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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on December 26, 2026. Claims 1-11, 13-16, & 18-22 are currently pending. Claims 21 & 22 are new.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on December 26, 2025 overcome the prior art of record. However a 35 USC 112(a) rejection is added as a result of the amendments to Claim 4.
Response to Argument
As discussed in the applicant interview on December 23, 2025, Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-10, filed December 26, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 & 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nishizawa.
Further, as stated in the applicant interview, “a machine configured to travel down a slope” will not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The amended “off-board computing system” will also no longer be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The disclosure of the instant application does not contain any description of the amended claim 4, particularly …when the updated estimated rolling resistance is larger than the estimated rolling resistance. While there is mention in the specification (e.g. [0037]) of exceeding the capacity of the braking system, any mention of comparing two values of rolling resistance is absent.
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.
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0157919 A1, to Stjernberg et al., hereafter Stjernberg.
Claims 1-3 & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0157919 A1, to Stjernberg et al., hereafter Stjernberg (previously of record) in view of US 2011/0077798 A1, to Nishizawa et al., hereafter Nishizawa (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Stjernberg discloses A system for controlling a machine (Stjernberg [0003]-0011], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses a heavy-duty vehicle with various components used to control the vehicle), the system comprising:
a machine configured to travel down a slope, the machine having a braking system (Stjernberg [0079]-[0080] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Stjernberg disclose the capability of the vehicle to go downhill (i.e. slope) and has brakes, 8);
a sensor configured to generate a signal that indicates travel speed of the machine or a weight of the machine (Stjernberg [0084] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses input devices, 28, which include speed sensors and load sensors (i.e. weight of the machine)); and
a controller (Stjernberg [0094] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses a processors device, 402, which may serve as a controller to implement the functionality described in the specification of Stjernberg) configured to:
receive the travel speed signal (Stjernberg [0018], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses determining the speed of the vehicle),
estimate a rolling resistance of the machine, the estimated rolling resistance being affected by a surface on which the machine travels (Stjernberg [0018], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses estimating/calculating the rolling resistance of the vehicle),…
…set an amount of braking based on the signal and the updated estimated rolling resistance (Stjernberg [0018], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses determining the brake force of the vehicle based on the travel speed of the vehicle and rolling resistance).
However, Stjernberg does not specifically disclose update the estimated rolling resistance of the machine over time, and
Nishizawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches update the estimated rolling resistance of the machine over time (Nishizawa [0048], Examiner Note: Nishizawa teaches, in the process of determining friction coefficient, mu, the rolling resistance, F3, is calculated and corrected (i.e. updated) based on the road surface state or turning state. [0034]-[0035] & Fig. 3 Nishizawa further teaches that mu is used to calculate the acceleration, G), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the capability to estimate rolling resistance of Stjernberg with the updating of rolling resistance of Nishizawa in order to calculate precise rolling resistance based on the road surface or turning state (Nishizawa [0035]).
Regarding Claim 2, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the updated estimated rolling resistance is updated based on present conditions of the machine and the surface on which the machine travels (Stjernberg [0050] & [0100], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses collecting information regarding the topography of the road which would include the surface characteristics used to determine the rolling resistance above and would update based on the GPS location of the vehicle based on a GPS system, 520).
Regarding Claim 3, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa teaches The system of claim 1, further including a location sensor, the controller being configured to update the estimated rolling resistance based on a geographic location of the machine detected with the location sensor (Stjernberg [0050] & [0100], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses collecting information regarding the topography of the road which would include the surface characteristics used to determine the rolling resistance above and would update based on the GPS location of the vehicle based on a GPS system, 520).
Regarding Claim 7, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to update the amount of braking based on distance and grade information stored for an upcoming travel path and identified based on a signal from a location sensor (Stjernberg [0018] & [0100], Examiner Note: Stjrenberg discloses changing the amount of braking based on the grade and length of the downhill slope which would be detected by the GPS system, 520).
Regarding Claim 8, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to change the travel speed based on a historical rolling resistance estimate for an upcoming travel path (Stjernberg [0018] & [0080], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses using historical data and topographical data of roads which both are predetermined in order to determine braking energy (i.e. travel speed change)).
Regarding claim 9, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the system includes a weight sensor configured to generate a weight signal that indicates a weight of material carried by the machine, the controller being configured to update the estimated rolling resistance based on the weight signal (Stjernberg [0018] & [0084], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses using the weight of the vehicle using the load sensor, 28, which would be used to estimate/calculate the rolling resistance).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0157919 A1, to Stjernberg et al., hereafter Stjernberg (previously of record) in view of US 2011/0077798 A1, to Nishizawa et al., hereafter Nishizawa (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0227237 A1, to Otanez et al., hereafter Ortanez (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 4 as shown above, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa teaches The system of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the controller is configured to increase a speed of the machine down the slope when the updated estimated rolling resistance is larger than the estimated rolling resistance.
Otanez, directed to the same problem teaches wherein the controller is configured to increase a speed of the machine down the slope when the updated estimated rolling resistance is larger than the estimated rolling resistance (Otanez [0044], Examiner Note: Otanez teaches using an estimate of vehicle rolling friction (i.e. rolling resistance) and road grade (i.e. slope) in order to determine how to compensate an increase, or decrease, in speed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the capability to estimate rolling resistance of Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa with the capability to increase speed based on rolling friction and road grade of Otanez in order to improve friction brake torque estimation for optimized brake control system (Otanez [0006]).
Claims 5-6, 10-14 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0157919 A1, to Stjernberg et al., hereafter Stjernberg (previously of record) in view of US 2011/0077798 A1, to Nishizawa et al., hereafter Nishizawa (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0089061, to Farley et al., hereafter Farley (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 5, as shown above, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa teaches The system of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to increase a speed of the machine based on an increase in cooling capacity.
Farley, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein the controller is configured to increase a speed of the machine based on an increase in cooling capacity (Farley [0134] & Fig. 6(a)-6(c), Examiner Note: Farley teaches when the rate of battery temperature increase is too high, rather than decreasing the maximum vehicle speed in the comfort mode (i.e. Mc in 6(c), directing more refrigerant in the cooling system (i.e. cooling capacity) in dynamic mode (i.e. Md in 6(c), which allows for the maximum Velocity to remain higher (i.e. increased)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the capability to estimate rolling resistance of Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa with the increase in velocity as a response of higher cooling of Farley in order to preserve vehicle powertrain performance (Farley [0016]).
Regarding Claim 6, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa and further in view of Farley teaches The system of claim 5,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the increased cooling capacity is identified with an ambient temperature sensor, an ambient pressure sensor, or a component temperature sensor, and with a map or physics-based model.
Farley teaches wherein the increased cooling capacity is identified with an ambient temperature sensor, an ambient pressure sensor, or a component temperature sensor, and with a map or physics-based model (Farley [0011], Examiner Note: Farley teaches an input (i.e. sensor) for receiving information indicative of a temperature of the energy storage means (i.e. battery, a component)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the capability to estimate rolling resistance of Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa and Farley with a temperature sensor Farley in order to preserve vehicle powertrain performance (Farley [0016]).
Regarding Claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1, 3, & 5, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claims 1, 3, & 5 aside from where shown below. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1, 3, & 5.
Farley further teaches …a temperature sensor configured to generate a temperature signal that indicates a temperature, the temperature being associated with a rate of heating or a rate of cooling of the braking system; and…set an amount of braking based on…the temperature signal, (Farley [0040], Examiner Note: Farley teaches using the ambient temperature (i.e. temperature which is considered during cooling or heating of the braking system) when determining the heating and cooling of a vehicle component)...
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the capability to estimate rolling resistance of Stjernberg with a temperature sensor Farley in order to preserve vehicle powertrain performance (Farley [0016]).
Regarding Claim 11, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa and further in view of Farley teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the temperature signal indicates temperature of coolant, ambient temperature, or temperature of a component of the machine (Farley [0040] & [0134], Examiner Note: Farley teaches receiving an input of battery temperature and ambient temperature).
Regarding Claim 13, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa and further in view of Farley teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to determine a braking demand of the machine (Stjernberg [0018], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses determining the braking force required when going downhill).
Regarding Claim 14, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa and further in view of Farley teaches The system of claim 13, further including a location sensor configured to generate a location signal that indicates a location of the machine, the controller being configured to update the determined braking demand based on the location (Stjernberg [0017]-[0018], Examiner Note: Stjernberg teaches GPS (i.e. location sensor) which is used to determine location of the vehicle in order to determine the road grade and use that to determine braking force required).
Regarding Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 10, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 10 aside from where shown below. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 10.
Stjernberg further discloses determining whether a braking capacity of a braking system of the machine exceeds a braking demand for the braking system, taking the calculated rolling resistance into account, (Stjernberg [0015] & [0018], Examiner Note: Stjernberg discloses energy threshold values based on braking energy requirements (i.e. braking demand) that are set in part based on rolling resistance);
The modification, as shown above, already teaches …and when the braking capacity exceeds the braking demand, increasing the travel speed of the machine (Farley [0134] & Fig. 6(a)-6(c), Examiner Note: Farley teaches when the rate of battery temperature increase is too high, rather than decreasing the maximum vehicle speed in the comfort mode (i.e. Mc in 6(c), directing more refrigerant in the cooling system (i.e. cooling capacity) in dynamic mode (i.e. Md in 6(c), which allows for the maximum Velocity to remain higher (i.e. increased)).
Regarding Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 5 & 6, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claims 5 & 6. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 5 & 6.
Regarding Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 5 & 6, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claims 5 & 6. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 5 & 6.
Regarding Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0157919 A1, to Stjernberg et al., hereafter Stjernberg in view of US 2011/0077798 A1, to Nishizawa et al., hereafter Nishizawa (previously of record) in view of US 2022/0089061, to Farley et al., hereafter Farley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,829,901 B2, to Wisley et al. hereafter Wisley (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 15, Stjernberg in view Nishizawa and further in view of Farley, as shown above, teaches The system of claim 10,… as historical data configured for use when another machine travels down the slope
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the rolling resistance to an off-board computing system that is configured to store the rolling resistance...
Wisley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the rolling resistance to an off-board computing system that is configured to store the rolling resistance (Wisley Col. 7 Rows 20-57, Examiner Note: Wisley teaches transferring the data used (i.e. rolling resistance data) to an external control system (i.e. off-board system), 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the capability to estimate rolling resistance of Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa and further in view of Farley with an off-board storage unit of Wisley in order to be separate from the machine control system (Wisley Col. 7 Rows 56-57).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0157919 A1, to Stjernberg et al., hereafter Stjernberg (previously of record) in view of US 2011/0077798 A1, to Nishizawa et al., hereafter Nishizawa (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0164889 A1, to Cordonnier et al., hereafter Cordonnier (newly of record).
Regarding Claim 21, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa teaches The system of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the controller is further configured to estimate a future rolling resistance.
Cordonnier, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is further configured to estimate a future rolling resistance (Cordonnier [0035]-[0037], Examiner Note: Cordonnier teaches being able to determine future rolling resistance on tyres).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the capability to estimate rolling resistance of Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa with the future determination of rolling resistance of Cordonnier in order to determine if a source of energy needs to be recharged (Cordonnier [0037]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0157919 A1, to Stjernberg et al., hereafter Stjernberg (previously of record) in view of US 2011/0077798 A1, to Nishizawa et al., hereafter Nishizawa (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 7,483,808 B2, to Greiner et al., hereafter Greiner (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 22, Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa teaches The system of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the rolling resistance is calculated in real-time.
Greiner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the rolling resistance is calculated in real-time (Greiner Col. 7 Rows 4-14, Examiner Note: Greiner teaches calculating and displaying rolling resistance in real-time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the capability to estimate rolling resistance of Stjernberg in view of Nishizawa with the real-time rolling resistance calculation of Greiner in order to alert the operator to issues with the machine immediately (Greiner Col. 7 Rows 4-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, ERIN PIATESKI can be reached at (571)-270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669