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
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
Priority
The instant application does not claim the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c) to any prior applications. Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 3/22/2024.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a system or method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a system for predicting anomalies in a wheel system of a semi-trailer truck and a road upon which the semi-trailer truck is driven. Independent claim 11 recites a method for predicting anomalies in a wheel system of a semi-trailer truck and a road upon which the semi-trailer truck is driven.
These independent claims recite the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
determine a velocity profile of the semi-trailer truck
obtain a vibration measurement
determine, from the vibration measurement, a classified vibration level
determine whether the classified vibration level is indicative of an anomaly
identify, based on whether the classified vibration level is indicative of the anomaly and both the velocity profile and a reference classified vibration level, an anomaly existing within either or both of the semi-trailer truck wheel system or the road; and
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as applying a mental process to a generic computing environment - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2).
Dependent claims 2 & 12 recite, in part, wherein determining the classified vibration level includes performing a simulation with a digital twin using the vibration measurement.
Dependent claims 4 & 14 recite, in part, determine whether the classified vibration level exceeds a predetermined vibration level threshold for at least two consecutive time intervals.
Dependent claims 5 & 15 recite, in part, wherein identifying the anomaly includes evaluating whether a reference classified vibration level from a second vibration … is comparable to the classified vibration level.
Dependent claims 6 & 16 recite, in part, determines that the anomaly is a roughness of the road in response to the reference classified vibration level from the second vibration … being comparable to the classified vibration level.
Dependent claims 7 & 17 recite, in part, determines that the anomaly is a worn or flat tire in response to the reference classified vibration level from the second vibration … not being comparable to the classified vibration level.
Dependent claims 8 & 18 recite, in part, wherein identifying the anomaly further includes comparing a dominant frequency of the vibration measurement with a rotational frequency of a driveshaft of the truck.
Dependent claims 9 & 19 recite, in part, determines that the anomaly is related to the driveshaft in response to the dominant frequency being equal to or greater than the rotational frequency.
Dependent claims 10 & 20 recite, in part, wherein identifying the anomaly includes: comparing the velocity profile of the semi-trailer truck to an applied brake signal of the semi-trailer truck; in response to the velocity profile being consistent with the applied brake signal, evaluating whether the classified vibration level is comparable to a reference classified vibration level indicative of a normal braking event, and in response to the classified vibration level not being comparable to the reference classified vibration level indicative of the normal braking event, determining that the anomaly is related to a worn brake pad, disk, and/or drum.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 or 11 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same mental process abstract idea grouping as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claims 1 and 11 recite a vibration sensor positioned to sense vibrations of the wheel system. Claims 3 and 13 recite a wherein the vibration sensor is positioned at a wheel of the wheel system. Claims 5, 6 7, 15, 16, and 17 recite a second vibration sensor positioned at an axle of the wheel of the semi-trailer truck. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 11 recite an electronic processor (communicatively coupled to the vibration sensor). The specification notes that the processor “may be comprised of one or more generic or specialized processors” (see the instant description in ¶ 0021). The use of an electronic processor (communicatively coupled to the vibration sensor), in this case to perform the functions of the computer algorithm, only recites the electronic processor as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Claims 1 and 11 recite a perform a mitigation action in response to identifying the anomaly. The specification notes a plurality of embodiments for the mitigation action, including merely displaying a notification on a device (see the instant disclosure in ¶ 0059-62). The recitation of “a mitigation action” would amount to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (MPEP 2106.05(f)(I) see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 1 and 11 recite an electronic processor (communicatively coupled to the vibration sensor). Claims 1 and 11 recite a perform a mitigation action in response to identifying the anomaly.
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claims 1 and 11 recite a vibration sensor positioned to sense vibrations of the wheel system. Claims 3 and 13 recite a wherein the vibration sensor is positioned at a wheel of the wheel system. Claims 5, 6 7, 15, 16, and 17 recite a second vibration sensor positioned at an axle of the wheel of the semi-trailer truck. Utilizing a sensor to obtain vibration data of a vehicle is well understood, routine, and conventional activity at the time the invention was filed. This position is supported by Ahmed et al., Application of MEMS Accelerometers in Dynamic Vibration Monitoring of a Vehicle, 14(5) Micromachines (April 24, 2023) teaching on the utilization of vibration sensors to monitor structural health of an automobile as widely used in the § Introduction on p. 1 (treated as a review under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C) that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry). Therefore, the use of a vibration sensor to collect vibration data on an automobile is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanke (US Patent Application No. 20180082492)[hereinafter Stanke] in view of Hajizadeh and Lipsett, Anomaly detection in mining haul truck suspension struts, 5(1) The Int J of Condition Monitoring 9-19 (March 2015)[hereinafter Hajizadeh].
As per claim 1, Stanke teaches on the following limitations of the claim:
a system for predicting anomalies in a wheel system of a ... truck and a road upon which the semi-trailer truck is driven, the system comprising is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0079-83, ¶ 0087-91, ¶ 0100, and in the Figures at fig. 3 (teaching on a vibrational pattern diagnostic and alerting system for a truck/vehicle)
a vibration sensor positioned to sense vibrations of the wheel system; and is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0038 and ¶ 0081-82 (teaching on a sensing system for collecting various types of vibration data from the vehicle)
an electronic processor communicatively coupled to the vibration sensor, the electronic processor configured to is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0045-47 (teaching on a controller with corresponding computer hardware including a processor processing the collected vibration data)
determine a velocity profile of the semi-trailer truck is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0052-53 and ¶ 0090 (teaching on collecting velocity data)
obtain a vibration measurement is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0085 (teaching on collecting vibration data)
determine, from the vibration measurement, a classified vibration level is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0087-88 and ¶ 0090-91 (teaching on determining a frequency band/pattern order classification for the vibration)
determine whether the classified vibration level is indicative of an anomaly is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0087 (teaching on determining that the vibration order is outside a natural/expected frequency)
identify, based on whether the classified vibration level is indicative of the anomaly and both the velocity profile and a reference classified vibration level, an anomaly existing within either or both of the semi-trailer truck wheel system or the road; and is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0087-91, ¶ 0079, and ¶ 0100 (teaching on identifying a particular issue source from the vibration order outside an expected frequency and a rotational velocity parameter range wherein the source may be the wheel system or roadway conditions)
perform a mitigation action in response to identifying the anomaly is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0092 and ¶ 0100 (teaching on generating a diagnostic recommendation for the identified particular issue)
Stanke fails to teach the following limitation of claim 1. Hajizadeh, however, does teach the following:
semi-trailer truck is taught in the § 1. Introduction on p. 10 col 1 (teaching on anomaly detection in haul trucks from sensor data)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would combine the truck vibrational and velocity pattern diagnostic and alerting system of Stanke with a commercial hauling truck of Hajizadeh with the motivation of “providing advantages for driver safety and reliable operation by reducing incidents that can incur millions of dollars in breakdown maintenance costs” (Hajizadeh in the Abstract on p. 9).
Independent claim 11 is rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 2, the combination of Stanke and Hajizadeh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Stanke also discloses the following:
the system of claim 1, wherein determining the classified vibration level includes performing a simulation with a digital twin using the vibration measurement is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0086-878 (teaching on determining the frequency band/pattern order classifications from dynamic modeling (treated as synonymous to a simulation) from a vehicle component dynamics models (treated as synonymous to a digital twin) - this interpretation is consistent with the instant specification in ¶ 0049 wherein the disclosure has no details regarding the meets and bounds of the "digital twin" outside of stating it is a component based modeling "to predict or simulate how one or more physical components of the wheel system" is affected by different inputs)
Dependent claim 12 is rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 3, the combination of Stanke and Hajizadeh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Stanke also discloses the following:
the system of claim 1, wherein the vibration sensor is positioned at a wheel of the wheel system is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0038 and ¶ 0081-82 (teaching on a sensing system for collecting various types of vibration data from the vehicle from at least the chassis system)
Dependent claim 13 is rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 4, the combination of Stanke and Hajizadeh discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Stanke also discloses the following:
the system of claim 3, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to determine whether the classified vibration level exceeds a predetermined vibration level threshold for at least two consecutive time intervals is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0082-83, ¶ 0087-88, and ¶ 0090-91 (teaching on determining a frequency band/pattern order classification for the vibration wherein the classifications are rages over a time interval including a frequency of at least two)
Dependent claim 14 is rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 5, the combination of Stanke and Hajizadeh discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Stanke also discloses the following:
the system of claim 4, wherein identifying the anomaly includes evaluating whether a reference classified vibration level from a second vibration sensor is comparable to the classified vibration level, wherein the second vibration sensor is positioned at an axle of the wheel of the semi-trailer truck is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0087-91, ¶ 0079, and ¶ 0100 (teaching on identifying a particular issue source from the vibration order outside an expected frequency and a rotational velocity parameter range wherein the source may be the wheel system or roadway conditions and the vibrations are collected from all four wheel sensors)
Dependent claim 15 is rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 6, the combination of Stanke and Hajizadeh discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Stanke also discloses the following:
the system of claim 5, wherein the electronic processor determines that the anomaly is a roughness of the road in response to the reference classified vibration level from the second vibration sensor being comparable to the classified vibration level is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0087-91, ¶ 0079, and ¶ 0100 (teaching on identifying a particular issue source from the vibration order outside an expected frequency and a rotational velocity parameter range wherein the source may be the wheel system or roadway conditions (treated as synonymous to "roughness of the road") and the vibrations are collected from all four wheel sensors)
Dependent claim 16 is rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 7, the combination of Stanke and Hajizadeh discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Stanke also discloses the following:
the system of claim 5, wherein the electronic processor determines that the anomaly is a worn or flat tire in response to the reference classified vibration level from the second vibration sensor not being comparable to the classified vibration level is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0086-91, ¶ 0079, and ¶ 0100 (teaching on identifying a particular issue source from the vibration order outside an expected frequency and a rotational velocity parameter range wherein the source may be the wheel system including material characteristics of the vehicle's components or tire pressure (treated as synonymous to worn tire or flat tire) or roadway conditions and the vibrations are collected from all four wheel sensors)
Dependent claim 17 is rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 8, the combination of Stanke and Hajizadeh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Stanke also discloses the following:
the system of claim 1, wherein identifying the anomaly further includes comparing a dominant frequency of the vibration measurement with a rotational frequency of a driveshaft of the truck is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0082-83, ¶ 0087-88, and ¶ 0090-91 (teaching on determining a frequency band/pattern order classification for the vibration wherein the classifications are rages over a time interval including a driveshaft rotational frequency of at least two)
Dependent claim 18 is rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 9, the combination of Stanke and Hajizadeh discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Stanke also discloses the following:
the system of claim 8, wherein the electronic processor determines that the anomaly is related to the driveshaft in response to the dominant frequency being equal to or greater than the rotational frequency is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0082-83, ¶ 0087-88, and ¶ 0090-91 (teaching on determining a frequency band/pattern order classification for the vibration wherein the classifications are rages over a time interval including a driveshaft rotational frequency of at least two wherein the second-order problem has a frequency greater than the rotational velocity of the wheel indicating a problem with the vehicle)
Dependent claim 19 is rejected under the same rational.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanke (US Patent Application No. 20180082492)[hereinafter Stanke] in view of Hajizadeh and Lipsett, Anomaly detection in mining haul truck suspension struts, 5(1) THE INT J OF CONDITION MONITORING 9-19 (March 2015)[hereinafter Hajizadeh] in further view of Manghai and Jegadeeshwaran, Vibration based brake health monitoring using wavelet features: A machine learning approach, 25(18) J of Vibration and Control 2534-2550 (2019)[hereinafter Manghai]
As per claim 10, the combination of Stanke and Hajizadeh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Stanke also discloses the following:
the system of claim 1, wherein identifying the anomaly includes: comparing the velocity profile of the semi-trailer truck to an ... signal of the semi-trailer truck is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0087-91 and ¶ 0095 (teaching on identifying a particular issue source from the vibration order outside an expected frequency and a rotational velocity parameter range wherein the source may be the wheel system or roadway conditions wherein if the vehicle is close to zero (treated as synonymous to breaking), the issue is attributed to signal noise)
Stanke fails to teach the following; Manghai, however, does disclose:
the system of claim 1, wherein identifying the anomaly includes: comparing the velocity profile of the semi-trailer truck to an applied brake signal of the semi-trailer truck; in response to the velocity profile being consistent with the applied brake signal, evaluating whether the classified vibration level is comparable to a reference classified vibration level indicative of a normal braking event, and in response to the classified vibration level not being comparable to the reference classified vibration level indicative of the normal braking event is taught in the § I. Introduction on p. 2534-2535, Fig. 11 on p. 2543, and § 6. Comparative study on p. 2547-2548 (teaching on evaluating breaking load signals with classified vibration signals to determine a "good condition" or break fault incident )
determining that the anomaly is related to a worn brake pad, disk, and/or drum is taught in the § 7. Conclusion on p. 2549, Fig. 11 on p. 2543, and in Fig. 5 on p. 2539 (teaching on determining nine break fault conditions including brake pad, disc, or drum wear)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would combine the truck vibrational and velocity pattern diagnostic and alerting system of Stanke with a break fault determination of Manghai with the motivation of “provid[ing] reliable and effective performance in order to ensure safety” (Manghai in the Abstract on p. 2534).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Albert Luis Soto, Real-Time Sensor Data Development for Smart Truck Drivetrains, Thesis Fulfillment for The University of Texas at Austin (Dec 2017) teaching on analyzing vibration patterns for commercial simi-truck drivetrain health analysis in the § Sensor Data Monitoring & Fusion starting on p. 70
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights