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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 ends the sentence with a semicolon. This is construed as a typographical error, wherein a period is assumed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a first subsystem configured to receive in claim 1.
a second subsystem configured to receive in claim 1.
a third subsystem... configured to receive in claim 1.
a fourth subsystem ... configured to estimate in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are 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. The corresponding structure for the first, second, third, and fourth subsystems is a processor, see [0037] of the instant application.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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
Claims 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation "the predicted vehicle speed" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “the predicted current speed of the vehicle.” However, further clarification is required.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "to evaluate the compensated wheel speed of each wheel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, discloses “compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels.” It is unclear if the compensated wheel speed of each wheel” is the same “compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels,” or if they are separate. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 7, lines 2-3 disclose “evaluate the compensated wheel speed of each wheel and determine if the compensated speed should be used.” It is unclear if the determined compensated speed used in calculating the speed of the vehicle is a function of each wheel or if the determined compensated speed is a function of a fraction of the total of wheels. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of the present examination, “determine if the compensated speed of each wheel should be used” is construed. However, further clarification is required.
Claims 8-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 7.
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.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract limitations are bold:
A system for estimating a speed of a vehicle comprising a plurality of wheels, the system comprising:
a first subsystem configured to receive a steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels and determine compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels;
a second subsystem configured to receive longitudinal acceleration from an inertial measurement unit of the vehicle, remove gravity-induced acceleration term from the longitudinal acceleration, and output an estimated vehicle acceleration;
a third subsystem in communication with the second subsystem and configured to receive the estimated vehicle acceleration from the second subsystem, the third subsystem further configured to predict a current speed of the vehicle based on the estimated vehicle acceleration and a previous vehicle speed; and
a fourth subsystem in communication with the first subsystem, the second subsystem, and the third subsystem, the fourth subsystem configured to estimate the speed of the vehicle based on either the compensated wheel speeds or the predicted vehicle speed.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses A system for estimating a speed of a vehicle comprising a plurality of wheels, the system comprising; construed as a preamble setting forth intended use; receive a steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels and determine compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; receive longitudinal acceleration; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; remove gravity-induced acceleration term from the longitudinal acceleration, and output an estimated vehicle acceleration; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; receive the estimated vehicle acceleration from the second subsystem, the third subsystem further configured to predict a current speed of the vehicle based on the estimated vehicle acceleration and a previous vehicle speed; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering and/or performable with pen and paper; estimate the speed of the vehicle based on either the compensated wheel speeds or the predicted vehicle speed; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
a first subsystem configured to
a second subsystem configured to
a third subsystem in communication with the second subsystem and configured to
a fourth subsystem in communication with the first subsystem, the second subsystem, and the third subsystem, the fourth subsystem configured to
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
from an inertial measurement unit of the vehicle
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-9 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 10-19 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 10 and 20 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract limitations are bold:
obtaining a steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels;
determining compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels based on the steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, and the wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels;
receiving longitudinal acceleration from an inertial measurement unit of the vehicle;
outputting an estimated vehicle acceleration based on the longitudinal acceleration; predicting a current speed of the vehicle based on the estimated vehicle acceleration and a previous vehicle speed;
and estimating the speed of the vehicle based on either the compensated wheel speeds or the predicted current speed of the vehicle.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 10 discloses A method of estimating a speed of a vehicle comprising a plurality of wheels, the method comprising; construed as a preamble setting forth intended use; obtaining a steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; determining compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels based on the steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, and the wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; receiving longitudinal acceleration; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; outputting an estimated vehicle acceleration based on the longitudinal acceleration; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; predicting a current speed of the vehicle based on the estimated vehicle acceleration and a previous vehicle speed; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; estimating the speed of the vehicle based on either the compensated wheel speeds or the predicted current speed of the vehicle; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation and/or performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 10 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 10 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 10 further recites:
from an inertial measurement unit of the vehicle;
Analyzing this additional element of claim 10 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claims 10 and 20 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 11-19 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 10 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10-11, 13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 2017/0101108 A1), hereinafter Singh, in further view of Bajpai (US 2021/0094555 A1), hereinafter Bajpai.
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses A system for estimating a speed of a vehicle comprising a plurality of wheels, the system comprising:
a first subsystem configured to receive a steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels and determine compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels; (Singh, e.g., see fig. 1 illustrating a longitudinal force estimation, which inputs wheel angular speed and drive/brake torque into a rolling radius model parameter to derive individual tire longitudinal force; e.g.,
I
W
∙
ω
i
=
T
b
i
-
F
x
i
∙
r
, where
I
W
is the moment of inertia of the wheel,
w
i
is the rotation speed of the wheel,
T
b
i
is the braking torque, and
r
is the effective rolling radius; see also fig. 2 illustrating a planar vehicle model, wherein lateral acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, and yaw rate are inputs to a mass, longitudinal CoG [Center of Gravity] position, and yaw moment of inertia model parameter to output front and rear axle lateral force; examiner notes that the dynamic equations of the planar vehicle model utilize mass, longitudinal acceleration (
a
x
), lateral acceleration (
a
y
), a length of the vehicle (
l
f
) and (
l
r
) as measured from a center of the vehicle, as well as a width of the vehicle (
2
t
); examiner notes fig. 2 takes as inputs both
F
x
and
F
y
of both front left (fl), front right (fr), rear left (rl), and rear right (rr), wherein
F
x
is denoted as the longitudinal force, which is derived from the dimensions of the vehicle, among other measurements; see also figs. 5A-5B illustrating a robust estimation of tire forces with vehicle model, specifically to steering input
δ
; construed as a steering angle; wheel speed
ω
; construed as a wheel speed, tire rolling radius estimator (44); construed as a tire radii; and Tire longitudinal Force Estimator (SMC) (Wheel Dynamics Model); which is explicitly disclosed as outputting the longitudinal force
F
x
as it relates to front left,
F
x
f
l
, front right
F
x
f
r
, rear left
F
x
r
l
, and rear right
F
x
r
r
, which is disclosed above as being derived utilizing the dimensions of the vehicle; see also paras. [0056]-[0057] disclosing model inputs for the model (20) are shown in table (22) to include wheel angular speed and drive/brake torque. The model parameter is rolling radius and the model output yields individual tire longitudinal force (
F
x
). For the equations shown,
F
x
i
is the longitudinal force of each wheel (where fl, fr, rl and rr represent the front left, front right, rear left, and rear right wheel, respectively, hereinafter inclusive) and
F
y
f
and
F
y
r
are the lateral forces of the front and rear axle, respectively.
δ
is the steering angle of the front wheels, m is the mass of the vehicle,
a
x
a
n
d
a
y
are the longitudinal and lateral accelerations of the vehicle, respectively,
γ
is the yaw rate of the vehicle,
I
z
is the moment of inertia of the vehicle,
l
f
a
n
d
l
r
are the distances from the center of mass of the vehicle to the front axle and rear axle, respectively, and 2T is the wheel base. Inputs, parameters, and outputs for the model are as indicated in table (26); see also paras. [0059]-[0061] disclosing wheel speed, engine torque and braking torque available from the CAN-bus as inputs to a tire longitudinal force estimator (SMC) (42) with tire rolling radius estimation (44) to yield longitudinal force estimations
F
x
f
l
,
F
x
f
r
,
F
x
r
l
,
a
n
d
F
x
r
r
(64); see also figs. 5A-5B illustrating the Tire longitudinal Force Estimator (SMC) (Wheel Dynamics Model) as input as a dotted line (information from CAN Bus) into Longitudinal Force (
F
x
) (64); construed as the “compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels as it is based on the steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, and the wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels, which is also disclosed in para. [0061] above; see also paras. [0062]-[0063] disclosing the model equations used in creating the normal force (
F
z
), (60), the lateral force (
F
y
) (62) and the longitudinal force (
F
x
) (64) estimations from the system and method of Fig. 5A are as described previously; see also para. [0083] disclosing the subject method estimates normal force, lateral force and longitudinal force on a tire by accessing a vehicle CAN-bus for vehicle sensor-measured information. The method further deploys a longitudinal force estimator operable to estimate a longitudinal force on the tire from a wheel rotational dynamics model using as inputs wheel angular speed and drive/ brake torque derived from the input sensor data); examiner notes that Tire Longitudinal Force Estimator (SMC) (Wheel Dynamics Model) (42) is construed as the first subsystem).
a second subsystem configured to receive longitudinal acceleration from an inertial measurement unit of the vehicle, remove gravity-induced acceleration term from the longitudinal acceleration, and output an estimated vehicle acceleration; (Singh, e.g., see rejection as applied above; wherein the rejection above discloses figs. 5A-5B illustrating a CAN-Bus comprising a 6D IMU outputting (
a
x
,
a
y
,
a
z
,
p
,
q
,
r
), wherein
a
x
represents the longitudinal acceleration and
a
z
represents the acceleration due to gravity; further illustrating roll and pitch angle estimator (kinematics based) (40) and acceleration bias compensation (46); see also fig. 3C illustrating a vertical force estimation, which takes as model inputs lateral acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, and roll angle, utilizes a mass, longitudinal CoG position and a CoG height as model parameters, and outputs individual tire vertical force; examiner notes fig. 3C utilize the equations provided in fig. 3C as indicating individual wheel vertical longitudinal forces as equal to
m
s
∙
h
c
g
2
(
a
+
b
)
∙
a
x
, and individual wheel vertical lateral forces as equal to
(
m
s
∙
h
r
+
m
u
∙
h
a
)
t
∙
a
y
+
k
r
o
l
l
∙
ϕ
+
c
r
o
l
l
∙
ϕ
t
, which removes the gravity induced acceleration term
a
z
from the longitudinal acceleration
a
x
and the lateral acceleration
a
y
, which is also illustrated in figs. 5A-5B, wherein the term
a
z
is removed from further calculation of
a
x
and
a
y
; e.g., see the inputs of (40) vs. the inputs of (46); see also paras. [0059]-[0061] disclosing a 6D IMU (34) provides acceleration and angular velocities from the CAN-bus. Steering input (36) and wheel speed (38) are likewise provided by means of the vehicle CAN-bus. Acceleration measurements, roll rate, pitch rate and yaw rate are provided from a 6D IMU unit (34) mounted to the vehicle and available by CAN-bus with steering input (36) and wheel speed (38). A kinematics based roll and pitch angle estimator (40) receives the acceleration, roll rate, pitch rate and yaw rate and provides an estimation of roll and pitch angles to a RLS CoG height estimation model (48). The acceleration data
a
x
and
a
y
are used in an acceleration bias compensation adjustment (46) to yield compensated acceleration measurement
a
x
c
and
a
y
c
; construed by the examiner as an estimated vehicle acceleration, wherein the examiner further notes that the acceleration bias compensation (56) is construed as the second subsystem).
a third subsystem in communication with the second subsystem and configured to receive the estimated vehicle acceleration from the second subsystem, the third subsystem further configured to predict an axle force of the vehicle based on the estimated vehicle acceleration and a previous vehicle speed; and (Singh, e.g., see rejection as applied above, wherein figs. 5A-5B illustrate the tire rolling radius estimator (44), an axle force estimator (SMC) (3 DOF Planar Model) (58); construed as a third subsystem, and Acceleration Bias Compensation (46) producing compensated acceleration data
a
x
c
and
a
y
c
; construed above as an estimated vehicle acceleration; wherein figs. 5A-5B also illustrate a tire rolling radius estimator, which is further disclosed as updated according to an estimated vehicle speed in fig. 8; e.g.,
v
x
=
r
∙
ω
; see also paras. [0067]-[0068] disclosing the rolling radius can therefore be updated as seen in fig. 8 by vehicle speed estimation based on correlation analysis of time dependent signals (74). Wheel speed in the equation shown is obtained from the CAN-bus of the vehicle as seen at (76) while rolling radius (static) r is recursively estimated under constant speed conditions using a recursive least squares algorithm as seen in block (78). Vehicle speed estimation is shown schematically in figs. 9A and 9B and is based on correlation analysis. The algorithm speed [mph]=(wheel base [m]/lag time [sec] is used in estimating speed. It will be noted that this method is only applicable when the vehicle is driving with constant velocity. Once the speed estimation is made, it may be used to update the rolling radius estimation pursuant to use of the algorithm of fig. 8; wherein the estimated speed is construed as “a previous vehicle speed,” and wherein the examiner notes that the tire rolling radius estimator (44) feeds through the tire longitudinal force estimator (42), the mass estimation (50), and into the axle force estimator (SMC) (58), and wherein the compensated acceleration
a
x
c
and
a
y
c
also feed into the axle force estimator (SMC) (58); see also para. [0062] disclosing the load estimation
F
z
from the tire dynamic load estimator (54), the compensated acceleration data
a
x
c
and
a
y
c
, the yaw inertial adaptation
I
z
, mass “m” and CoG position estimation a,b are inputs to an axle force estimator configured as a 3 DOF planar (SMC) model (58)).
a fourth subsystem in communication with the first subsystem, the second subsystem, and the third subsystem, the fourth subsystem configured to estimate the speed of the vehicle based on either the compensated wheel speeds or the predicted vehicle axle force. (Singh, e.g., see rejection as applied above; wherein figs. 5A-5B illustrating an output of Normal Force (
F
z
), Lateral Force (
F
y
), and longitudinal Force (
F
x
); see also fig. 9B illustrating a graph showing cross-correlation coefficient over time in estimating vehicle speed in comparison with actual vehicle speed, wherein fig. 9 explicitly illustrates estimation results of estimated lag-time = 0.1609 sec, estimated speed = 39.95 mph, and actual vehicle speed = 40 mph; wherein the estimated speed is construed as the predicted vehicle speed; see also paras. [0067]-[0081] disclosing vehicle speed estimation is shown schematically in figs. 9A and 9B and is based on correlation analysis of time dependent signals. The graph (80) graphs spindle acceleration for both front and rear wheels as a first step. In fig. 9B, cross-correlation coefficient against lag [sec] is graphed at (82). The peak in the graph (82) of fig. 9B indicates that disturbances in signals are most similar at these delay values. The algorithm speed [mph]=(wheel base [m]/lag time [sec] is used in estimating speed. Fig. 9B indicates a lag time of 0.1609 seconds, from which an estimated speed of 39.95 mph is determined through application of the algorithm. The actual vehicle speed of 40 mph compares favorably with estimated, whereby validating use of the algorithm above. Once the speed estimation is made, it may be used to update the rolling radius estimation pursuant to use of the algorithm of fig. 8. The Force Estimation made pursuant to the methodology of figs. 5A, 5B may be validating via track testing using the following vehicles parameters; e.g., see paras. [0070]-[0080] disclosing vehicle parameters. Measured force hub readings are compared to estimated with the results shown in figs. 10A through 10D in experimental validation of
F
x
. Fig. 10A in graph (84) shows
F
x
for the front left tire, graph (86) of fig. 10B for the front right, graph (88) for fig. 10C for the rear left and graph (90) of fig. 10D for the rear right. Measured vs. estimated shows good correlation; examiner notes the algorithm speed, which is necessarily in communication with the first, second, and third subsystems, is construed as the fourth subsystem, wherein the fourth subsystem takes as input the components of figs. 5A and 5B, which is comprised of compensated wheel speed/longitudinal force (
F
x
), wherein the speed is based on the compensated wheel speed).
Singh is relied upon as explicitly disclosing an predicting an Axle Force (SMC) (3 DOF Planar Model) (58), which is input as a spindle acceleration for front and rear wheels to produce vehicle speed estimation, however, Singh may not be relied upon as explicitly disclosing predict a current speed.
However, Bajpai further discloses: predict a current speed. (Bajpai, e.g., see para. [0023] disclosing The system may collect vehicle speed sensor data from a variety of sensors. for example, the controller may collect sensor data (e.g., via a CAN bus) from one, two or more vehicle speed sensors to measure angular velocity from driven wheels and/or non-driven wheel. The controller may also receive vehicle acceleration signals from one or more accelerometers and/or from an inertial measurement unit (IMU). Sensor fusion techniques may be used to filter out noise and inaccuracies from one or more inputs. As some sensors may be more accurate and less noisy than other sensors, each sensor may be weighted accordingly. For example, a sensor that is more accurate (such as historically more accurate or presumed or selected or determined as being more accurate, such as by a rating of each of the sensors by the system developer or manufacturer) and/or less noisy may be given a higher or larger or heavier weight (i.e., its output is emphasized more in the determination or estimation of the current vehicle speed).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Singh with Bajpai’s current speed for at least the reasons that it is known in the art to be advantageous to implement vehicle fusion of multiple sensors and techniques to output a single speed estimate, as taught by Bajpai; e.g., see para. [0023].
Regarding claim 3, Singh in view of Bajpai discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the second subsystem is further configured to calculate a gravity-induced acceleration term. (Singh, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically figs. 5A-5B illustrating a 6D IMU outputting acceleration and angular velocities, wherein the acceleration due to the gravity is
a
z
, which is disclosed in table vertical acceleration; see also paras. [0058]-[0060] disclosing referring to figs. 3A through 3C, the vertical force estimation used in the subject system and method are described. The vertical tire forces can be estimated by the summation of longitudinal load transfer, lateral load transfer and static normal force. A 6D IMU (34) provides acceleration and angular velocities from the CAN-bus. Acceleration measurements, roll rate, pitch rate and yaw rate are provided from a 6D IMU unit (34) mounted to the vehicle and available by CAN-bus with steering input (36) and wheel speed (38); examiner notes that an IMU necessarily performs calculations, to include the acceleration due to the gravity,
a
z
).
Regarding claim 7, Singh in view of Bajpai discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the fourth subsystem is further configured to evaluate the compensated speed of each wheel and determine if the compensated speed should be used in calculating the speed of the vehicle. (Singh, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, wherein longitudinal force (
F
x
) (64) is construed as the compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels; see also figs. 10A-10D illustrating longitudinal forces
F
x
f
l
,
F
x
f
r
,
F
x
r
l
,
a
n
d
F
x
r
r
, wherein each of the graphs show the measured force vs. the estimated, wherein the estimated closely follows the measured; see also para. [0081] disclosing measured force hub readings are compared to estimated with the results shown in figs. 10A through 10D in experimental validation of
F
x
. Measured vs. estimated shows good correlation; construed by the examiner as useful in calculating the speed of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 recites A method of estimating a speed of a vehicle comprising a plurality of wheels, the method comprising: obtaining a steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels; determining compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels based on the steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, and the wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels; receiving longitudinal acceleration from an inertial measurement unit of the vehicle; outputting an estimated vehicle acceleration based on the longitudinal acceleration; predicting a current speed of the vehicle based on the estimated vehicle acceleration and a previous vehicle speed; and estimating the speed of the vehicle based on either the compensated wheel speeds or the predicted current speed of the vehicle., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Singh in view of Bajpai for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Singh in view of Bajpai discloses The method of claim 10, further comprising removing gravity-induced acceleration term from the longitudinal acceleration prior to outputting the estimated vehicle acceleration; see rejection as applied to claim 10, specifically to figs. 3C and 5A-5B, as well as paras. [0059]-[0061].
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 recites The method of claim 10, further comprising calculating a gravity-induced acceleration term., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Singh in view of Bajpai for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 recites The method of claim 10, further comprising evaluating the compensated speed of each wheel and determining if the compensated speed should be used in calculating the speed of the vehicle., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Singh in view of Bajpai for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, Single in view of Bajpai discloses The method of claim 17, wherein the compensated wheel speed of a wheel is used in calculating the speed of the vehicle if the compensated wheel speed is within a range; and The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of the compensated wheel speed of a wheel is used in calculating the speed of the vehicle is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., if the compensated wheel speed is within a range, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
wherein the predicted current speed of the vehicle replaces the compensated wheel speed in calculating the speed of the vehicle if the compensated wheel speed of a wheel is outside of the range. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of the predicted current speed of the vehicle replaces the compensated wheel speed in calculating the speed of the vehicle is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., if the compensated wheel speed of a wheel is outside of the range, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for causing a processor to perform a method of estimating a speed of a vehicle comprising a plurality of wheels, the method comprising: obtaining a steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels; determining compensated wheel speeds of the plurality of wheels based on the steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, and the wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels; receiving longitudinal acceleration from an inertial measurement unit of the vehicle; outputting an estimated vehicle acceleration based on the longitudinal acceleration; predicting a current speed of the vehicle based on the estimated vehicle acceleration and a previous vehicle speed; and estimating the speed of the vehicle based on either the compensated wheel speeds or the predicted current speed of the vehicle., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Singh in view of Bajpai for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1. Claim 20 is different than claim 1 in the claim recitation disclosing: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for causing a processor to, wherein Singh discloses (Singh, e.g., see para. [0007] disclosing “ANN” or “Artificial Neural Network” is an adaptive tool for non-linear statistical data modeling that changes its structure based on external or internal information that flows through a network during a learning phase. ANN neural networks are non-linear statistical data modeling tools used to model complex relationships between inputs and outputs or to find patterns in data; see also para. [0065] disclosing it will be seen from figs. 5A and 5B that the subject estimates of longitudinal force, lateral force and vertical force are robust in the sense that the estimates of vehicle inertial parameters use standard vehicle sensors such as accelerometers and a gyroscope, signals available on major vehicle controller area networks).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Bajpai, in further view of Henderson et al. (US 12,269,453 B2), hereinafter Henderson.
Regarding claim 4, Singh in view of Bajpai is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The system of claim 3, wherein the second subsystem is further configured to estimate a road grade by comparing the estimated vehicle acceleration with an actual vehicle acceleration computed based on the estimated speed of the vehicle.
However, Henderson further discloses: estimate a road grade by comparing the estimated vehicle acceleration with an actual vehicle acceleration computed based on the estimated speed of the vehicle. (Henderson, e.g., see col. 10, lines 19-25 disclosing the method further comprises estimating (S9) a road banking grade and/or a road slope based on the measured parameters and on obtained accelerometer data associated with the vehicle. If combined with accelerometer data from, e.g., an inertial measurement unit (IMU), the speed measured from the selected wheels can be used to estimate road banking grade/slope).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Singh in view of Bajpai’s system with Henderson’s estimate a road grade by comparing the estimated vehicle acceleration with an actual vehicle acceleration computed based on the estimated speed of the vehicle for at least the reasons that it is known to measure road banking grade based on measured parameters and obtained accelerometer data associated with a vehicle, as taught by Henderson; e.g., see col. 8, lines 32-35.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 recites The method of claim 13, further comprising estimating a road grade by comparing the estimated vehicle acceleration with an actual vehicle acceleration computed based on the estimated speed of the vehicle., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Singh in view of Bajpai, in further view of Henderson for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Bajpai, in further view of Liu et al. (CN 108639060 A), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 8, Singh in view of Bajpai is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The system of claim 7, wherein the compensated wheel speed of a wheel is used in calculating the speed of the vehicle if the compensated wheel speed is within a range; and wherein the predicted current speed of the vehicle replaces the compensated wheel speed in calculating the speed of the vehicle if the compensated wheel speed of a wheel is outside of the range.
However, Liu further discloses: wherein the compensated wheel speed of a wheel is used in calculating the speed of the vehicle if the compensated wheel speed is within a range; and wherein the predicted current speed of the vehicle replaces the compensated wheel speed in calculating the speed of the vehicle if the compensated wheel speed of a wheel is outside of the range. (Liu, e.g., see pg. 4, lines 5-8 disclosing motor rotating speed calculator module, used for if multiple wheel speed currently obtained are within a first predetermined range; see also pg. 8, lines 34-40 disclosing the wheel speed is not in the first preset range or first theoretical speed of the currently acquired is invalid, further judging whether the motor rotating speed is in the second preset range, or the current obtained by the second theoretical speed is invalid; if the second theoretical speed of the motor rotating speed is not acquired within the second predetermined range or the current invalid, the current output speed is determined according to the pre-stored safe speed, otherwise, according to the second theoretical speed current obtained by determining the current output speed; vice versa, also can be firstly judged result of the motor side, and judging result of the wheel side here).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Singh in view of Bajpai’s system with Liu’s compensated wheel speed of a wheel is used in calculating the speed of the vehicle if the compensated wheel speed is within a range; and wherein the predicted current speed of the vehicle replaces the compensated wheel speed in calculating the speed of the vehicle if the compensated wheel speed of a wheel is outside of the range for at least the reasons that data falling outside of a preset range may not be relied upon, wherein known useful data would be more practical and beneficial for effective calculation.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Bajpai, in further view of Henderson, in further view of Kagerer et al. (CN 112313131 A), hereinafter Kagerer.
Regarding claim 15, Singh in view of Bajpai, in further view of Henderson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 14, wherein estimating the road grade is in response to receiving an activate road grade estimator signal.
However, Kagerer further discloses: wherein estimating the road grade is in response to receiving an activate road grade estimator signal. (Kagerer, e.g., see pg. 4, lines 35-41 disclosing the second identification unit can also evaluate the related sensor signal, or access the detected and/or processed signal of other system or unit, the second identification unit is set to identify the defined road grade of the current driving road; examiner notes that an identification unit evaluating a sensor signal to activate a road grade estimation is construed as an activated road grade estimator signal).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Singh in view of Bajpai, in further view of Henderson’s method with Kagerer’s estimating the road grade is in response to receiving an activate road grade estimator signal for at least the reasons that determining a road grade would be considered unnecessary for calculations if the road grade hasn’t changed.
Regarding claim 16, Singh in view of Bajpai, in further view of Henderson, in further view of Kagerer discloses: The method of claim 15, further comprising using a previous estimate of the road grade as the estimated road grade if no activate road grade estimator signal is received. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of using a previous estimate of the road grade as the estimated road grade is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., if no activate road grade estimator signal is received, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Bajpai, in further view of Kagerer.
Regarding claim 19, Singh in view of Bajpai is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 17, further comprising determining whether to send an activate road grade estimator signal.
However, Kagerer discloses: determining whether to send an activate road grade estimator signal. (Kagerer, e.g., see pg. 4, lines 24-28 disclosing the first identification unit can evaluate the related sensor signal (e.g., speed sensor signal, camera signal, and so on) or access other system or unit of the detected and/or processed signal; see also pg. 4, lines 35-37 disclosing the second identification unit can also evaluate the related sensor signal, or access the detected and/or processed signal of other system or unit, the second identification unit is set to identify the defined road grade of the current driving road; see also pg. 7, lines 38-39 disclosing if the speed v is not less than the preset minimum speed, it must additionally identify on of the combination of road grade and lane).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Singh in view of Bajpai’s method with Kagerer’s determining whether to send an activate road grade estimator signal for at least the reasons that it is known to conserve computing power for important processes.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9 and 12 do not stand rejected on the ground(s) of prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 8,095,309 B2 to Ryu et al. relates to a GPS assisted vehicular longitudinal velocity determination.
US 7,617,036 B2 to Tan et al. relates to a method and system for determining the velocity of an automobile.
US 2025/0206273 A1 to Rydstrom et al. relates to a fast free-rolling of wheels for robust vehicle speed over ground determination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863