Detailed Action
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant communication dated 04/14/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 5-10, 12, 14-15, and 18, cancelled claims
3-4, 13, and 17, and added new claims 19-23. Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-16 and 18-23 are pending and rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101, 102 (a)(1) and 103 rejections in the previous office action are maintained and revised in light of the amended claims. A 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) rejection is added in light of the amended and new claims. A 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) interpretation is added in light of the new claims.
The claim objections regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 13-15, 17 and 18 have been remedied by the Applicant via the amended claims, and the objections have been withdrawn. The antecedent basis issue pertaining to claim 2 was remedied by the amended claim, and the 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) rejection has been withdrawn. The non-statutory double patenting rejection has been remedied by the amended claims.
37 C.F.R. 1.126 Numbering of claims.
The original numbering of the claims must be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When claims are added, they must be numbered by the applicant consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claim previously presented (whether entered or not). When the application is ready for allowance, the examiner, if necessary, will renumber the claims consecutively in the order in which they appear or in such order as may have been requested by applicant.
The numbering of claims is not accordance with 37 CFR 1.126, which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 24 has been renumbered as claim 23.
Double Patenting
The applicant is advised that the terminal disclaimer was disapproved. However, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection has been remedied in light of the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection are fully considered but are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the revised rejection addressing the amended claims.
Applicant argues [p.9] that the comments regarding the cited art are not meant to conflate the section 101 analysis with a patentability analysis, but to highlight the practical application of the method of claim 1, and to demonstrate that the method of claim 1 improves operation of the computing and electronic system and is not only a practical application, but fully provides the "something more" required in a section 101 analysis.
Applicant further argues [p.10] that amended independent claim 1 is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the relevant field, and instead are new and not obvious. And so the method of claim 1 improves, among other things, the technical field of accelerometer rationalization to determine accelerometer malfunction, and enable more efficient use of resources within a computing system and a faster, more efficient determination of accelerometer malfunction to reduce the time in which a vehicle operates with reliance on data from a malfunctioning sensor.
Applicant further argues [p.10] that amended claim 1 recites meaningful limitations on the method for determining accelerometer malfunction that relate to not only novel and not obvious steps, but improvements in use of a vehicle electronic and computing network that is more efficiently utilized for unique analyses of specific information relating simply to determining if the accelerometer provides an output that is greater than zero or a nominal signal noise level. Focusing the information reviewed on determining nominal signal output without requiring that the accuracy of the magnitude of the output signal is accurate relative to a wide range of possible vehicle accelerations improves the efficiency of the processing system by, among other things, reducing computer resources needed for the analysis and improves the timing of determining accelerometer failure in a setting in which timing is important.
Applicant further argues [p.11] that, even assuming that the method recited in claim 1 is considered to involve an abstract idea, such as a mental process, the method is integrated into a practical application at least by virtue of the above-recited subject matter of claim 1 which clearly provides benefits to the system and electronic/computing network of the vehicle and is "something more" than just an abstract idea. By providing a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem, the ordered combination of elements of claim 1 goes beyond the alleged abstract idea and provides meaningful limitations that are not well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the relevant field, and therefore, are directed to "significantly more" than simply an abstract idea.
These arguments are not persuasive because the amended claim limitations are directed to the mental processes of determining the existence of an acceleration event, evaluating a sensor output, and determining whether or not a sensor output value is equal to or less than a nominal noise value. Merely outputting the result does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This is because the diagnostic trouble code and/or malfunction indicator lamp simply communicate the result of “malfunction” based on the comparison of values. The claim language does not say how the output changes how the longitudinal accelerometer, wheel speed sensor, vehicle or system operate. Merely illuminating an indicator lamp on the vehicle’s dashboard does not constitute a practical application.
There is no improvement to computer technology recited in the claim language. For example, the claim does not improve the processor, memory, communication, or sensor architecture. Instead, this process performs ordinary threshold comparisons and ordinary output functions.
No particular machine imposes a meaningful limit because the longitudinal accelerometer and wheel speed sensors merely perform generic data gathering. Simply performing an abstract process on generic vehicle electronics does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception.
No transformation is taking place based on the claim language. Nothing is physically being transformed. The only change is an informational output in the form of a trouble code or illuminated indicator, which is insufficient for integrating into a practical application.
As mentioned above, Applicant argues that the claim limitations provide “significantly more”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
This is because the abstract ideas in this case are determining the existence of an acceleration event, evaluating a sensor output, and determining whether or not a sensor output value is equal to or less than a nominal noise value, and the remaining additional elements are conventional components performing conventional functions.
For example, a longitudinal accelerometer measuring acceleration, a wheel speed sensor measuring wheel speed, and generating a diagnostic trouble code and/or illuminating an indicator lamp amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract ideas on generic automotive hardware. Given that these components are operating conventionally, there does not appear to be an unconventional arrangement or technical solution beyond the abstract ideas.
Therefore, the outputting steps recited in the amended claim language are characterized as insignificant post-solution activity and mere presentation of information with only generic automotive hardware performing conventional functions.
The applicant argues advantages of the amended claim limitations, and examiner notes that these limitations are part of the abstract idea. Improvements in the abstract idea is not a qualified improvements from the standpoint of eligibility. Improvements are demonstrated through meaningful additional elements or through significantly more additional elements, which were not recited in the claims.
Applicant further argues [p.11] that the method of claim 1 does not relate to anything previously done by hand or with pencil and paper, and instead relates concretely to electronic components and processing, and to providing an output in the vehicle when a malfunction is determined. Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 is entirely unlike claims to business or financial methods that previously were done manually and are simply being automated on a computer, which is the main subject matter from which the section 101 jurisprudence arose.
Examiner notes that the previous Office Action does not state or even imply that the subject matter of claim 1 is entirely like or even similar to claims to business or financial methods that previously were done manually and are simply being automated on a computer. Furthermore, the claim limitations of “determining the existence of an acceleration event, evaluating a sensor output, and determining whether or not a sensor output value is equal to or less than a nominal noise value” do involve mental processes given that a comparison is being made between a wheel speed sensor value and a wheel speed threshold, and a longitudinal accelerometer value is determined to be a zero or non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value. These limitations can be performed by one of ordinary skill in the art simply by evaluating and comparing number values, and thus, the claim limitations recite mental processes.
Applicant further argues [p.11] that the method of claim 1 has not been, and cannot be, done by a person within the context of sensor checking during movement of the vehicle and in the manner set forth herein. A person cannot directly communicate with sensors or manage the electrical output of sensors or determine data from wheel speed sensors in a manner suitable for checking accelerometer malfunction.
This argument is not persuasive because the claim limitation of “determining” the existence of an acceleration event based on the output signal from a wheel speed sensor when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold 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. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art, given an output signal from the wheel speed sensor, could evaluate whether or not the signal is above or below the threshold line and make a judgement as to whether an acceleration event exists or not based off that evaluation. See the rejection for further details.
Similarly, this can be seen in the claim limitation of “evaluating” the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event. One of ordinary skill in the art, given the longitudinal accelerometer output signal, would be capable of mentally making this evaluation as it simply involves a comparison of values to a predetermined threshold. See the rejection for further details.
Similarly, this can be seen in the claim limitation of “determining” that the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal is zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during 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. See the rejection for further details.
For these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of independent claims 1, 15 and 19 are maintained.
Regarding the dependent claims, Applicant argues [p.12] that these claims further define eligible subject matter that goes well beyond any alleged abstract idea. Claim 2 recites that a 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. Not only can a person not mentally perform the subject matter of claim 2 in any meaningful way, but the cited references like Bechtler teach signal monitoring that is not continuous and occurs after a fault signal has been generated and fault algorithms are executed to test the accuracy of the filtered/offset/manipulated output of the accelerometer.
Applicant further argues that thus claim 2 further provides a practical application that is not conventional or routine, and indeed, the ability to continuously monitor the sensor data is enabled by the simpler evaluations conducted to ensure some output is provided by the accelerometer but without testing the accuracy of filtered, offset data as in the cited art. Further, claims 5 and 6 recite inflection points of wheel speed and further constrain the subject matter, defines information not determined mentally and is also not taught by the cited references, as set forth below.
Applicant further notes that the office action did not analyze the dependent claims sufficiently to support the rejections of these claims, and Applicant reserves the right to contest any future rejections of these claims.
Examiner notes that the dependent claims were considered in the previous Office Action and were rejected because they failed to recite meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more.
Regarding claim 2, generically recites collecting/outputting by sensors/devices measurement data, which represents the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/outputting results.
The claim limitations of claim 5 qualify as a mathematical concept due to the subtraction calculation. It also qualifies as a mental process given that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of mentally, or with the aid of pen and paper, performing an evaluation, given data, to find the difference between two values. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, these are claim limitations that can be performed mentally given that the claim requires taking the difference between a maximum value and minimum value given the data from the first and second inflection points. The claim limitation also generically recites collecting/outputting by sensors/devices measurement data, which represents the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/outputting results given that the claim simply requires recording wheel speed values at different inflection points.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 6, the claim limitations do recite an abstract idea, specifically a mathematical concept via a mathematical relationship because correlating the taking of a measurement when a maximum value is recorded, for example, involves a mathematical relationship to execute that process. The claim limitation also generically recites collecting/outputting by sensors/devices measurement data, which represents the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/outputting results given that the claim simply requires recording longitudinal accelerometer values at different times.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) and 103 rejection are fully considered but are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the revised rejection addressing the amended claims.
Applicant recites the limitations of amended claim 1 and states that Bechtler does not teach or even suggest the method set forth in claim 1.
Applicant further argues [p.13] that Bechtler specifically does not teach or even suggest "determining that the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal is zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event."
Applicant further argues [p.13] that after a fault is detected, Bechtler teaches a first fault detection scheme that seeks to determine if a long-term compensation offset is accurate - this does not check the actual accelerometer output but instead checks the accuracy of an offset added by the system. Bechtler teaches a second fault detection scheme that uses a filtered and offset adjusted data to produce an AXS range value and this range value is checked. Again, this checks the manipulations/filters/offsets done to an acceleration sensor signal. And Bechtler teaches a third fault detection test that reviews a filtered and offset acceleration sensor output to determine the accuracy of the filtered and offset data, and not simply if the sensor output is zero or zero if noise is not included.
This argument is not persuasive given that the new arguments presented by Applicant on page 13 regarding the amended claim limitations of claim 1 are moot, and the argued features are addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Applicant further agues [p.14] that Iwata teaches away from the subject matter of claim 5 by requiring that wheel speed data be filtered to limit the magnitude of changes. This teaching of Iwata is also directly contrary to the system taught by Bechtler because the artificially reduced wheel speed data that is the focus of Iwata would render inaccurate any acceleration determined as the first derivate of wheel speed as in Bechtler. This would make impossible the subsequent determination of the accuracy of acceleration offsets and filters, as taught by Bechtler. When Iwata is considered in its entirety, for all that it teaches a person skilled in this art, it is apparent that Iwata is divergent and teaches away from the system taught by Bechtler. The asserted combination of Iwata with Bechtler is not supported by the teachings of the references, and indeed, is contrary to the teachings of the references. For at least these reasons, claim 5 defines further patentable subject matter over the cited references.
This argument is not persuasive in that Iwata is only being relied upon to teach determining a change in wheel speed by recording a first maximum value at a first inflection point and a second minimum value at a second inflection point, not the filtering process or idea of filtered wheel speed. The fact that the wheel speed is filtered in Iwata does not change the fact that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply determine a change in wheel speed by recording a first maximum value at a first inflection point and a second minimum value at a second inflection point in order to effectively and reliably measure a change in wheel speed of a vehicle. Iwata does not teach away from Bechtler and is analogous in that Iwata is addressing the same problem as Applicant’s invention.
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that Iwata teaches away from the subject matter of claim 5, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant further argues [p.14] that amended claim 14 recites that the zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise does not vary as a function of the magnitude of the output signal of the wheel speed sensor. The cited teaching of Bechtler relates to the magnitude of an offset that is applied to an acceleration signal and is not relevant to claim 14. Claim 14 recites that the evaluation of the accelerometer output signal, relative to a zero or nominal noise-level output, does not change dependent upon the wheel speed. The fault detection of Bechtler checks the accuracy of the filtered/offset signals, that is, whether the magnitude/value of the manipulated acceleration signal is accurate relative to the vehicle acceleration, and so this necessarily changes for different magnitudes of vehicle acceleration.
This argument is not persuasive because Bechtler teaches measuring a zero or non-zero longitudinal accelerometer value (See prior art rejection for further details) without there being a dependency on the output signal from the wheel speed sensor. The fact that Bechtler checks the accuracy of the signals does not mean that the longitudinal accelerometer output signal varies as a function of the magnitude of the output signal of the wheel speed sensor. See the prior art rejection for further details regarding the amended language pertaining to nominal noise.
Objections
Claim 1, lines 14-16 are objected to for minor informalities:
The limitation reads “…activating a malfunction indicator lamp that is visible within the vehicle. output signal is zero or a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event”
Examiner objects to the period after vehicle and the following sentence that starts with “output” and ends without a period. For the purposes of compact prosecution, examiner is interpreting the claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation to read as “…activating a malfunction indicator lamp that is visible within the vehicle wherein the output signal is zero or a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are found in new claim 19 reciting:
“the method comprising the steps of: receiving, by an onboard vehicle control system”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examiner has identified the corresponding structure as (sensors that, among other things, may be communicatively coupled with a controller 22 or control system (e.g., an engine control module) [0026] where FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a control system 22 of the vehicle, which includes components such as processor 26 and memory 24.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
35 USC 112(a) Rejection
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification only discusses that “the set threshold does not vary as a function of the magnitude of the output of the wheel speed sensor” [0016, 0020].
The specification does not discuss wherein the zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise does not vary as a function of the magnitude of the 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 19 is indefinite as the claim limitations recite “the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value is less than a threshold magnitude set as a function of a determination is indicative that the longitudinal accelerometer is not providing an output signal.”
According to the specification, para. [0042] states that “the set threshold value may be a function of and higher than the typical noise or expected tolerance/inaccuracy of the longitudinal accelerometer 30, which is some nominal value greater than zero. In this way, a very low signal value caused by system noise or the like is not mistaken for a positive output from the longitudinal accelerometer when it is actually providing a zero output value. In at least some implementations, the set threshold value may be a set value and not related to the magnitude of acceleration that occurs during an acceleration event. In other words, the threshold value may remain the same and be used to check operation of the longitudinal accelerometer 30 in acceleration events of varying magnitude. In this way, the accuracy of the output of the longitudinal accelerometer 30 is not being tested, and what is being tested is whether the longitudinal accelerometer is operating and providing a non-zero output.”
For the purposes of compact prosecution under the broadest reasonable interpretation, examiner is interpreting the bolded claim language as meaning “a function of any determination, and that determination is indicative that the longitudinal accelerometer is not providing an output signal”.
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 1-2, 5-12, 14-16 and 18-23 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.
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 that an acceleration event exists based on the output signal from the wheel speed sensor when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold;
evaluating the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event;
and determining that the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal is zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event;
and providing an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer has malfunctioned, wherein the output includes one or both of generating a diagnostic trouble code and activating a malfunction indicator lamp that is visible within the vehicle. output signal is zero or a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event
The bolded language in the claim limitations indicate abstract ideas, and the remaining limitations are considered to be additional elements.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Claim 15 is a machine claim. Claim 19 is a process 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 limitations recited in Claim 1 recite at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process (observations/evaluation/judgement/ or opinion). and a mathematical concept (mathematical calculations/relationships/formulas/ or equations).
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 when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold (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 output signal is zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise 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 Claims 15 and 19.
Claim 19 also recites the abstract ideas:
“the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value of wheel speed at a first inflection point and a second minimum value of wheel speed at a second inflection point, and taking the difference between the first maximum value and second minimum value”
This claim limitation involves mathematical calculations by taking the difference between two numbers. The claim limitation also involves a mental process given that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of mentally, or with the aid of pen and paper, determining the change in wheel speed by taking the difference between a first maximum and second minimum value given the data at each inflection point.
Claim 19 also recites the abstract idea: “evaluating the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event by taking a first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value when the first maximum value of wheel speed is recorded, and taking a second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value when the second minimum value is recorded, and determining malfunction of the longitudinal accelerometer when the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value is less than a threshold magnitude set as a function of a determination is indicative that the longitudinal accelerometer is not providing an output signal”
This claim limitation involves a mathematical calculation, specifically in the process of taking the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value and determining whether or not this result is less than a threshold magnitude set as a function of a determination.
This claim limitation also involves a mental process given that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of mentally, or with the aid of pen and paper, taking the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value and evaluating whether or not this result is less than a threshold magnitude set as a function of a determination and making a judgement/observation based on this evaluation as to whether or not the longitudinal accelerometer is providing an output signal.
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.
The additional elements in the preambles of all independent claims are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
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 1 also recites the additional elements:
“providing an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer has malfunctioned, wherein the output includes one or both of generating a diagnostic trouble code and activating a malfunction indicator lamp that is visible within the vehicle. output signal is zero or a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event”.
This is because the diagnostic trouble code and/or malfunction indicator lamp simply communicate the result of “malfunction” based on the comparison of values. The claim language does not say how the output changes how the longitudinal accelerometer, wheel speed sensor, vehicle or system operate. Merely illuminating an indicator lamp on the vehicle’s dashboard does not constitute a practical application.
There is no improvement to computer technology recited in the claim language. For example, the claim does not improve the processor, memory, communication, or sensor architecture. Instead, this process performs ordinary threshold comparisons and ordinary output functions.
No particular machine imposes a meaningful limit because the longitudinal accelerometer and wheel speed sensors merely perform generic data gathering. Simply performing an abstract process on generic vehicle electronics does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception.
No transformation is taking place based on the claim language. Nothing is physically being transformed. The only change is an informational output in the form of a trouble code or illuminated indicator, which is insufficient for integrating into a practical application.
These claim limitations generically recite collecting/outputting by sensors/devices measurement data (all independent claims), which represents the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/outputting results. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Claim 15 recites similar additional elements as claim 1.
Claim 15 also recites the additional elements:
“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.”
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
“receiving, by an onboard vehicle control system, an output signal from a wheel speed sensor that is responsive to rotation of a vehicle wheel;”
“receiving an output signal from a longitudinal accelerometer;”
“providing an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer has malfunctioned, wherein the output includes generating a diagnostic trouble code or activating a malfunction indicator lamp that is visible within the vehicle”
These claim limitations generically recite collecting/outputting by sensors/devices measurement data (all independent claims), which represents the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/outputting results. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
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.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When re-evaluated under Step 2B, the claim limitations are found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as explained by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a communication network), and specifically the recited additional elements listed above including a diagnostic trouble code and/or malfunction indicating lamp as referenced by Bechtler and Rollinger.
This is because the abstract ideas in this case are determining the existence of an acceleration event, evaluating a sensor output, and determining whether or not a sensor output value is equal to or less than a nominal noise value, and the remaining additional elements are conventional components performing conventional functions.
For example, a longitudinal accelerometer measuring acceleration, a wheel speed sensor measuring wheel speed, and generating a diagnostic trouble code and/or illuminating an indicator lamp amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract ideas on generic automotive hardware. Given that these components are operating conventionally, there does not appear to be an unconventional arrangement or technical solution beyond the abstract ideas.
Therefore, the outputting steps recited in the amended claim language are characterized as insignificant post-solution activity and mere presentation of information with only generic automotive hardware performing conventional functions.
Therefore, the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claims 1, 15 and 19 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, they provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtler (US 20110066320 A1) in view of Schuetze (WO 2011110382 A1).
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 that an acceleration event exists based on the output signal from the wheel speed sensor when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold; (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”; (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) [Bechtler, 0068]) 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.”; determining that the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal is zero or 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”; (When the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunction with the longitudinal acceleration signal because the value or sign is not plausible, the module 165 generates a fault signal [Bechtler 0065]); providing an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer has malfunctioned, wherein the output includes one or both of generating a diagnostic trouble code and activating a malfunction indicator lamp that is visible within the vehicle. output signal is zero or a non-zero value during the acceleration event (When the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunction with the longitudinal acceleration signal because the value or sign is not plausible, the module 165 generates a fault signal where the vehicle control system 175 obtains the fault information from the failure handling module 170 and activates one or more tell-tale indicators [0065, Fig. 8] where the tell-tale indicators (or warning lights) are in the vehicle 100 (e.g., on the vehicle's dashboard) [0041, Fig. 1, element 185]).
Bechtler does not explicitly teach determining that the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal is zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event as well as wherein the output signal is zero or a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event.
Schuetze teaches comparing a linear acceleration to a noise threshold to determine whether an actual linear acceleration is present (The first threshold may be less than or equal to a threshold of allowable noise of the linear acceleration information. In this way it can be determined in a simple manner whether an actual linear acceleration is present, which would prevent detection of the deviation of the yaw rate signal [p.4] and in Fig. 3, with respect to the linear acceleration, an upper noise threshold 313 and a lower noise threshold 315 are shown. The upper noise threshold 313 and the lower noise threshold 315 have different signs and can be equal in magnitude. The noise thresholds 313, 315 define acceleration values that narrow a range that corresponds to negligible real lateral acceleration [p.6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bechtler with the teachings of Schuetze to determine that a longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal is zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event and to provide a malfunction output based on this determination in order to more accurately detect faults/malfunctions during an acceleration event in the presence of noise.
Regarding claim 2, Bechtler in view of Schuetze teach the method of claim 1, and Bechtler further teaches where a 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 10, Bechtler in view of Schuetze teach the method of claim 1, and Bechtler further teaches further comprising a step of providing an indication of an error when the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal does not exceed a value 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); (When the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunction with the longitudinal acceleration signal because the value or sign is not plausible, the module 165 generates a fault signal where the vehicle control system 175 obtains the fault information from the failure handling module 170 and activates one or more tell-tale indicators [0065, Fig. 8] where the tell-tale indicators (or warning lights) are in the vehicle 100 (e.g., on the vehicle's dashboard) [0041, Fig. 1, element 185]).
Bechtler does not explicitly teach a step of providing an indication of an error when the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal does not exceed the nominal noise value during the acceleration event.
Schuetze teaches comparing a linear acceleration to a noise threshold to determine whether an actual linear acceleration is present (The first threshold may be less than or equal to a threshold of allowable noise of the linear acceleration information. In this way it can be determined in a simple manner whether an actual linear acceleration is present, which would prevent detection of the deviation of the yaw rate signal [p.4] and in Fig. 3, with respect to the linear acceleration, an upper noise threshold 313 and a lower noise threshold 315 are shown. The upper noise threshold 313 and the lower noise threshold 315 have different signs and can be equal in magnitude. The noise thresholds 313, 315 define acceleration values that narrow a range that corresponds to negligible real lateral acceleration [p.6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bechtler with the teachings of Schuetze to perform the step of providing an indication of an error when the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal does not exceed the nominal noise value during the acceleration event in order to more accurately detect faults/malfunctions during an acceleration event in the presence of noise.
Regarding claim 11, Bechtler in view of Schuetze teach the method of claim 10, And Bechtler further teaches 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 14, Bechtler in view of Schuetze teach the method of claim 1, and Bechtler further teaches wherein the zero or is a non-zero value does not vary as a function of the magnitude of the output signal of the wheel speed sensor (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) [0051, Fig. 5]).
Bechtler does not explicitly teach wherein the zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise does not vary as a function of the magnitude of the output signal of the wheel speed sensor.
Schuetze teaches comparing a linear acceleration to a noise threshold to determine whether an actual linear acceleration is present (The first threshold may be less than or equal to a threshold of allowable noise of the linear acceleration information. In this way it can be determined in a simple manner whether an actual linear acceleration is present, which would prevent detection of the deviation of the yaw rate signal [p.4] and in Fig. 3, with respect to the linear acceleration, an upper noise threshold 313 and a lower noise threshold 315 are shown. The upper noise threshold 313 and the lower noise threshold 315 have different signs and can be equal in magnitude. The noise thresholds 313, 315 define acceleration values that narrow a range that corresponds to negligible real lateral acceleration [p.6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bechtler with the teachings of Schuetze to have a zero or non-zero longitudinal accelerometer value equal to or less than a nominal noise not vary as a function of the magnitude of the output signal of the wheel speed sensor to more effectively distinguish real, actionable signals from random background electronic or mechanical noise for determining a longitudinal accelerometer malfunction.
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 that an acceleration event exists when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that meets 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,)…” and evaluate 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 a malfunction of the longitudinal accelerometer when the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal is zero or a non-zero value equal to or less than a 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).”; (When the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunction with the longitudinal acceleration signal because the value or sign is not plausible, the module 165 generates a fault signal [Bechtler 0065]);
and provide an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer has malfunctioned, wherein the output includes one or both of generating a diagnostic trouble code and activating a malfunction indicator lamp that is visible within the vehicle (When the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunction with the longitudinal acceleration signal because the value or sign is not plausible, the module 165 generates a fault signal where the vehicle control system 175 obtains the fault information from the failure handling module 170 and activates one or more tell-tale indicators [0065, Fig. 8] where the tell-tale indicators (or warning lights) are in the vehicle 100 (e.g., on the vehicle's dashboard) [0041, Fig. 1, element 185]).
Bechtler does not explicitly teach determining that the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal is zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event.
Schuetze teaches comparing a linear acceleration to a noise threshold to determine whether an actual linear acceleration is present (The first threshold may be less than or equal to a threshold of allowable noise of the linear acceleration information. In this way it can be determined in a simple manner whether an actual linear acceleration is present, which would prevent detection of the deviation of the yaw rate signal [p.4] and in Fig. 3, with respect to the linear acceleration, an upper noise threshold 313 and a lower noise threshold 315 are shown. The upper noise threshold 313 and the lower noise threshold 315 have different signs and can be equal in magnitude. The noise thresholds 313, 315 define acceleration values that narrow a range that corresponds to negligible real lateral acceleration [p.6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bechtler with the teachings of Schuetze to determine that a longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal is zero or is a non-zero value equal to or less than a nominal noise value during the acceleration event and to provide a malfunction output based on this determination in order to more accurately detect faults/malfunctions during an acceleration event in the presence of noise.
Regarding claim 18, Bechtler in view of Schuetze teach the system of claim 15, and Bechtler in view of Schuetze teach the limitations of claim 18 as explained in the claim 14 analysis.
Claims 5-9 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtler in view of Schuetze further in view of Iwata (US 5481455 A) further in view of Bower (US 20210291844 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bechtler in view of Schuetze teach the method of claim 1. Bechtler does not teach wherein the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value of wheel speed at a first inflection point and a second minimum value of wheel speed 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…”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bechtler with the teachings of Schuetze and Iwata to determine the change in wheel speed by recording a first maximum value of wheel speed at a first inflection point and a second minimum value of wheel speed at a second inflection point 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 Schuetze and 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 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 modify Bechtler with the teachings of Schuetze, Iwata and Bower to determine the change in wheel speed by recording a first maximum value of wheel speed at a first inflection point and a second minimum value of wheel speed at a second inflection point, and take the difference between the first maximum value and second minimum value 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 Schuetze, 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, Bechtler in view of Schuetze further in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the method of claim 5, Bechtler further teaches wherein a first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value is taken when the first maximum value is recorded, and a second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output 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 in view of Schuetze further in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the method of claim 6, and Becher further teaches wherein the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output 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 in view of Schuetze further in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the method of claim 6, and Bechtler further teaches wherein the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to not be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output 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 in view of Schuetze further in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the method of claim 6, and Bechtler further teaches wherein the longitudinal accelerometer sensor is determined to be malfunctioning if the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output 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).”
Regarding claim 23, Bechtler in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the method of claim 19, but Bechtler does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold magnitude is set at a level equal to a nominal noise level of the longitudinal accelerometer sensor.
Schuetze teaches comparing a linear acceleration to a noise threshold to determine whether an actual linear acceleration is present (The first threshold may be less than or equal to a threshold of allowable noise of the linear acceleration information. In this way it can be determined in a simple manner whether an actual linear acceleration is present, which would prevent detection of the deviation of the yaw rate signal [p.4] and in Fig. 3, with respect to the linear acceleration, an upper noise threshold 313 and a lower noise threshold 315 are shown. The upper noise threshold 313 and the lower noise threshold 315 have different signs and can be equal in magnitude. The noise thresholds 313, 315 define acceleration values that narrow a range that corresponds to negligible real lateral acceleration [p.6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bechtler with the teachings of Iwata, Bower and Schuetze to use a threshold magnitude set at a level equal to a nominal noise level of the longitudinal accelerometer sensor to more effectively distinguish real, actionable signals from random background electronic or mechanical noise.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtler in view of Schuetze further in view of Otsuka (US 6295489 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Bechtler in view of Schuetze teach the method of claim 10, and Bechtler teaches wherein the output is provided 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.”; (When the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunction with the longitudinal acceleration signal because the value or sign is not plausible, the module 165 generates a fault signal where the vehicle control system 175 obtains the fault information from the failure handling module 170 and activates one or more tell-tale indicators [0065, Fig. 8] where the tell-tale indicators (or warning lights) are in the vehicle 100 (e.g., on the vehicle's dashboard) [0041, Fig. 1, element 185]).
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 modify Bechtler with the teachings of Schuetze and Otsuka to provide the output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer is malfunctioning when the fail counter meets a fail counter threshold 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 Schuetze and Otsuka. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bechtler, Schuetze 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtler in view of Schuetze further in view of Bower.
Regarding claim 16, Bechtler in view of Schuetze teach 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 modify Bechtler with the teachings of Schuetze and Bower to use a vehicle with multiple wheels and use a separate wheel speed sensor is provided for each wheel of the vehicle 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 Schuetze and Bower. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bechtler, Schuetze and Bower to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claim 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtler in view of Iwata further in view of Bower.
Regarding claim 19, Bechtler teaches a method of rationalizing a longitudinal accelerometer of a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by an onboard vehicle control system (vehicle control system 105 in Fig. 1), an output signal from a wheel speed sensor that is responsive to rotation of a vehicle wheel (a wheel speed sensor 135 senses a rotational speed of a wheel 110 and communicates information related to the speed of the wheel 110 [Bechtler 0031, Fig. 1] ;
receiving an output signal from a longitudinal accelerometer (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. [Bechtler 0038, Fig. 1]);
determining, during vehicle movement, existence of an acceleration event when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold, (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”; (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) [Bechtler, 0034, Fig. 1]);
evaluating the longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal during the acceleration event (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 0063]) by taking a first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value when the first maximum value of wheel speed is recorded, and taking a second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value 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”
and determining malfunction of the longitudinal accelerometer when the difference between the first longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value and the second longitudinal accelerometer sensor output signal value is less than a threshold magnitude set as a function of a determination is indicative that the longitudinal accelerometer is not providing an output signal (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 0051, Fig. 5]) where 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)
[Bechtler 0058, Fig. 7]) where 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 0063]);
and providing an output in the vehicle indicating that the longitudinal accelerometer has malfunctioned, wherein the output includes generating a diagnostic trouble code or activating a malfunction indicator lamp that is visible within the vehicle (When the malfunction monitoring module 165 detects a malfunction with the longitudinal acceleration signal because the value or sign is not plausible, the module 165 generates a fault signal where the vehicle control system 175 obtains the fault information from the failure handling module 170 and activates one or more tell-tale indicators [0065, Fig. 8] where the tell-tale indicators (or warning lights) are in the vehicle 100 (e.g., on the vehicle's dashboard) [0041, Fig. 1, element 185]).
Bechtler does not explicitly teach determining, during vehicle movement, existence of an acceleration event when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold and wherein the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value of wheel speed at a first inflection point and a second minimum value of wheel speed 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…”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine, during vehicle movement, existence of an acceleration event when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold and wherein the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value of wheel speed at a first inflection point and a second minimum value of wheel speed at a second inflection point 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 19.
Iwata does not explicitly teach 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 modify Bechtler with the teachings of Iwata and Bower in order to determine during vehicle movement, existence of an acceleration event when the output signal from the wheel speed sensor indicates a change in wheel speed that is greater than a wheel speed threshold and wherein the change of wheel speed is determined by recording a first maximum value of wheel speed at a first inflection point and a second minimum value of wheel speed at a second inflection point, and taking the difference between the first maximum value and second minimum value 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 19.
Regarding claim 20, Bechtler in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the method of claim 19, and Bechtler in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the limitations of claim 20 as explained in the claim 6 analysis, which is taught by Bechtler.
Regarding claim 21, Bechtler in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the method of claim 20, and Bechtler in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the limitations of claim 21 as explained in the claim 7 analysis, which is taught by Bechtler.
Regarding claim 22, Bechtler in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the method of claim 20, and Bechtler in view of Iwata further in view of Bower teach the limitations of claim 22 as explained in the claim 8 analysis, which is taught by Bechtler.
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 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
Prosecution Insights