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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 1, a method) or a machine (claim 12, a computing unit, claim 13, a system, claim 14, a vehicle) or a manufacture (claim 15, a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed
to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship/mental process. The limitations include:
ascertaining phase-compensated sensor data based on the read-in phase-shifted sensor data using a filtering algorithm; and ascertaining the driving state of the vehicle using the ascertained phase-compensated sensor data by a computing unit.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “reading in phase-shifted sensor data representing an acceleration and/or a rotation rate of the vehicle” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The act of data gathering by the sensors is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application.
The additional elements of “vehicle” and “driving state of a vehicle” merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field of use and do not provide a technological improvement or practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 12-15 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim 1.
The additional element (claim 15), the element of “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program”” is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rider (Patent No. US 4,520,669).
As per claims 1 and 12-15, Rider teaches reading in phase-shifted sensor data representing an acceleration and/or a rotation rate of the vehicle (see col. 4, line 56 through col. 5, line 27, i.e., “measurement of linear acceleration is accomplished simply by measuring the phase and amplitude of the AC signal obtained by rotating the bender elements 50, 52” and that “for rate measurement, the piezoelectric bender elements 36, 38… the sensor assembly 10 measures pitch and yaw rate” wherein “a sinusoidal output voltage Vo is generated by the bender element”, the examiner notes that these AC sensor signals are inherently phase-shifted due to rotation and represent linear acceleration and angular rotation rate of the vehicle, (see also col. 9, line 65 through col. 10, line 15)); ascertaining phase-compensated sensor data based on the read-in phase-shifted sensor data using a filtering algorithm (see col. 5, lines 23-24, i.e., “the output voltage Vo is phase detected and measured to determine the desired rates ɵ and ψ”, col. 10, lines 8-10, i.e., “adjustment of the phase of the demodulator sampling function to compensate for phase shifts in the system”, and col. 10, lines 11-12, i.e., “The demodulator 180, 181 output signals are filtered to remove the carrier (spin frequency) harmonics”); and ascertaining the driving state of the vehicle using the ascertained phase-compensated sensor data by a computing unit (see col. 5, lines 20-22, where it discloses determining pitch and yaw rates ɵ and ψ from the phase-compensated sensor data, where “ɵ and ψ are pitch and yaw rates… about the Y-axis and the X-axis” (the examiner notes that the original specification defines the driving state of the vehicle may be represented by pitch angle, yaw angle, and/or vectorial motion parameters derived from acceleration and angular rates, see original specification page 3, lines 10-21). The examiner also notes that the phase detection, demodulation, and filtering operations are performed by electronic signal-processing circuitry, which constitutes a computing unit (see Rider, col. 1, lines 5-17 and col. 9, line 65 through col. 10, line 15).
The examiner notes that although Rider does not explicitly recite a “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium’ as recited in claim 15, Rider discloses a computing unit configured to execute data-processing operations for determining motion ore rate information (see (see col. 1, lines 5-17 and col. 9, line 65 through col. 10, line 15). Execution of such operations necessarily requires computer-executable instructions stored in non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing a computer program in inherent in the computing unit of Rider).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rider in view of Bakucz et al. (WO 2018/103932) (hereinafter Bakucz).
Rider teaches the system as stated above except that the read-in phase-shifted sensor data are based on output sensor data of a sensor unit configured to detect the acceleration and/or the rotation rate, wherein a phase shift of the read-in phase-shifted sensor data results from an application of a filter algorithm on a sensor unit side to the output sensor data.
Bakucz teaches applying a filter algorithm at a sensor-side processing stage, wherein sensor-detected input values from a sensor unit, including acceleration and rotation rate sensors, are filtered, and wherein a transfer function of the filter over a frequency range is determined based on the sensor input values and the filtered output values, the transfer function explicitly comprising frequency dependent amplitude and phase behavior that directly defines the phase of the filtered sensor data (see Description of exemplary embodiments ¶ 7, “the device 10 has a Processing unit 20 and a sensor unit 30. The sensor unit 30 may be, for example, a magnetic field sensor, an acceleration sensor, a rotation rate sensor or any other type of sensor”, ¶ 11 “The processing unit 20 is bidirectionally connected to the filter unit 40 and configured to send the detected first input values 31 to the filter unit 40 and to receive filtered output values 36 from the filter unit 40”, and Detail Description ¶ 4 “the transfer function is usually composed of amplitude and phase in each case depending on the frequency”). Bakucz further teaches that filter coefficients are derived from the transfer function and subsequently applied to sensor-derived input values, such that any phase shift present in the read-in data is a direct result of applying the filter algorithm on the sensor-side output (see claims “c. Determining a transfer function of the filter unit (40) over a certain frequency range in dependence on the first Input values (31) and the output values (36), d. Determining the filter coefficients of the filter unit (40) in Dependence on the transfer function and the Parseval equation. e. Detecting a plurality of second input values (32) within a second time period, f. Filtering the second input values (32) in dependence on the certain filter coefficients and the particular Transfer function”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bakucz’s teaching into Rider’s teaching because it would filter the sensor signal at an early processing stage, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of motion or rate information derived from the sensor signals and enabling more reliable system operation and analysis.
Claims 4, 5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Rider in view of Nielson (Patent No. US 5,935,176).
As per claims 4 and 5, Rider teaches the system as stated above except that the filter algorithm includes a filter whose transfer function has: at least two zeros, and/or at least two poles.
However, Nielson discloses a cascade of multiple filter sections, yielding a transfer function having at least two poles and at least two zeros (see col. 10, line 48 through col. 11, line 5, i.e., “the first factor R(s)/U(s) provides the suppression at zero frequency with a zero at the origin and a pole well below the low end of the pass band. The second and third factors in combination comprise a fourth-order Butterworth low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency at the high end of the band pass. The low frequency pole can cause long term transients in the output that will have negligible effect in the momentum wheel model. Any slowly varying components are removed by the existing attitude filter”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nielson’s teaching into the filter algorithm of Rider because it would provide higher-order filters with multiple poles and zeros for filtering rotation-related sensor signals, thereby improving noise suppression, stability, and accuracy of the derived motion or rate information and enabling more reliable system operation and analysis.
As per claim 8, Rider teaches the system as stated above except fora frequency assigned to the poles of the transfer function of the filter is less than a Nyquist frequency assigned to the phase-shifted sensor data.
However, Nielson teaches that the filter is designed using a bilinear transformation and frequency warping, which necessarily assigns the poles to frequencies below the Nyquist frequency of the sampled sensor data (see col. 11, line 50 through col. 12, line 67). (The examiner notes that the bilinear transform requires all poles to map inside the unit circle and therefore, below Nyquist, as evidenced by “
PNG
media_image1.png
418
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nielson’s teaching into the filter algorithm of Rider because it would ensure stability and prevent aliasing, thereby, ensuring reliable and stable filtering of sample motion-related sensor signals without introducing distortion or instability when processing phase-shifter acceleration or rotation rate data.
As per claim 9, Rider teaches the system as stated above except for a frequency assigned to the poles of the transfer function of the filter is less than or equal to 80% of a Nyquist frequency assigned to the phase-shifted sensor data.
However, Nielson teaches that the filter is designed using a bilinear transformation and frequency warping, which necessarily assigns the poles to frequencies below the Nyquist frequency of the sampled sensor data (see col. 11, line 50 through col. 12, line 67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to select pole locations below the Nyquist frequency, such as at or below approximately 80% of the Nyquist frequency, which is an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, because pole placement sufficiently below Nyquist is a well-known and routinely applied digital signal processing practice to ensure numerical stability, reduce aliasing sensitivity, and maintain predictable phase and magnitude response in IIR filters, thereby improving robustness, noise suppression, and accuracy of the derived motion or rate information and enabling more reliable system operation and analysis.
As per claim 10, Rider teaches the system as stated above except that in the step of reading in, further data selected from: drive torque of a drive unit of the vehicle, braking torque of a brake unit of the vehicle, steering angle of a steering unit of the vehicle, wheel circumferential speed and/or wheel rotational speed of a wheel of the vehicle, are read in and the driving state of the vehicle is ascertained taking into account the further read-in data.
However, Nielson teaches that reading in additional physical system parameters associated with rotational and torque-related behavior of a moving system, including tachometer-derived angular velocity of a momentum wheel and effects of torque-induced disturbances, and selectively filtering and applying such data to correct and refine calculated yaw rate and yaw values (see Abstract and col.1, lines 58-63, col. 4, lines 58-60, col. 5, lines 14-40, col. 6, lines 29-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nielson’s teaching into Rider’s teaching because it would read in further vehicle-related data such as drive torque as suggested by Nielson’s use of torque and rotation related signals to correct and refine calculated rate and position values, to improve the accuracy and robustness of determining a motion or driving state based on sensor-derived data, thereby improving robustness, and accuracy of the derived motion or rate information and enabling more reliable system operation and analysis.
As per claim 11, Rider teaches the system as stated above except for outputting a signal based on the ascertained driving state, wherein the outputted signal is: an information signal representing the ascertained driving state, and/or a control signal to control a unit of the vehicle in response to the control signal.
However, Nielson teaches that “the output from the Kalman Filter used to process the yaw rate and yaw values also supplies results in digital format” (see col. 9, lines 65-67) and “means for outputting from the applying means a corrected space vehicle yaw rate value” (see col. 18, lines 29-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nielson’s teaching into Rider’s teaching because it would provide driving state information data, thereby improving robustness, and accuracy of the derived motion or rate information and enabling more reliable system operation and analysis.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rider in view of Nielson and further in view of Bakucz.
As per claim 6, the combination of Rider and Nielson teaches the system as stated above except for a frequency assigned to the zeros of the transfer function of the filter corresponds to a cut-off frequency of a filter of a filter algorithm on a sensor unit side.
However, Bakucz teaches determining a frequency-dependent transfer function of an electronic filter unit based on sensor-derived input values and filtered output values, and deriving filter coefficients from that transfer function, which are then applied to subsequently detected sensor input values (see Description of exemplary embodiments ¶ 7, “the device 10 has a Processing unit 20 and a sensor unit 30. The sensor unit 30 may be, for example, a magnetic field sensor, an acceleration sensor, a rotation rate sensor or any other type of sensor”, ¶ 11 “The processing unit 20 is bidirectionally connected to the filter unit 40 and configured to send the detected first input values 31 to the filter unit 40 and to receive filtered output values 36 from the filter unit 40”, Detail Description ¶ 4 “the transfer function is usually composed of amplitude and phase in each case depending on the frequency”, and claims “c. Determining a transfer function of the filter unit (40) over a certain frequency range in dependence on the first Input values (31) and the output values (36), d. Determining the filter coefficients of the filter unit (40) in Dependence on the transfer function and the Parseval equation. e. Detecting a plurality of second input values (32) within a second time period, f. Filtering the second input values (32) in dependence on the certain filter coefficients and the particular Transfer function”), (the examiner notes that the transfer function is divided into frequency sections corresponding to filter behavior over defined frequency ranges, directly corresponds to defining cut-off frequencies through transfer function characteristics). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the filter-design teaching of Bakucz into the combined teaching of Rider and Nielson because Nielson teaches designing filters in the frequency domain to attenuate unwanted components (i.e., quantization noise frequencies (see col. 9, lines 15-21)) of sensor-derived signals and improve the accuracy of the derived motion parameters, and Bakucz teaches defining and shaping a filter transfer function over a specified frequency range and determining filter coefficients based on that transfer function, including its frequency-dependent amplitude and phase characteristics. Aligning zeros of the filter transfer function with a desired cut-off frequency represents is a well-understood and predictable filter-design choice for controlling frequency-dependent attenuation and phase behavior, thereby achieving expected signal suppression and phase response at the cut-off frequency when filtering sensor-derived motion data prior to downstream driving-state determination, enabling more reliable system operation and analysis.
As per claim 7, the combination of Rider and Nielson teaches the system as stated above except for a frequency assigned to the poles of the transfer function of the filter is greater than a cut-off frequency of the filter of the filter algorithm on the sensor unit side.
However, Bakucz teaches determining a frequency-dependent transfer function of an electronic filter unit based on sensor-derived input values and filtered output values, and deriving filter coefficients from that transfer function, which are then applied to subsequently detected sensor input values (see Description of exemplary embodiments ¶ 7, “the device 10 has a Processing unit 20 and a sensor unit 30. The sensor unit 30 may be, for example, a magnetic field sensor, an acceleration sensor, a rotation rate sensor or any other type of sensor”, ¶ 11 “The processing unit 20 is bidirectionally connected to the filter unit 40 and configured to send the detected first input values 31 to the filter unit 40 and to receive filtered output values 36 from the filter unit 40”, Detail Description ¶ 4 “the transfer function is usually composed of amplitude and phase in each case depending on the frequency”, and claims “c. Determining a transfer function of the filter unit (40) over a certain frequency range in dependence on the first Input values (31) and the output values (36), d. Determining the filter coefficients of the filter unit (40) in Dependence on the transfer function and the Parseval equation. e. Detecting a plurality of second input values (32) within a second time period, f. Filtering the second input values (32) in dependence on the certain filter coefficients and the particular Transfer function”), (the examiner notes that the transfer function is divided into frequency sections corresponding to filter behavior over defined frequency ranges, directly corresponds to defining cut-off frequencies through transfer function characteristics). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure the filter transfer function such that poles are assigned at frequencies greater than the cut-off frequency of the sensor-side filter, because Nielson teaches designing filters in the frequency domain to attenuate unwanted components (i.e., quantization noise frequencies (see col. 9, lines 15-21)) of motion-related sensor signals, and Bakucz teaches defining and shaping a filter transfer function over a specified frequency range and deriving filter coefficients accordingly. Placement of poles above the cut-off frequency represents a conventional and predictable filter-design choice to ensure stability and controlled attenuation behavior, thereby, enabling reliable filtering of sensor-derived motion data prior to downstream driving-sate determination.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Fink [‘590] discloses a wheel electronics unit for a wheel information device in the installed state is arranged in a vehicle wheel of a vehicle. The wheel electronics unit contains a first sensor that is configured to record a measuring signal, which includes at least one first wheel-specific parameter, and an evaluation unit, which is configured to determine a current rotational position of the vehicle wheel at the time of the measurement on the basis of the measurement signal.
Funk et al. [‘833] discloses a device for generating bias voltage for a rotationally or linearly vibrating rotation rate sensor, which on an output side furnishes at least one measurement signal from which a rotation rate signal is ascertained by means of an evaluation circuit connected to the rotation rate sensor, and which has an electrode arrangement with at least two electrodes, which are connected to a bias voltage generating arrangement, characterized in that the device has an adaptive quadrature compensator, which is connected on an input side to the evaluation circuit and on the output side to the bias voltage generating arrangement, wherein an adaptive phase compensator in the evaluation circuit has outputs for a phase-shifted measurement signal (Ue) and demodulation carrier signals (UTq, UTr), and wherein the demodulation carrier signals are delivered to the adaptive quadrature compensator.
Diazzi et al. [‘746] discloses a sensor system having a MEMS gyroscope. The sensor system includes a seismic mass for acquiring a measuring signal, a drive circuit, an acquisition circuit for reading out and demodulating the measuring signal, whereby a rate of rotation signal and a quadrature signal phase-shifted relative to the rate of rotation signal is generated, and a digital processing circuit for compensating an offset of the digitized rate of rotation signal using the digitized quadrature signal. The acquisition circuit and the digital processing circuit encompass a rate of rotation circuit, and a quadrature circuit for generating and processing the quadrature signal and generating a compensation signal for the offset compensation of the digitized rate of rotation signal. At least part of the quadrature circuit is operable in at least one other operating mode than the rate of rotation circuit, independently of the operating mode of the rate of rotation circuit.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857