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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/454,937 filed on 08/24/2023. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/24/2023 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13-15, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, lines 9-10, “longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal” should read “longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal”
At claim 3, line 1, “set threshold” should read “set threshold value”
At claim 4, line 3, “wheel speed threshold” should read “wheel speed threshold value”
At claim 6, lines 1-3, “longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal” should read “longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal”
At claim 7, lines, 2-4, “longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal” should read “longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal”
At claim 8, lines, 2-4, “longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal” should read “longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal”
At claim 9, lines, 2-4, “longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal” should read “longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal”
At claim 10, lines 2-3, “longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal” should read “longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal” and “set threshold” should read “Set threshold value”
At claim 13, lines 1-2, “set threshold” should read “Set threshold value” and “longitudinal accelerometer sensor output” should read “longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal”
At claim 14, lines 1-2, “set threshold” should read “Set threshold value” and “output of the wheel speed sensor” should read “output signal of the wheel speed sensor”
At claim 15, lines 11-12 and 15, “wheel speed threshold” should read “wheel speed threshold value” and “longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal” should read “longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal”
At claim 17, line 1, “set threshold” should read “set threshold value”
At claim 18, lines 1-2, “set threshold” should read “set threshold value” and “output of the wheel speed sensor” should read “output signal of the wheel speed sensor”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is 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 2, line 1 discloses: “…where the control system is configured to…”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “…where the control system is configured to continuously and simultaneously receive and record output signals…” has been considered as --the method further comprising a step of continuously and simultaneously receiving and recording--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – Double Patenting – 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 11 and 15-17 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 16, 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12427960 (hereinafter “960”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5, 11 and 15-17 are anticipated by claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 16, 17-18 of the ‘960 patent.
Instant application Claim 1
‘960 patent Claim 1
A method of rationalizing a longitudinal accelerometer of a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
A method of rationalizing a vehicle wheel speed sensor, the method comprising the steps of: receiving an output signal from a longitudinal accelerometer; receiving an output signal from a wheel speed sensor; determining whether an acceleration event exists based on the output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer, wherein an acceleration event exists when the output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer meets or exceeds one or more acceleration thresholds
receiving an output signal from a wheel speed sensor
receiving an output signal from a wheel speed sensor
receiving an output signal from a longitudinal accelerometer
receiving an output signal from a longitudinal accelerometer
determining whether an acceleration event exists based on the output signal from the wheel speed sensor
evaluating the wheel speed sensor output signal during the acceleration event; determining whether the wheel speed sensor output signal exceeds a set threshold value during the acceleration event
evaluating the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event
determining whether an acceleration event exists based on the output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer, wherein an acceleration event exists when the output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer meets or exceeds one or more acceleration thresholds
and determining whether the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal exceeds a set threshold value during the acceleration event
… when the output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer meets or exceeds one or more acceleration thresholds
Instant application Claim 15
‘960 patent Claim 16
A vehicle system, comprising: a wheel speed sensor adapted to sense a wheel speed and to provide an output signal indicative of the magnitude of wheel speed
A vehicle system, comprising…a wheel speed sensor adapted to sense a wheel speed and to provide an output signal indicative of the magnitude of wheel speed
a longitudinal accelerometer adapted to sense an acceleration of a vehicle and to provide an output signal indicative of the magnitude of vehicle acceleration
a longitudinal accelerometer adapted to sense an acceleration of a vehicle and to provide an output signal indicative of the magnitude of vehicle acceleration
and a controller communicatively coupled with the longitudinal accelerometer and the wheel speed sensor and adapted to
and a controller communicatively coupled with the longitudinal accelerometer and the wheel speed sensor and adapted to:
receive an output signal from the wheel speed sensor
receive an output signal from the wheel speed sensor
receive an output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer
receive an output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer
determine whether an acceleration event exists that meets a wheel speed threshold based on the output signal from the wheel speed sensor
determine whether an acceleration event exists that meets two acceleration thresholds based on the output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer; evaluate the wheel speed sensor output signal during the acceleration event; determine whether the wheel speed sensor signal is a non-zero value during the acceleration event; and sending an indication of an error detectable in a vehicle including the wheel speed sensor when the wheel speed sensor signal is not a non-zero value during the acceleration event.
evaluate the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event
determine whether an acceleration event exists that meets two acceleration thresholds based on the output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer
and determine whether the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal is a non-zero value during the acceleration event.
determine whether an acceleration event exists that meets two acceleration thresholds based on the output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer
Instant application Claim 2
‘960 patent Claim 2
The method of claim 1, where the control system is configured to continuously and simultaneously receive and record output signals from both the wheel speed sensor and longitudinal accelerometer while the vehicle is moving.
The method of claim 1, further comprising, via a control system, continuously and simultaneously receiving and recording output signals from both the wheel speed sensor and longitudinal accelerometer while the vehicle is moving.
Instant application Claim 3
‘960 patent Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein the set threshold is zero.
The method of claim 1, wherein the set threshold value is zero.
Instant application Claim 4
‘960 patent Claim 10
The method of claim 1, wherein the acceleration event exists when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold.
The method of claim 1, further comprising a step of providing an indication of an error when the wheel speed sensor signal does not exceed the set threshold value during the acceleration event.
Instant application Claim 5
‘960 patent Claim 7
The method of claim 4, wherein the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value at a first inflection point and a second minimum value at a second inflection point, and taking the difference between the first maximum value and second minimum value.
The method of claim 6, wherein the step of determining whether the wheel speed sensor output signal exceeds a set threshold value is accomplished by determining a difference between the first wheel speed sensor signal value and the second wheel speed sensor signal value.
Instant application Claim 11
‘960 patent Claim 11
The method of claim 10 wherein the indication of an error includes incrementing a fail counter.
The method of claim 10 wherein the indication of an error includes incrementing a fail counter.
Instant application Claim 16
‘960 patent Claim 17
The system of claim 15, wherein the vehicle includes multiple wheels and a separate wheel speed sensor is provided for each wheel of the vehicle.
The system of claim 16, wherein the vehicle includes multiple wheels and a separate wheel speed sensor is provided for each wheel of the vehicle.
Instant application Claim 17
‘960 patent Claim 18
The system of claim 15 wherein the non-zero value is a set threshold greater than zero.
The system of claim 16 wherein the non-zero value is a set threshold greater than zero…
Instant application Claim 6
The method of claim 5, wherein a first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is taken when the first maximum value is recorded, and a second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is taken when the second minimum value is recorded.
Instant application Claim 7
The method of claim 6, wherein the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is zero.
Instant application Claim 8
The method of claim 6, wherein the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to not be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is not zero.
Instant application Claim 9
The method of claim 6, wherein the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is less than a threshold magnitude.
Instant application Claim 10
The method of claim 1, further comprising a step of providing an indication of an error when the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal does not exceed the set threshold during the acceleration event.
Instant application Claim 12
The method of claim 10 wherein the indication of an error also includes providing an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer is malfunctioning when the fail counter meets a fail counter threshold.
Instant application Claim 13
The method of claim 1, wherein the set threshold is greater than zero by at least a nominal noise value for the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output.
Instant application Claim 14
The method of claim 1, wherein the set threshold does not vary as a function of the magnitude of the output of the wheel speed sensor.
In terms of the table above, each of the limitations in representative claims 1 and 15 are anticipated by claims 1 and 16 of the ‘960 patent, respectively. The dependent claim limitations not anticipated by the ‘960 patent are identified in bold. However, Bechtler in an analogous art of signal checking for vehicle longitudinal accelerator sensors clearly teaches (Bechtler FIGS. 5-6, paras. [0053, 0057]) “a first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is taken when the first maximum value is recorded, and a second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is taken when the second minimum value is recorded and (Bechtler FIGS. 5 and 7, para. [0051, 0058]) where the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is zero and (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]) where the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to not be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is not zero and (Bechtler FIGS. 5 and 7, para. [0051, 0058]) where the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is less than a threshold magnitude and (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]) further comprising a step of providing an indication of an error when the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal does not exceed the set threshold during the acceleration event and
(Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]) the set threshold being greater than zero by at least a nominal noise value for the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output and (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]) where the set threshold does not vary as a function of the magnitude of the output of the wheel speed sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Bechtler to modify the process of claim 1 of the ‘960 Patent by substituting an acceleration sensor with a wheel speed sensor given that both are typically used in conjunction in this art and are critical components in the process of rationalizing a longitudinal accelerometer of a vehicle, otherwise known as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP Section 2143: Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-01.2024]). In this case, the prior art contains a device (method, product, etc.) which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components, and the substituted components and their functions are known in the art (See MPEP Section 2143). Therefore, claims 6-10 and 13-14 are obvious over the combination of the claims in the ‘960 patent in view of Bechtler.
Regarding claim 12, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the indication of an error also includes providing an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer is malfunctioning… (Bechtler, FIG. 3, para. [0042]); “…when the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunctioning or faulty sensor, the module 165 generates a fault signal and sends the fault signal to the failure handling module 170…The failure handling module 170 stores the fault information and corresponding counter…” (Bechtler para. [0011]); “…the malfunction monitoring module monitors the operation of the acceleration sensor by detecting a fault with the longitudinal acceleration signal and generates the fault signal in response to the detection of the fault. Executing the signal check function includes comparing the longitudinal acceleration signal with a predetermined threshold.” Bechtler fails to specifically teach when the fail counter meets a fail counter threshold.
In an analogous art, Otsuka is directed to providing an apparatus for diagnosing a wheel speed input system used in a vehicle motion control apparatus (Otsuka: Abstract). Therein Otsuka teaches when the fail counter meets a fail counter threshold; (Otsuka FIG. 2, p.8, col.6, lines 24-32); “At Step S5, only "1" is added to a count value in a fail counter. Then, if the count value of the fail counter reaches a given value at Step S6, a fail process is executed by buzzing or stopping controlling the operation of the actuator 5 at Step S7, and then the procedure proceeds from Step S7 to Step S8. On the contrary, if the count value of the fail counter is judged as not reaching the given value at Step S6, Step S7 is skipped, and then the procedure proceeds to Step S8.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Bechtler further in view of Otsuka to modify the process of claim 1 of the ‘960 Patent by substituting an acceleration sensor with a wheel speed sensor given that both are typically used in conjunction in this art, both are capable of malfunctioning, and information pertaining to these malfunctions is a critical component in the process of rationalizing a longitudinal accelerometer of a vehicle, otherwise known as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP Section 2143: Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-01.2024]). In this case, the prior art contains a device (method, product, etc.) which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components, and the substituted components and their functions are known in the art (See MPEP Section 2143). Therefore, claim 12 is also obvious over the combination of the claims in the ‘960 patent in view of Bechtler further in view of Otsuka.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Representative Claim 1 recites:
A method of rationalizing a longitudinal accelerometer of a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving an output signal from a wheel speed sensor;
receiving an output signal from a longitudinal accelerometer;
determining whether an acceleration event exists based on the output signal from the wheel speed sensor;
evaluating the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event;
and determining whether the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal exceeds a set threshold value during the acceleration event.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claim 15 which performs the process of claim 1 and comprises:
A vehicle system, comprising:
a wheel speed sensor adapted to sense a wheel speed and to provide an output signal indicative of the magnitude of wheel speed;
a longitudinal accelerometer adapted to sense an acceleration of a vehicle and to provide an output signal indicative of the magnitude of vehicle acceleration;
and a controller communicatively coupled with the longitudinal accelerometer and the wheel speed sensor and adapted to:
receive an output signal from the wheel speed sensor;
receive an output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer;
determine whether an acceleration event exists that meets a wheel speed threshold based on the output signal from the wheel speed sensor;
evaluate the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event;
and determine whether the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal is a non-zero value during the acceleration event.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 15 is a machine claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “determining” the existence of an acceleration event based on the output signal from a wheel speed sensor (See FIG. 3, dashed line 36, para. [0034]) where this determination is made by using “a threshold” to “ensure a sufficient acceleration event exists” by using a “wheel speed threshold represented by dashed line 36, which may relate to a minimum change in magnitude, may be used to determine whether a sufficient acceleration event exists.” This is the judicial exception of a mental process given that one would be capable of performing the determination mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper, although time consuming.
Similarly, this can be seen in the claim limitation of “evaluating” the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event (See para. [0035]) where “when it is determined that a sufficient acceleration event occurred…the controller 22 evaluates whether the longitudinal accelerometer 30 has provided a response at or above an expected magnitude, which may be a response threshold” and then the (See FIG. 3 para. [0037]) “first and second longitudinal accelerometer signal values 46, 48 can be evaluated to determine whether the output from the longitudinal accelerometer satisfies one or more conditions,” which (See para. [0038]) “may simply be that neither value 46 or 48 is zero” or that “the difference between them is greater than a predetermined acceleration threshold magnitude.” This is the judicial exception of a mental process given that one would be capable of performing the evaluation mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper, although time consuming.
Similarly, this can be seen in the claim limitation of “determining” whether the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal exceeds a set threshold value during the acceleration event (See para. [0041]) where “if one or both of the sensor signals 46, 48 is above a set threshold value,” or “if the difference between the sensor signals 46, 48 is above a set threshold value” then a determination is made regarding whether “the longitudinal accelerometer 30 is responding properly in light of the acceleration event.” This is the judicial exception of a mental process given that one would be capable of performing the determination mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper, although time consuming. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 15.
While such calculations by pen and paper mentioned above may be time consuming, they fall in the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping. Noting MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(0I) “MENTAL PROCESSES,” “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed process recites additional elements including “receiving an output signal from a wheel speed sensor” and “receiving an output signal from a longitudinal accelerometer.” However, these elements are found to be data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”.
Claim 15 recites the same additional elements as parent claim 1 and also recites
“A vehicle system” comprising a “wheel speed sensor” for sensing wheel speed and providing an output signal indicating the magnitude of wheel speed and a “longitudinal accelerometer” sensing acceleration of a vehicle and providing an output signal indicating the magnitude of vehicle acceleration and a “controller” which is communicatively coupled with the longitudinal accelerometer and the wheel speed sensor adapted to complete the process of claim 1. However, the use of a generic “wheel speed sensor,” “longitudinal accelerometer” and “controller” to perform data gathering via the “vehicle system” is similarly found to be insignificant extra-solution activity and is also considered to be simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use, e.g. the “vehicle” and corresponding measuring/detection “systems” serving as the source of the data collected for the calculations. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done once the longitudinal accelerometer of a vehicle is rationalized.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The abstract ideas do not amount to significantly more given that the additional elements merely involve insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claims 1 and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a communication network).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 15, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims 2-14 and 16-18, they merely further expand upon the abstract ideas and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1 and 15.
Specifically, claim 2 recites: The method of claim 1, where the control system is configured to continuously and simultaneously receive and record output signals from both the wheel speed sensor and longitudinal accelerometer while the vehicle is moving.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The abstract ideas do not amount to significantly more given that the additional elements merely involve insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claims 1 and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a communication network).
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 1-4, 10-11, 13-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bechtler US Patent Publication No. US 2011/0066320 A1 (hereinafter “Bechtler”).
Regarding claim 1, Bechtler teaches (See Bechtler: Abstract) a method of rationalizing a longitudinal accelerometer of a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: receiving an output signal from a wheel speed sensor; (Bechtler FIG. 1, para. [0031]); “…a wheel speed sensor 135 senses a rotational speed of a wheel 110 and communicates information related to the speed of the wheel 110.”; receiving an output signal from a longitudinal accelerometer; (Bechtler FIG. 1, para. [0038]); “…the acceleration sensor 140 is a sensor suite that includes multiple accelerometers, each designed to measure a particular acceleration (such as lateral, longitudinal, vertical, etc.).”; determining whether an acceleration event exists based on the output signal from the wheel speed sensor; (Bechtler FIG. 1, para. [0034]); “As an exemplary control module, the electronic stability control ("ESC") module utilizes several sensors to estimate a current "state" of the vehicle 100…the ESC module receives information from the sensors” for example “a wheel speed sensor.”; evaluating the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event; (Bechtler para. [0063]); “For example, the signal checking module 180 can execute the AXS range signal check 300 when the vehicle 100 is traveling in a forward direction on a substantially straight path, or is in a standstill. The second AXS signal check function 310 verifies that no implausibly large offset is present on the signal. That is, the absolute value for the longitudinal acceleration offset has to be within a physically plausible range for a certain minimum time.”; and determining whether the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal exceeds a set threshold value during the acceleration event. (Bechtler para. [0063]); “For example, the signal checking module 180 can execute the AXS range signal check 300 when the vehicle 100 is traveling in a forward direction on a substantially straight path, or is in a standstill. The second AXS signal check function 310 verifies that no implausibly large offset is present on the signal. That is, the absolute value for the longitudinal acceleration offset has to be within a physically plausible range for a certain minimum time.”
Regarding claim 2, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 1, where the control system is configured to continuously and simultaneously receive and record output signals from both the wheel speed sensor and longitudinal accelerometer while the vehicle is moving. (Bechtler FIG. 1, para. [0031]); “The vehicle controller 125 uses sensor information to determine what actions to take to maintain or improve the performance, stability, and safety of the vehicle 100. Exemplary sensors include wheel speed sensors 135 (FIG. 1) … and an acceleration sensor 140. For example, a wheel speed sensor 135 senses a rotational speed of a wheel 110 and communicates information related to the speed of the wheel 110. As another example, the acceleration sensor 140 senses an acceleration of the vehicle 100 and communicates information related to the acceleration of the vehicle 100.”
(Bechtler para. [0034]); “As an exemplary control module, the electronic stability control ("ESC") module utilizes several sensors to estimate a current "state" of the vehicle 100. The ESC module receives information from the sensors and sends information to, for example, the hydraulic brake controller 120. The ESC module receives information from, for example…an acceleration sensor, and a wheel speed sensor…based on the sensed information, the ESC system is capable of controlling various systems and functions within the vehicle 100 such as the braking control module, the traction control module, the passenger restraint module, etc.”
(Bechtler para. [0035]); “The accuracy and timeliness of controlling various systems and functions of the vehicle 100 are factors in their effectiveness.” For a specific example, (Bechtler para. [0037]); “The sensed longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle 100 is not always equivalent to the actual acceleration of the vehicle (e.g., the longitudinal acceleration can be affected by a vertical incline or decline) …”
Regarding claim 3, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set threshold is zero. (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “…the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).”
Regarding claim 4, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the acceleration event exists when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold. (Bechtler para. [0068]); “Some exemplary conditions include a lack of wheel speed sensor faults, no controller (e.g., ESC) inventions are being performed, the vehicle 100 is moving in the forward direction at a speed greater than a threshold (e.g., 0-100 km/h,)…”
Regarding claim 10, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of providing an indication of an error when the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal does not exceed the set threshold during the acceleration event; (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “The first AXS signal check function 210 determines whether a malfunction exists based on whether the AXS offset falls within a predetermined range and the vehicle has traveled more than a predetermined, threshold distance. As shown in FIG. 5, the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).
Regarding claim 11, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the indication of an error includes incrementing a fail counter; (Bechtler, FIG. 3, para. [0042]); “…when the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunctioning or faulty sensor, the module 165 generates a fault signal and sends the fault signal to the failure handling module 170…The failure handling module 170 stores the fault information and corresponding counter…”
Regarding claim 13, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set threshold is greater than zero by at least a nominal noise value for the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output; (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “…the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).”
Regarding claim 14, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set threshold does not vary as a function of the magnitude of the output of the wheel speed sensor; (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “…the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).”
Regarding claim 15, Bechtler teaches a vehicle system, comprising: a wheel speed sensor adapted to sense a wheel speed and to provide an output signal indicative of the magnitude of wheel speed; (Bechtler para. [0031]); “For example, a wheel speed sensor 135 senses a rotational speed of a wheel 110 and communicates information related to the speed of the wheel 110.”
a longitudinal accelerometer adapted to sense an acceleration of a vehicle and to provide an output signal indicative of the magnitude of vehicle acceleration; and a controller communicatively coupled with the longitudinal accelerometer and the wheel speed sensor and adapted to: receive an output signal from the wheel speed sensor; receive an output signal from the longitudinal accelerometer; where (Bechtler para. [0035]) “an acceleration sensor for acquiring vehicle acceleration (e.g., a lateral acceleration, a longitudinal acceleration, a vertical acceleration)” creates a signal and a (Bechtler para. [0030]) “vehicle 100 includes sensors and actuators (best shown in FIG. 2) coupled to a vehicle controller 125 to receive signals from the sensors over a controller area network ("CAN") and transmits signals to the actuators (Bechtler para. [0030]) where “the signals include information such as instructions, data, codes, values (e.g., amplitude values, frequency values), events, states, and similar items, which may be communicated via signals (e.g., analog signals, digital signals)…”
where (Bechtler para. [0031]) “exemplary sensors include wheel speed sensors 135 (FIG. 1), a steering angle sensor, an accelerator pedal sensor, a yaw rate sensor, and an acceleration sensor 140.” and determine whether an acceleration event exists that meets a wheel speed threshold based on the output signal from the wheel speed sensor; (Bechtler para. [0068]); “Some exemplary conditions include a lack of wheel speed sensor faults, no controller (e.g., ESC) inventions are being performed, the vehicle 100 is moving in the forward direction at a speed greater than a threshold (e.g., 0-100 km/h,)…” and evaluating the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event; (Bechtler para. [0063]); “For example, the signal checking module 180 can execute the AXS range signal check 300 when the vehicle 100 is traveling in a forward direction on a substantially straight path, or is in a standstill. The second AXS signal check function 310 verifies that no implausibly large offset is present on the signal. That is, the absolute value for the longitudinal acceleration offset has to be within a physically plausible range for a certain minimum time” and determine whether the longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal is a non-zero value during the acceleration event (Bechtler para. [0063]); “For example, the signal checking module 180 can execute the AXS range signal check 300 when the vehicle 100 is traveling in a forward direction on a substantially straight path, or is in a standstill. The second AXS signal check function 310 verifies that no implausibly large offset is present on the signal. That is, the absolute value for the longitudinal acceleration offset has to be within a physically plausible range for a certain minimum time.” (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “…the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).”
Regarding claim 17, Bechtler teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the non-zero value is a set threshold greater than zero; (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “…the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).”
Regarding claim 18, Bechtler teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the set threshold does not vary as a function of the magnitude of the output of the wheel speed sensor; (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “…the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).”
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtler U.S. Patent Publication US 2011/0066320 A1 (hereinafter “Bechtler”); in view of US Patent No. US 6,295,489 B1 (hereinafter “Otsuka”).
Regarding claim 12, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the indication of an error also includes providing an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer is malfunctioning… (Bechtler, FIG. 3, para. [0042]); “…when the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunctioning or faulty sensor, the module 165 generates a fault signal and sends the fault signal to the failure handling module 170…The failure handling module 170 stores the fault information and corresponding counter…” (Bechtler para. [0011]); “…the malfunction monitoring module monitors the operation of the acceleration sensor by detecting a fault with the longitudinal acceleration signal and generates the fault signal in response to the detection of the fault. Executing the signal check function includes comparing the longitudinal acceleration signal with a predetermined threshold.” Bechtler fails to teach when the fail counter meets a fail counter threshold.
In an analogous art, Otsuka is directed to providing an apparatus for diagnosing a wheel speed input system used in a vehicle motion control apparatus (Otsuka: Abstract). Therein Otsuka teaches when the fail counter meets a fail counter threshold; (Otsuka FIG. 2, p.8, col.6, lines 24-32); “At Step S5, only "1" is added to a count value in a fail counter. Then, if the count value of the fail counter reaches a given value at Step S6, a fail process is executed by buzzing or stopping controlling the operation of the actuator 5 at Step S7, and then the procedure proceeds from Step S7 to Step S8. On the contrary, if the count value of the fail counter is judged as not reaching the given value at Step S6, Step S7 is skipped, and then the procedure proceeds to Step S8.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of claim 10 wherein providing an indication of an error also includes providing an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer is malfunctioning, as taught by Bechtler, when the fail counter meets a fail counter threshold, as taught by Otsuka, in order to provide a method for diagnosing a failure of a wheel speed input system in a vehicle motion control apparatus and to limit the occurrence of false indications of error due to transient fluctuations in vehicle behavior. This method of improving Bechtler was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Otsuka. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bechtler and Otsuka to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12. Furthermore, Applicant discloses that the fail counter is not critical in the practice of the discloses invention (para. [0047]); “a test counter and/or fail counter is not needed.”
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtler U.S. Patent Publication US 2011/0066320 A1 (hereinafter “Bechtler”); in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0291844 A1 (hereinafter “Bower”).
Regarding claim 16, Bechtler teaches the system of claim 15. Bechtler fails to teach wherein the vehicle includes multiple wheels and a separate wheel speed sensor is provided for each wheel of the vehicle.
In an analogous art, Bower is directed to providing vehicle speed estimation system. Therein Bower teaches wherein the vehicle includes multiple wheels and a separate wheel speed sensor is provided for each wheel of the vehicle; (Bower, para. [0006]): “The system includes a plurality of wheel rotation sensors, each configured to provide rotation speed information of a corresponding wheel of the vehicle.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of claim 15, as taught by Bechtler, wherein the vehicle includes multiple wheels and a separate wheel speed sensor is provided for each wheel of the vehicle, as taught by Bower, in order to accurately measure the wheel speeds of a vehicle due to the fact that, for example, in a four-wheeled car, (See Bower para. [0002]) all four wheels may be following different arcs and/or slipping by different amounts, and therefore rotating at different speeds, which can lead to inaccuracy in the speed estimate. Also, during a loss of traction event, wheel rotation may not be a reliable indicator of vehicle speed. Thus, when the wheels have lost traction and are slipping, rotation rate of the wheels may result in an inaccurate vehicle speed estimate. An inaccurate vehicle speed estimate can lead to improper motor control of individual wheels, and a motor over-speed condition, where one or more wheels turn too fast. This can be hazardous for control of the vehicle if, for example, the wheel suddenly regains traction, leading to unpredictable vehicle dynamics, including high torque on the vehicle that can result in a spinout or other loss of control. This condition may also be harmful to vehicle hardware, as sudden changes in wheel speed may create large torques or other forces on mechanical components. This method of improving Bechtler was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Bower. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bechtler and Bower to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtler U.S. Patent Publication US 2011/0066320 A1 (hereinafter “Bechtler”); in view of US Patent No. 5,481,455 (hereinafter “Iwata”); further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0291844 A1 (hereinafter “Bower”).
Regarding claim 5, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 4. Bechtler does not teach wherein the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value at a first inflection point and a second minimum value at a second inflection point, and taking the difference between the first maximum value and second minimum value.
In an analogous art, Iwata is directed to providing a hydroplaning condition detecting system for a motor vehicle comprising a detecting section for detecting a hydroplaning condition by comparing the difference between sensed and undriven wheel speed (Iwata: Abstract). Therein Iwata teaches wherein the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value at a first inflection point and a second minimum value at a second inflection point, (Iwata, FIGS. 6-7; p.22, col. 7, line 53 – col. 8, line 2); “When the current value of the filtered front wheel speed is smaller than the previous value of the control filtered front wheel speed by an amount exceeding a predetermined decrease limit, then the control speed is set equal to the difference resulting from subtraction of the decrease limit from the previous value of the control speed. When the decrease between the current filtered value and the previous control value is smaller than the decrease limit, than the control speed is set equal to the current filtered value. Therefore, the sensed front wheel speed and the control filtered front wheel speed do not differ too much from each other when the wheel speed changes from deceleration to acceleration as shown in FIG. 7. By using this control filtered front wheel speed for detection of deceleration and acceleration slips…”
PNG
media_image1.png
495
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of claim 4 where an acceleration event is determined to exist when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold, as taught by Bechtler, wherein the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value at a first inflection point and a second minimum value at a second inflection point, which is clearly illustrated by the peak and trough in the graph of FIG. 6, as taught by Iwata, in order to effectively and reliably measure a change in wheel speed of a vehicle. This method of improving Bechtler was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Iwata. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bechtler and Iwata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Iwata does not explicitly teach and taking the difference between the first maximum value and second minimum value.
In an analogous art, Bower is directed to providing a vehicle speed estimation system where a change in wheel speed is determined using upper and lower limits determining validity and invalidity (Bower: Abstract). Therein Bower teaches taking the difference between the first maximum value and second minimum value. (Bower, para. [0062]); “…a subtraction step 820 subtracts the previous value 375 of estimated vehicle speed from the second lowest wheel speed 810, yielding a wheel speed delta 830… If the wheel speed delta 830 is larger than the speed delta upper limit 792, then the wheel speed delta 830 is deemed to be invalid. Similarly, if the wheel speed delta 830 is smaller than the speed delta lower limit 794, then the wheel speed delta 830 is deemed to be invalid. If the wheel speed delta 830 falls in between the speed delta upper limit 792 and the speed delta lower limit 794, then the wheel speed delta 830 is deemed to be valid…”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of claim 4 where an acceleration event is determined to exist when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold, as taught by Bechtler, wherein the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value at a first inflection point and a second minimum value at a second inflection point, which is clearly illustrated by the peak and trough in the graph of FIG. 6, as taught by Iwata, and taking the difference between the first maximum value and second minimum value to determine a change in wheel speed, as taught by Bower, in order to effectively and reliably measure a change in wheel speed of a vehicle in the context of vehicle acceleration events and upper and lower wheel speed thresholds. This method of improving Bechtler was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Iwata and Bower. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bechtler, Iwata and Bower to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bechtler, Iwata and Bower teach the method of claim 5 above. Bechtler teaches wherein a first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is taken when the first maximum value is recorded, and a second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is taken when the second minimum value is recorded; (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0053]); “…the first AXS signal check function 210 determines whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a second threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2 and greater than the first threshold) (step 228). The second threshold can be based on a second distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-200 km and greater than the first distance). If the signal checking module 180 determines that the AXS offset is less than the second threshold for the second distance, the signal check function 210 proceeds to step 220. Otherwise, the signal checking module 180 exits the first AXS signal check function 210, thereby indicating the function did not have a successful result.
(Bechtler FIG. 6, para. [0057]); “FIG. 6 illustrates a second longitudinal acceleration sensor AXS) signal check 300 according to one implementation. The signal checking module 180 obtains the stored fault and/or drive cycle information and determines whether the retrieved information includes drive cycle information for a second AXS malfunction (step 305).”
(Bechtler para. [0064]); “The third AXS signal check compares a value related to the acquired acceleration signal with a value calculated from a wheel speed sensor, thereby determining whether the longitudinal acceleration signal is plausible.”
Regarding claim 7, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is zero. (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “The first AXS signal check function 210 determines whether a malfunction exists based on whether the AXS offset falls within a predetermined range and the vehicle has traveled more than a predetermined, threshold distance. As shown in FIG. 5, the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).
(Bechtler FIG. 7, para. [0058]); “Generally, the second AXS signal check function 310 determines whether a value related to the acquired acceleration value of the AXS is less than a threshold for an amount of time. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, the signal checking module 180 begins the second AXS signal check function 310 by applying the acquired longitudinal acceleration from the acceleration sensor 140 to a filter, and then, applying the long term compensation offset to the filtered value (step 315). The result is a value referred to herein as the AXS range value. Step 315 then compares the absolute value of the resulting difference value to a threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2).”
Regarding claim 8, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to not be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is not zero. (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “The first AXS signal check function 210 determines whether a malfunction exists based on whether the AXS offset falls within a predetermined range and the vehicle has traveled more than a predetermined, threshold distance. As shown in FIG. 5, the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).
(Bechtler FIG. 7, para. [0058]); “Generally, the second AXS signal check function 310 determines whether a value related to the acquired acceleration value of the AXS is less than a threshold for an amount of time. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, the signal checking module 180 begins the second AXS signal check function 310 by applying the acquired longitudinal acceleration from the acceleration sensor 140 to a filter, and then, applying the long term compensation offset to the filtered value (step 315). The result is a value referred to herein as the AXS range value. Step 315 then compares the absolute value of the resulting difference value to a threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2).”
Regarding claim 9, Bechtler teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor signal value is less than a threshold magnitude. (Bechtler FIG. 5, para. [0051]); “The first AXS signal check function 210 determines whether a malfunction exists based on whether the AXS offset falls within a predetermined range and the vehicle has traveled more than a predetermined, threshold distance. As shown in FIG. 5, the signal checking module 210 begins the first AXS signal check function 210 by determining whether an absolute value of the AXS offset is less than a first threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) (step 215). The first threshold can be based on a first distance traveled by the vehicle 100 (e.g., 0-50 km). The first threshold is typically less than (or tighter) than a maximum threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2) for a related maximum distance (e.g., 0-200 km).
(Bechtler FIG. 7, para. [0058]); “Generally, the second AXS signal check function 310 determines whether a value related to the acquired acceleration value of the AXS is less than a threshold for an amount of time. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, the signal checking module 180 begins the second AXS signal check function 310 by applying the acquired longitudinal acceleration from the acceleration sensor 140 to a filter, and then, applying the long term compensation offset to the filtered value (step 315). The result is a value referred to herein as the AXS range value. Step 315 then compares the absolute value of the resulting difference value to a threshold (e.g., 0-20 m/s.sup.2).”
Pertinent Prior Art
US 2015/0308827 A1: Teaches a roll angle estimation device and transport apparatus including error detection for velocity, angular velocity and acceleration detectors in order to calculate roll angle, pitch angle and the pitch angular velocity. Longitudinal acceleration is evaluated and wheel speed of each tire is used and errors are determined based on an upper and lower limit defining a range.
NPL: Tanelli, Mara, et al. Longitudinal Vehicle Speed Estimation for Traction and Braking Control Systems. 1 Oct. 2006, pp. 2790–2795, https://doi.org/10.1109/cacsd-cca-isic.2006.4777080. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
Accurate estimation of longitudinal vehicle speed is crucial for effective design and implementation of Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) and Traction Control Systems (TCS). The knowledge of the current value of the vehicle speed, in fact, is the key for computing the longitudinal wheel slip, i.e., the main control variable in most advanced braking and traction control logics. This work presents a new algorithm for the estimation of longitudinal vehicle speed, based on the measurements of the four wheel rotational speeds and of the longitudinal vehicle acceleration. The algorithm uses thresholds to identify error.
NPL: Ding, Xiaolin, et al. “Longitudinal Vehicle Speed Estimation for Four-Wheel-Independently-Actuated Electric Vehicles Based on Multi-Sensor Fusion.” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 11, Nov. 2020, pp. 12797–12806, https://doi.org/10.1109/tvt.2020.3026106. Accessed 11 Feb. 2023.
An enabling multi-sensor fusion-based longitudinal vehicle speed estimator is proposed for four-wheel-independently-actuated electric vehicles using a Global Positioning System and Beidou Navigation Positioning (GPS-BD) module, and a low-cost Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). For accurate vehicle speed estimation, an approach combing the wheel speed and the GPS-BD information is firstly put forward to compensate for the impact of road gradient on the output horizontal velocity of the GPS-BD module, and the longitudinal acceleration of the IMU. Then, a multi-sensor fusion-based longitudinal vehicle speed estimator is synthesized by employing three virtual sensors which generate three longitudinal vehicle speed tracks based on multiple sensor signals. Finally, the accuracy and reliability of the proposed longitudinal vehicle speed estimator are examined. Thresholds are used to determine the validity of the wheel speed.
US 2010/0023196 A1: The method involves determining a vehicle speed signal and a vehicle longitudinal acceleration signal, and determining whether the speed signal is greater than predetermined speed threshold signal in a predetermined time window. A determination is made whether average of vehicle longitudinal acceleration is greater than longitudinal acceleration threshold. Another determination is made whether a vehicle launching maneuver is ended if average of the longitudinal acceleration is less than longitudinal acceleration threshold in another time window.
Conclusion
An inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN D COONS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2698. (via email: logan.coons@uspto.gov “without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via internet e-mail to an internet correspondence” MPEP 502.02 II).
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am – 6pm ET. 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, SPE SHELBY A TURNER, can be reached at (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOGAN D COONS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857