd for driving resistance estimation. See page 19- n this study, measurements represent different modes: [Symbol font/0xB7] with or without trailer. See table 7.7)
The rest of the limitation of claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 12
Hammarstrom teaches a computer program for predicting a drag area of a vehicle combination after hypothetically changing an exterior shape of the vehicle combination from a first exterior shape to a second exterior shape, the computer program comprising computer code that, when running on processing circuitry of a device, causes the device to:, (see page 9-For estimation of regional and national emissions from road traffic in Sweden a computer model, ARTEMIS/HBEFA. For heavy vehicles, emission factors in HBEFA have been estimated by using the simulation model PHEM see para 76-The Cdt*Ayz used could be an underestimation up to: - 54% for truck with trailer - 28% for rigid truck. The PHEM total driving resistance at 20 m/s constant speed and lf=50% for a truck with trailer underestimates driving resistance by 27% if the coast down based estimations would be representative. One should observe that more “simple” input data like the cross sectional area is of the same importance as Cd for driving resistance estimation. See page 19- n this study, measurements represent different modes: [Symbol font/0xB7] with or without trailer. See table 7.7)
The rest of the limitation of claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 4
The combination of Hammarstrom and Ludtke teaches the method according to claim 1. Hammarstrom further teaches wherein the method includes obtaining the first drag area function from at least one of wind tunnel experiments and numerical simulations. (See page 62- Wind tunnel based Cd values are then expected to include adjustments. See page 73- The parameter estimation in this study is based on coast down on the road measurements. Most driving resistance parameter values in the literature are based on laboratory measurements: rolling resistance on drums; air resistance in wind tunnels etc. see table 7.7- In table 7.6 and 7.7 the product of the cross sectional area and Cd0 and Cdt respectively are presented.)
Regarding claim 5
The combination of Hammarstrom and Ludtke teaches the method according to claim 1. Hammarstrom further teaches wherein the method further includes assuming that changing to the second exterior shape from the first exterior shape corresponds to a scaling of the exterior shape of the vehicle combination. (See page 19- n this study, measurements represent different modes: • with or without trailer. See page 12-14)
PNG
media_image4.png
728
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Hammarstrom considers both a truck and a truck with trailer configuration and calculates projected vehicle area from the dimensions h and L. Addition/removal of the trailer changes L and thus Axz=Hl. The instant specification [0049] expressly identifies addition/removal of one or more trailers as an example of the claimed “scaling of the overall shape”.
Regarding claim 9
The combination of Hammarstrom and Ludtke teaches the device according to claim 8. Hammarstrom further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the device to perform the method. (See page 9-For estimation of regional and national emissions from road traffic in Sweden a computer model, ARTEMIS/HBEFA. For heavy vehicles, emission factors in HBEFA have been estimated by using the simulation model PHEM see para 76-The Cdt*Ayz used could be an underestimation up to: - 54% for truck with trailer - 28% for rigid truck. The PHEM total driving resistance at 20 m/s constant speed and lf=50% for a truck with trailer underestimates driving resistance by 27% if the coast down based estimations would be representative. One should observe that more “simple” input data like the cross sectional area is of the same importance as Cd for driving resistance estimation. See page 19- n this study, measurements represent different modes: [Symbol font/0xB7] with or without trailer. See table 7.7)
Regarding claim 10
The combination of Hammarstrom and Ludtke teaches the device according to claim 8. Hammarstrom further teaches vehicle or vehicle combination, comprising a device according to claim 8. (see page 9-For estimation of regional and national emissions from road traffic in Sweden a computer model, ARTEMIS/HBEFA. For heavy vehicles, emission factors in HBEFA have been estimated by using the simulation model PHEM see para 76-The Cdt*Ayz used could be an underestimation up to: - 54% for truck with trailer - 28% for rigid truck. The PHEM total driving resistance at 20 m/s constant speed and lf=50% for a truck with trailer underestimates driving resistance by 27% if the coast down based estimations would be representative. One should observe that more “simple” input data like the cross sectional area is of the same importance as Cd for driving resistance estimation. See page 19- n this study, measurements represent different modes: [Symbol font/0xB7] with or without trailer. See table 7.7)
Regarding claim 13
The combination of Hammarstrom and Ludtke teaches the computer program according to claim 12. Hammarstrom further teaches wherein the computer code is further such that it, when running on said processing circuitry of the device, causes the device to perform the method. (see page 9-For estimation of regional and national emissions from road traffic in Sweden a computer model, ARTEMIS/HBEFA. For heavy vehicles, emission factors in HBEFA have been estimated by using the simulation model PHEM see para 76-The Cdt*Ayz used could be an underestimation up to: - 54% for truck with trailer - 28% for rigid truck. The PHEM total driving resistance at 20 m/s constant speed and lf=50% for a truck with trailer underestimates driving resistance by 27% if the coast down based estimations would be representative. One should observe that more “simple” input data like the cross sectional area is of the same importance as Cd for driving resistance estimation. See page 19- n this study, measurements represent different modes: [Symbol font/0xB7] with or without trailer. See table 7.7)
Regarding claim 14
The combination of Hammarstrom and Ludtke teaches the computer program according to claim 12. Hammarstrom further teaches a computer program product comprising a computer program according to claim 12, and a computer-readable storage medium on which the computer program is stored. (see page 9-For estimation of regional and national emissions from road traffic in Sweden a computer model, ARTEMIS/HBEFA. For heavy vehicles, emission factors in HBEFA have been estimated by using the simulation model PHEM see para 76-The Cdt*Ayz used could be an underestimation up to: - 54% for truck with trailer - 28% for rigid truck. The PHEM total driving resistance at 20 m/s constant speed and lf=50% for a truck with trailer underestimates driving resistance by 27% if the coast down based estimations would be representative. One should observe that more “simple” input data like the cross sectional area is of the same importance as Cd for driving resistance estimation. See page 19- n this study, measurements represent different modes: [Symbol font/0xB7] with or without trailer. See table 7.7. see page 28- For registration of the driving pattern in the coast down an equipment VBOX 3i from Racelogic has been used, see Appendix C. VBOX measures speed and distance with a frequency of 100 Hz based on GPS.)
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulf Hammarström et al. ("Coast down measurement with 60-tonne truck and trailer: estimation of transmission, rolling and air resistance." VTI notate (2012).) in view of Ludtke, W. ("A technique for the calculation of the opening-shock forces for several types of solid cloth parachutes." 4th aerodynamic deceleration systems conference. 1972) and further in view of Watkins, Simon, and R. M. I. T. Campus. ("EFFECTs oN COMMERCIAL, VEHICLE DRAG." (1990).)
Regarding claim 2
The combination of Hammarstrom and Ludtke teaches the method according to claim 1. Hammarstrom further teaches wherein obtaining the second projected area function includes estimating the second projected frontal area as a projected area a). (See page 13-14- a projected area orthogonal to resulting wind. The vehicle cross section area orthogonal to resulting wind at yaw equal to b.
Hammarstrom does not teach projected area of a cuboid on a plane perpendicular to air-attack.
In the related field of invention, Watkins teaches projected area of a cuboid on a plane perpendicular to air-attack. (page 26-27- To represent a pantechnicon (box-van) trailer, a foam model of a MAXI CUBE1 container was manufactured by IHA and could be fitted to the trailer chassis. see page 71-72- To predict the intensities experienced by the moving vehicle, it is necessary to resolve the turbulent intensities of the natural wind into either the road direction, in the case of body axis system, or the relative wind direction ( as experienced by the moving vehicle) for the relative wind axis system. Considering Figure 4.10, u and v are fluctuating velocity components parallel and perpendicular to the mean natural wind direction)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of prediction of vehicle combination drag area as disclosed by Hammarstrom to include projected area of a cuboid on a plane perpendicular to air-attack as taught by Watkins as in the system of Hammarstrom and Ludtke for predicting long-term fuel savings in vehicles by measuring wind conditions during testing and to calculate the incremental drag change resulting from fitting drag-reducing aerodynamic devices to vehicles.(see page 41 and Appendix 2, Watkins)
Regarding claim 3
The combination of Hammarstrom, Ludtke and Watkins teaches the method according to claim 2. Hammarstrom further teaches wherein changing the exterior shape of the vehicle combination includes adding or removing at least one trailer to the vehicle combination, and wherein estimating the second projected frontal area includes modifying a side area (As) of the cuboid by adding or removing thereto a side area (As2) of the at least one trailer. (See page 19- n this study, measurements represent different modes: with or without trailer. See page 13-14)
PNG
media_image4.png
728
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Alternative II added side area of the trailer (Axz) to the vehicle combination.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulf Hammarström et al. ("Coast down measurement with 60-tonne truck and trailer: estimation of transmission, rolling and air resistance." VTI notate (2012).) in view of D’Amato et al. (PUB NO: US 20170080931 A1)
Regarding claim 6
The combination of Hammarstrom and Ludtke teaches the method according to claim 1. Hammarstrom further teaches wherein the method further includes obtaining predicted wind information pertinent to a particular route, (see page 60-In the measurement data the meteorological wind is available for one location at the test route. However, the wind conditions might change along the test route. Such a variation is expected because of terrain changes along the route. In the analysis the assumption is that measured meteorological values at one location, the one used, are valid all along the test route. See page 28- one weather station placed close to the test route, see figure 5.3. The height of the wind speed recorder was 1.5 m. Also, data from Malmen and VVIS have been used. See page 33- In Appendix E meteorological conditions for each coast down are presented.)
Hammarstrom does not teach predicting an energy consumption of the vehicle combination if driving along the particular route using the predicted second drag area function and the obtained predicted wind information.
In the related field of invention, D’Amato teaches predicting an energy consumption of the vehicle combination if driving along the particular route using the predicted second drag area function and the obtained predicted wind information. (See para 44-46- The road grade values may include road grade at the vehicle's present position as well as road grade values in front of the vehicle in the vehicle's path of travel. The road grade may be converted to road angle. The road grade values may be provided for a predetermined travel time in the future or for a predetermined distance in front of the vehicle. At block 512, cruise control system 500 includes a vehicle dynamics model. The adapted parameters improve the vehicle dynamics model performance, and improved vehicle dynamics model performance improves nonlinear model predictive controller performance. FAero is aerodynamic resistance. The adaptive parameters are adjustable to compensate for changes in vehicle mass, wind, tire condition, and other vehicle operating conditions. see para 53- At block 530, cruise control system 500 applies input from blocks 506 through 518 to determine an optimal torque command or demand to output to the vehicle's motive power source. See para 68- In one example, method 600 estimates fuel economy for blocks (e.g., interval between grade values in the electronic horizon) in the electronic horizon by indexing a motive power source fuel or vehicle energy consumption model using the optimal torque value for the block determined at 610 and motive power source speed. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of prediction of vehicle combination drag area as disclosed by Hammarstrom to include predicting an energy consumption of the vehicle combination if driving along the particular route using the predicted second drag area function and the obtained predicted wind information as taught by D’Amato as in the system of Hammarstrom and Ludtke for controlling transmission shifting of a vehicle operating in a cruise control mode where a vehicle driver requests vehicle speed to be controlled automatically. Another motivation is to reduce a vehicle's operating cost via reducing fuel consumption. (see para [0002] and [0006], D’Amato)
Regarding claim 7
The combination of Hammarstrom, Ludtke and D’Amato teaches the method according to claim 6. Hammarstrom does not teach wherein the method further includes controlling a speed of the vehicle combination based on the predicted energy consumption.
In the related field of invention, D’Amato teaches wherein the method further includes controlling a speed of the vehicle combination based on the predicted energy consumption. (see para 51-At block 506, vehicle cruise control system 500 includes a cost function. The cost function describes control objectives or goals for the optimizer 530. For example, the cost function may seek to minimize fuel consumption, hold vehicle speed within a predetermined vehicle speed range bounded by an upper vehicle speed and a lower vehicle speed, maintain a minimum distance between vehicles, and constrain torque output of the vehicles motive power to less than a threshold torque. See para 72-74-In other words, if operating the vehicle in neutral provides higher fuel economy while vehicle speed is within the upper and lower speed thresholds, the answer is yes and method 600 proceeds to 622. If the expected fuel economy value E1 is greater than the expected fuel economy value E0, or if vehicle speed is expected to be less than the lower threshold vehicle speed when the vehicle's transmission is in neutral, the answer is no and method 600 proceeds to 630. At 630, method 600 selects a trajectory of control where the vehicle's transmission engaged in a forward gear. The trajectory is the output from step 610 and it includes a torque demand for maintaining vehicle speed within the upper and lower vehicle speed threshold values)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of prediction of vehicle combination drag area as disclosed by Hammarstrom to include controlling a speed of the vehicle combination based on the predicted energy consumption as taught by D’Amato as in the system of Hammarstrom and Ludtke for controlling transmission shifting of a vehicle operating in a cruise control mode where a vehicle driver requests vehicle speed to be controlled automatically. Another motivation is to reduce a vehicle's operating cost via reducing fuel consumption. (see para [0002] and [0006], D’Amato
Regarding claim 11
The combination of Hammarstrom and Ludtke teaches The vehicle or vehicle combination according to claim 10. Hammarstrom does not teach herein the device forms part of a cruise control system configured to control a speed of the vehicle or vehicle combination.
In the related field of invention, D’Amato teaches herein the device forms part of a cruise control system configured to control a speed of the vehicle or vehicle combination. (see para 51-At block 506, vehicle cruise control system 500 includes a cost function. The cost function describes control objectives or goals for the optimizer 530. For example, the cost function may seek to minimize fuel consumption, hold vehicle speed within a predetermined vehicle speed range bounded by an upper vehicle speed and a lower vehicle speed, maintain a minimum distance between vehicles, and constrain torque output of the vehicles motive power to less than a threshold torque. See para 72-74In other words, if operating the vehicle in neutral provides higher fuel economy while vehicle speed is within the upper and lower speed thresholds, the answer is yes and method 600 proceeds to 622. If the expected fuel economy value E1 is greater than the expected fuel economy value E0, or if vehicle speed is expected to be less than the lower threshold vehicle speed when the vehicle's transmission is in neutral, the answer is no and method 600 proceeds to 630. At 630, method 600 selects a trajectory of control where the vehicle's transmission engaged in a forward gear. The trajectory is the output from step 610 and it includes a torque demand for maintaining vehicle speed within the upper and lower vehicle speed threshold values)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of prediction of vehicle combination drag area as disclosed by Hammarstrom to include herein the device forms part of a cruise control system configured to control a speed of the vehicle or vehicle combination as taught by D’Amato as in the system of Hammarstrom and Ludtke for controlling transmission shifting of a vehicle operating in a cruise control mode where a vehicle driver requests vehicle speed to be controlled automatically. Another motivation is to reduce a vehicle's operating cost via reducing fuel consumption. (see para [0002] and [0006], D’Amato)
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SRIVASTAVA et al. US20180039283A1
Discussing the method for controlling a vehicle, the method including detecting a triggering event. The method further includes, in response to detecting the triggering event, determining updated dimensions of the vehicle. The method further includes adjusting operation of the vehicle based on the updated dimensions.
8. All claims 1-14 are rejected.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights