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 .
Drawing
The drawing filed on October 4, 2023 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The specification is objected to because of the following minor informalities: the font used in describing equations 2, 3, 4 and 5 should be consistent, plain and legible. A non-script type font, such as Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size 12.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-20: the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in 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 moment of inertia of the plurality of wheels, estimated torque of one or more motors of the vehicle, a weight of the vehicle, the wheel speeds and tire radii of the plurality of wheels, 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.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of “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”, “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 “estimate the speed of the vehicle based on either the compensated wheel speeds or the predicted vehicle speed.’. These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for instance, the calculation of linear speed for each wheel as noted in the instant specification). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of having “a first subsystem”, “a second subsystem”, “a third subsystem” and “a fourth subsystem”. However, these subsystems are simple equation modules, for instance consider the first subsystems or subsystem 1, includes equations 3 and 4 which are total wheel acceleration force and total driving force equations respectively. These equations in addition to the variables or the attributes described in Fig. 2a or the representation of Subsystem 1 which is a representation of the first step, i.e., the step that determine compensated wheel speed of the plurality of wheels; and therefore, considered abstract idea.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites that the method is “a system” and includes four “subsystems”. However, the “system” or these “subsystems” amount to be mathematical modules or expressions that extend the computational analysis as an abstract concept, namely known to be carried out in human mind, may be with the aid of a generic computational means, such as a computer or a programable calculator; which are considered an extension of a human thought process. The “system” or the “subsystems” in the instant claim are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which do not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: “estimate the speed of the vehicle based on either the compensated wheel speeds or the predicted vehicle speed”. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. The claim estimate “the speed of a vehicle” as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 14 and 20 are analogous to claim 1, except that claim 20 additionally recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor and some kind of software or program to carry out the computation. These additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 14 and 20 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claims 2 and 15: are directed to an explanation of the subsystem 1 and it Is a representation of equations 3 and 4, is considered abstract idea and reads on a human thought process and/or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 16 and 17: are directed to an explanation of the subsystem 2 and it Is a representation of modules 1, 2, 3 and 4 which includes equations of some kind, is considered abstract idea and reads on a human thought process and/or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claim 5: is directed to defining the total road load as being a tire load and a drag load, which is considered abstract idea and reads on a human thought process.
Dependent claims 6 and 18: are directed to an explanation of the subsystem 1 as being used to compute total torque and force, is considered abstract idea and reads on a human thought process and/or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claims 7 and 8: are directed to the explanation of module 4 for estimating a road grade based on the variable input from the fourth system, considered abstract idea and reads on human thought process and/or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claim 9: is directed to an explanation of the subsystem 3 and it Is a representation that computes speed of each wheel, and is considered abstract idea and reads on a human thought process and/or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claim 10: is directed to an explanation of the subsystem 4, and is a representation of calculating speed of each wheel, and is considered abstract idea and reads on a human thought process and/or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claims 11 and 19: are directed to an explanation of the subsystem 4, which is set up to execute conditional computation based on some underlying conditions for the purposes of range check, and is considered abstract idea and reads on a human thought process and/or mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claim 12: is directed to the characterization of friction brakes based on the computational analysis interpretation of the idea presented in claim 11 of the instant claim; and is considered insignificantly more since the condition is simply expressing what the condition (the abstract idea) explains in terms of the intended application.
Dependent claim 13: is directed to an explanation of the subsystem 4, which is set up to calculate vehicle speed, and is considered abstract idea and reads on a human thought process and/or mathematical algorithm.
Art of Interest
Fujioka (U.S. Patent No. 5,371,688, hereon Fujioka) discloses an estimated vehicle speed computing device computes an estimated vehicle speed based on a computed non-drive wheel speed and a computed drive wheel speed of the vehicle. A first computed vehicle speed is computed based on the drive wheel speed and a second computed vehicle speed is computed based on the non-drive wheel speeds. When the first computed vehicle speed increase more than a predetermined level, the second computed vehicle speed is employed as the estimated vehicle speed. Furthermore, when the second computed vehicle speed is greater than the drive wheel speed, a speed other than the second computed vehicle speed is employed as the estimated vehicle speed (see Fujioka, Abstract).
Unlike Fujioka or any of the references considered in the prosecution of the instant application, the instant application uses two methods for estimating the speed of the vehicle under consideration. The first one is a compensated wheel speed which is calculated based on steering angle, dimensions of the vehicle, wheel speeds and tire radii; and the second option is using the predicted vehicle speed which is calculated based on estimated vehicle acceleration and a previous vehicle speed wherein the estimated vehicle acceleration includes moment of inertia of the wheels, estimated torque of the motors, a weight of the vehicle, the wheel speed; and tire radii.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoon (U.S. Patent No. 12,162,361) discloses a driving force control apparatus for a vehicle includes: a front-wheel drive; a rear-wheel drive; a wheel speed detector; a wheel vibration calculator; an estimated speed calculator that calculates an estimated vehicle speed of the vehicle; a slip-rate calculator that calculates a slip rate of each wheel; and a driving controller that reduces a driving force of the front wheel driver or the rear wheel driver when a slip rate of each wheel is greater than a preset slip rate value. The estimated speed calculator determines that the estimated vehicle speed is greater than an actual speed of the vehicle when the vibration value calculated by the wheel vibration calculator is greater than a preset vibration value.
Bower et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,230,294) discloses a system for estimating the speed of a vehicle, the system includes a plurality of wheel rotation sensors, a grade sensor, an acceleration sensor, accelerator pedal deflection sensor, a brake pedal deflection sensor and a processor. The processor is configured to compute a linear wheel speed, an upper limit of vehicle speeds a lower limit of vehicle speed based on the grade information, the pedal deflection information and the acceleration.
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,871,500) discloses a method for selecting wheel speed that is more appropriate to obtain a speed of the vehicle from among wheel speeds of the vehicle to obtain an accurate speed of the vehicle. The computation includes applying a predetermined weight to the selected wheel speed information; determining acceleration of the vehicle based on the wheel speed information to which the predetermined weight is applied; and integrating the acceleration of the vehicle to determine a speed of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights