DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to Application No. 18/568,423 filed on 12/08/2023. Claims 15 – 28 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Any reference to specific figures, column, line and paragraphs should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021206661.5, filed on 06/28/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2023, 02/08/2024, and 05/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 are: “A device configured to”, “the device configured to” in claim 27.
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.
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.
Upon examining the published specification US20240367633, Examiner determines the specification is reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, see at least [¶0068, Fig.1], “FIG. 1 shows a device 100 for determining a state of wear of a brake pad, in particular an electronic control unit, of a vehicle F. The device preferably comprises components, which are available in a conventional control device for the brake system of vehicle F, but which offer sufficient performance for carrying out the determination of the state of wear of vehicle F. Device 100 comprises an electronic processor 30, for example a programmable microprocessor, microcontroller or another processor unit, a memory 20, for example a non-transitory, machine-readable memory, and a communication interface 10. The processor 30 is designed to execute software instructions related to the determination of the state of wear of the brake pad of vehicle F. Processor 30 may additionally execute other brake system processes. Processor 30 is able to read and write to memory 20.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “superfluous” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “superfluous” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope of the phrase “discarding superfluous time series data” cannot be reasonably interpreted and renders claim 21 indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 27, the examiner cannot determine, due to the lack of a clear transitional phrase (e.g., "comprising") and from the structure of the claim, i) where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins, in order to properly interpret the claim (see MPEP 2111.02), and ii) whether the claim is intended to be an open-ended claim or a closed claim (see MPEP 2111.03). Accordingly, the claim is considered to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 15 thru 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 27 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Claim 28 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 15, 27, and 28 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 27 and 28 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here.
Claim 15 recites: A method for determining a state of wear of a brake pad of a vehicle, comprising the following steps:
receiving time series data, the time series data including a time series of brake system-related data of the vehicle;
identifying at least one braking event in the time series data, each braking event identified in the time series data corresponding to a temporal data window of braking event data of the time series data, the data window correlating with a real braking event of the vehicle;
determining features from the braking event data by using predetermined operators for every identified braking event;
classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features, the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identifying…”, “determining…”, and “classifying…” involve forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to deter-mine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to rep-resent the “abstract idea”):
A method for determining a state of wear of a brake pad of a vehicle, comprising the following steps:
receiving time series data, the time series data including a time series of brake system-related data of the vehicle;
identifying at least one braking event in the time series data, each braking event identified in the time series data corresponding to a temporal data window of braking event data of the time series data, the data window correlating with a real braking event of the vehicle;
determining features from the braking event data by using predetermined operators for every identified braking event;
classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features, the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). In particular, receiving time series data, the time series data including a time series of brake system-related data of the vehicle, each braking event identified in the time series data corresponding to a temporal data window of braking event data of the time series data, the data window correlating with a real braking event of the vehicle, and the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle, are recited at a high level of generality (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223), are part of the abstract idea, are merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering, data outputting (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, claim 27 is an apparatus claim that recites substantially the same limitations as claim 15 and is therefore not patent eligible. Claim 28 includes A non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program for determining a state of wear of a brake pad of a vehicle, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the method described by substantially the same limitations as claim 15 and 27 and is therefore not patent eligible.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 6 do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of receiving time series data, the time series data including a time series of brake system-related data of the vehicle, each braking event identified in the time series data corresponding to a temporal data window of braking event data of the time series data, the data window correlating with a real braking event of the vehicle, and the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle, have been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such limitations are not unconventional as they are merely part of the abstract idea, or consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are merely part of the abstract idea, use a computer to perform the abstract idea, or add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a preliminary step of gathering data to a process that recites identifying at least one braking event in the time series data[], determining features from the braking event data by using predetermined operators for every identified braking event, and classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features (mental processes), does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16 – 26 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Claims 16 – 18 are directed towards describing the sources of the braking-related data, including sensor data and/or control device data and/or brake system data, master brake cylinder pressure sensor and/or a tire rotational speed sensor and/or a vehicle inertial sensor and/or a brake system sensor, and brake system status and/or a brake system flag. Claim 19 is directed towards the identification of the at least one braking event. Claim 20 is directed towards the at least one brake trigger. Claims 21 and 22 are directed towards discarding superfluous and non-suitable time series data. Claim 23 is directed towards assigning a relevance to each of the determined features. Claim 24 is directed towards storing the received time series data in a memory. Claim 25 is directed towards classifying the at least one braking event.
These limitations recite additional abstract ideas, are extra-solution activity, e.g., mathematical concepts, data gathering or outputting, using computers or machinery as mere tools, or are part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2 thru 15 and 17 thru 19 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170291591 Steer et al. (Steer hereafter) in view of US 20170369069 Yen et al. (Yen hereafter).
Regarding Claims 15, Steer discloses a method for determining a state of wear of a brake pad of a vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0054], “The method includes, for at least some of the braking events, determining the time the braking event occurred. This enables the operator to monitor changes in braking performance over time, and assists in scheduling braking maintenance.”), comprising the following steps: receiving time series data, the time series data including a time series of brake system-related data of the vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0031, 0036, 0089], “the data set comprises the n most recent braking events. []. The data set can comprise braking events from the N most recent journeys. The data set can comprise braking events between two time values, for example between two dates.”, “This can include plotting a plurality of data trends on a vehicle deceleration vs braking demand graph. By comparing the braking performance for different time periods, that is different data sets of braking events, it is possible to determine changes in braking performance over time.”, “The microprocessor is arranged to obtain, for at least some braking events: time data for the braking event. The brake monitoring system includes a clock arranged to provide time data for a braking event. The clock can be integrated within the microprocessor package.”);
identifying at least one braking event in the time series data, each braking event identified in the time series data corresponding to a temporal data window of braking event data of the time series data, the data window correlating with a real braking event of the vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0117, 0182], “The apparatus includes a brake monitoring system 25, which is used to monitor the performance of the braking system 7. The brake monitoring system 25 is arranged to determine if the braking system 7 is operating in a satisfactory manner, or is used to at least record the appropriate data required to determine if the braking system 7 is operating in a satisfactory manner. The brake monitoring system 25 obtains braking event data for at least some braking events.”, “Throughout the braking event, the brake monitoring system 25 monitors, amongst other things, the current delivery pressure, current demand pressure, the current measurement time stamp, current high-resolution timer value and current vehicle speed, and determines from those inputs when certain braking event conditions have been met.”);
determining features from the braking event data by using predetermined operators for every identified braking event (see at least Steer [¶0049, 0050], “The brake monitoring system applies at least one braking event qualifying test to at least some of the determined data, such as the braking event duration, vehicle deceleration and braking demand, and stores the braking event data collected for the braking event only if the determined data passes the or each qualifying test. [] The method includes determining a braking event is non-qualifying, at least in part, in response to determining that the duration of the braking event is less than or equal to a threshold value.”);
Steer does not explicitly disclose classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features, the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle.
However, Yen, directed towards driving behavior analysis based on vehicle braking, discloses classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features (see at least Yen [¶0162], “the activity module 320 includes an event-classifier sub-module 322, or braking-event classifier. The sub-module 322 determines which of multiple categories a braking event falls into, such as normal braking, brake dragging, or hard braking.”), the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle (see at least Yen [¶0046, 0190], “an on-board device (OBD) (not shown in detail), such as a wheel sensor, a brake sensor, an accelerometer, a rotor-wear sensor, a brake lining wear sensor, [] Support can be provided, such as that hard braking, and to a lesser extent, brake dragging, generates excessive heat, creates high thermal stress, and wears brake pads faster.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Yen to modify Steer, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features, the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle for the purpose of enabling the operator to monitor changes in braking performance over time, determine brake system wear, and allow more efficient scheduling of braking maintenance, improving safety and reducing costs.
Regarding Claim 27, Steer discloses A device configured to determine a state of wear of a brake pad of a vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0054, 0117] “The apparatus includes a brake monitoring system 25, which is used to monitor the performance of the braking system 7. The brake monitoring system 25 is arranged to determine if the braking system 7 is operating in a satisfactory manner, or is used to at least record the appropriate data required to determine if the braking system 7 is operating in a satisfactory manner.”), the device configured to: receive time series data, the time series data including a time series of brake system-related data of the vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0031, 0036, 0089], above in claim 15);
identify at least one braking event in the time series data, each braking event identified in the time series data corresponding to a temporal data window of braking event data of the time series data, the data window correlating with a real braking event of the vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0117, 0182], above in claim 15);
determine features from the braking event data by using predetermined operators for every identified braking event (see at least Steer [¶0049, 0050], above in claim 15);
Steer does not explicitly disclose classify the at least one braking event by using the determined features, the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle.
However, Yen, directed towards driving behavior analysis based on vehicle braking, discloses classify the at least one braking event by using the determined features (see at least Yen [¶0162], “the activity module 320 includes an event-classifier sub-module 322, or braking-event classifier. The sub-module 322 determines which of multiple categories a braking event falls into, such as normal braking, brake dragging, or hard braking.”), the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle (see at least Yen [¶0046, 0190], “an on-board device (OBD) (not shown in detail), such as a wheel sensor, a brake sensor, an accelerometer, a rotor-wear sensor, a brake lining wear sensor, [] Support can be provided, such as that hard braking, and to a lesser extent, brake dragging, generates excessive heat, creates high thermal stress, and wears brake pads faster.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Yen to modify Steer, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features, the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle for the purpose of enabling the operator to monitor changes in braking performance over time, determine brake system wear, and allow more efficient scheduling of braking maintenance, improving safety and reducing costs.
Regarding Claim 28, Steer discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program for determining a state of wear of a brake pad of a vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0118], “The brake monitoring system 25 includes at least one microprocessor device 27, non-volatile memory 29”), the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
receiving time series data, the time series data including a time series of brake system-related data of the vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0031, 0036, 0089], above);
identifying at least one braking event in the time series data, each braking event identified in the time series data corresponding to a temporal data window of braking event data of the time series data, the data window correlating with a real braking event of the vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0117, 0182], above);
determining features from the braking event data by using predetermined operators for every identified braking event (see at least Steer [¶0049, 0050], above);
Steer does not explicitly disclose classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features, the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle.
However, Yen, directed towards driving behavior analysis based on vehicle braking, discloses classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features (see at least Yen [¶0162], “the activity module 320 includes an event-classifier sub-module 322, or braking-event classifier. The sub-module 322 determines which of multiple categories a braking event falls into, such as normal braking, brake dragging, or hard braking.”), the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle (see at least Yen [¶0046, 0190], “an on-board device (OBD) (not shown in detail), such as a wheel sensor, a brake sensor, an accelerometer, a rotor-wear sensor, a brake lining wear sensor, [] Support can be provided, such as that hard braking, and to a lesser extent, brake dragging, generates excessive heat, creates high thermal stress, and wears brake pads faster.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Yen to modify Steer, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features, the classification being associated with a state of wear of the brake pad of the vehicle for the purpose of enabling the operator to monitor changes in braking performance over time, determine brake system wear, and allow more efficient scheduling of braking maintenance, improving safety and reducing costs.
Regarding Claim 16, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 15, Steer further discloses wherein the braking-related data include sensor data and/or control device data and/or brake system data of the vehicle (see at least Steer, [¶0123], “The brake monitoring system 25 is connected to the braking system 7 via the CAN bus 17. This enables the brake monitoring system 25 to monitor signals available to the braking system 7, which may include, for example, outputs from sensors that monitor: wheel speed; vehicle speed; braking demand (pneumatic, hydraulic, and/or electrically signalled); suspension pressure; reservoir pressure; delivery pressure (pneumatic, hydraulic, and/or electrically signalled); tyre pressure; odometer; and lateral acceleration. Other data includes DTCs (Diagnostic Trouble Codes) and braking system status data.”).
Regarding Claim 17 , Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 16, Steer further discloses wherein the sensor data are provided by a master brake cylinder pressure sensor and/or a tire rotational speed sensor and/or a vehicle inertial sensor and/or a brake system sensor (see at least Steer, [¶0123], “The brake monitoring system 25 is connected to the braking system 7 via the CAN bus 17. This enables the brake monitoring system 25 to monitor signals available to the braking system 7, which may include, for example, outputs from sensors that monitor: wheel speed; vehicle speed; braking demand (pneumatic, hydraulic, and/or electrically signalled); suspension pressure; reservoir pressure; delivery pressure (pneumatic, hydraulic, and/or electrically signalled); tyre pressure; odometer; and lateral acceleration. Other data includes DTCs (Diagnostic Trouble Codes) and braking system status data.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 16, Steer further discloses wherein the brake system data include a brake system status and/or a brake system flag (see at least Steer, [¶0123], “Other data includes DTCs (Diagnostic Trouble Codes) and braking system status data.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 15, Steer further discloses wherein the identification of the at least one braking event includes:
receiving at least one brake trigger, the brake trigger correlating with a real braking event of the vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0163], “The brake monitoring system 25 determines if the current delivery pressure (del.sub.C) is greater than a predetermined delivery pressure value, such as greater than 0 bar, for the set period of time. For any braking actuation where the current delivery pressure is greater than the set value, for a period of time which is greater than or equal to the set time value, passes the test. For any braking actuation where the current delivery pressure is greater than the set value, for a period of time which is less than or equal the set time value, the braking event is determined as non-qualifying, and therefore the braking event is determined as not having started. The time set value is typically in the range 0.1 seconds to 1.5 seconds.”);
identifying the at least one braking event by using the at least one received brake trigger (see at least Steer [¶0162], “The brake monitoring system 25 applies three data filters each time the driver actuates the braking system 7: a brake delivery time filter 100; a vehicle speed filter 102; and a brake demand filter 104. These data filters distinguish between qualifying braking events, which are considered to be useful for data processing purposes, and non-qualifying braking events which are considered not to be useful for data processing purposes. In some applications a road gradient filter can be applied to filter out some braking events.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 15, Steer further discloses wherein the at least one brake trigger includes a state of the brake light switch and/or a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle and/or a motor state (see at least Steer [¶0124] “The brake monitoring system 25 can include, or can be arranged to receive signals from, at least one sensor which is sensitive to changes in acceleration. For example, the braking monitoring system 25 can include, or can be arranged to receive signals from, at least one accelerometer 42, such as a 3D accelerometer. Additionally, or alternatively, the braking monitoring system 25 can include, or can be arranged to receive signals from, at least one gyroscope 43. The microprocessor 27 is arranged to receive data from the accelerometer 42 and/or gyroscope 43 for a braking event.”).
Regarding Claim 21, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 15, Steer further discloses further comprising: discarding superfluous time series data which cannot be assigned to a braking event (see at least Steer [¶0162], “The brake monitoring system 25 applies three data filters each time the driver actuates the braking system 7: a brake delivery time filter 100; a vehicle speed filter 102; and a brake demand filter 104. These data filters distinguish between qualifying braking events, which are considered to be useful for data processing purposes, and non-qualifying braking events which are considered not to be useful for data processing purposes. In some applications a road gradient filter can be applied to filter out some braking events.”).
Regarding Claim 22, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 15, Steer further discloses further comprising: discarding time series data which are not suitable for determining features (see at least Steer [¶0162], “The brake monitoring system 25 applies three data filters each time the driver actuates the braking system 7: a brake delivery time filter 100; a vehicle speed filter 102; and a brake demand filter 104. These data filters distinguish between qualifying braking events, which are considered to be useful for data processing purposes, and non-qualifying braking events which are considered not to be useful for data processing purposes. In some applications a road gradient filter can be applied to filter out some braking events.”).
Regarding Claim 23, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 15, Steer further discloses further comprising: assigning a relevance to each of the determined features;
using a previously defined number of features having a highest relevance for classifying the at least one braking event (see at least Steer [¶0282], “A weighted trend analysis technique gives greater weighting to some braking events than other braking events when generating the trend. Using a weighted technique can be useful since many of the braking events during normal driving take place under conditions which are quite different from “in service” testing requirements. A weighting technique may, for example give greater weighting to braking events which are considered to be more useful for predicting the performance of the braking system 7 than those that are considered to be less important.”).
Regarding Claim 24, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 15, Steer further discloses wherein the receiving of the time series data includes: storing the received time series data in a memory (see at least Steer [¶0088, 0089] The apparatus includes data storage means located on the vehicle, wherein the microprocessor is arranged to store at least some braking event data in the data storage means. Preferably the monitoring system is arranged to store braking event data for qualifying braking events only. [] The microprocessor is arranged to obtain, for at least some braking events: time data for the braking event. The brake monitoring system includes a clock arranged to provide time data for a braking event. The clock can be integrated within the microprocessor package.);
wherein the time series data are retained in the memory for as long as the memory is not exhausted or as long as the features of the time series data have not been determined (see at least Steer [¶0132], “The data aggregation and storage module 42 is arranged to receive data from the vehicle via the data connection 44, and record the data received in the consolidated data store 46. The data aggregation and storage module 42 can be arranged to communicate with at least one database 43 to obtain data for correcting at least one parameter. For example, the module 42 can be arranged to access at least one database 43 which stores environmental data, such as road conditions and/or weather data, for use in an environmental data correction process. Typically, the module 42 determines whether it is necessary to adjust the deceleration data received from the vehicle for environmental conditions, and if so, applies the correction.”).
Regarding Claim 25, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 15, Yen further discloses wherein the at least one braking event is classified by taking into account a braking history of the vehicle (Yen [¶0013] The braking-monitoring module, in determining whether the braking event is within the acceptable pre-established limit, when executed by the hardware-based processing unit, in some cases determines whether the braking event is within the acceptable pre-established limit based on the braking data and context data. The braking context data can include any of context data indicating regional braking trends; context data indicating characteristics of historic braking events for an operator of the vehicle initiating the present braking event; context data indicating date of braking event; and context data indicating time of day of braking event, as a few examples.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Yen to modify Steer, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of the at least one braking event is classified by taking into account a braking history of the vehicle, for the purpose of enabling the operator to monitor changes in braking performance over time, determine brake system wear, and allow more efficient scheduling of braking maintenance, improving safety and reducing costs.
Regarding Claim 26, Steer and Yen in combination disclose The method as recited in claim 15, Steer further discloses further comprising: receiving temperature data, wherein the temperature data include a temperature of the brake pad and/or a temperature of a brake disk of the vehicle and/or an ambient temperature of the vehicle (see at least Steer [¶0064, 0100], “The environmental conditions correction accounts for the environmental conditions where the braking event took place. It takes into account at least one relevant environmental conditions parameter. [] For example, the environmental conditions can include [], temperature, etc.”, “At least one vehicle microprocessor is arranged to obtain at least one of the following data types: brake temperature”);
classifying the at least one braking event by using the determined features and the temperature data (see at least Steer [¶0064], “It takes into account at least one relevant environmental conditions parameter. The corrected determined deceleration is recorded.”).
Conclusion
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 502.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neit J. Nieves Flores whose telephone number is (703)756-5864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0930-1800 AST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Neit J. Nieves Flores/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights