DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on April 12, 2024.
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Apparatus and method for estimating lateral velocity of vehicle”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0009]: Language “However, when the vehicle drives along a straight road, the longitudinal velocity and the lateral velocity are dependent on each other. However, when the vehicle drives along a curved road, the longitudinal velocity and the lateral velocity are dependent on each other” recites all possible options (i.e., straight and curved road) while describing no differences in the relationship between longitudinal and lateral velocities (i.e., both are dependent on each other), however, the language appears to emphasize as if there were differences in the relationship between longitudinal and lateral velocities. Clarification is required.
[0015]: Paragraph should end with a period in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0032]: Language “According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the deterring of the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle …” should read “According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the determining of the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle …” in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0061]: Language “In the instant case, the lateral velocity of the vehicle may be utilized to a human machine interface (HMI)” should read “In the instant case, the lateral velocity of the vehicle may be transmitted to a human machine interface (HMI)” in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0071]: Language “FIG. 3 is a view exemplarily illustrating a process of determining a longitudinal velocity of a vehicle by a controller provided in an apparatus for estimating a lateral velocity of the vehicle …” should read “FIG. 3 is a view exemplarily illustrating a process of determining a lateral velocity of a vehicle by a controller provided in an apparatus for estimating a lateral velocity of the vehicle …” in order to correct for minor informalities.
[0090]: Language “The above description is merely an example of the technical idea of the present disclosure, and various modifications and modifications may be made …” should read “The above description is merely an example of the technical idea of the present disclosure, and various modifications .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “… which is measured through a wheel speed sensor operatively connected to the controller” should read “… which is measured through [[a]]the wheel speed sensor operatively connected to the controller” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test (see italic text for abstract idea):
the limitation “obtain a longitudinal velocity, a lateral acceleration, and a yaw rate of the vehicle” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result (i.e., a longitudinal velocity; see specification at [0073]-[0076], [0079]-[0080]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to transform data and obtain a result.
the limitation “estimate the lateral velocity of the vehicle, which corresponds to the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate, based on the LSTM model” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result (i.e., the lateral velocity of the vehicle; see specification at [0010]-[0011], [0013], [0059]-[0060], [0085]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer elements/implementation (i.e., based on the LSTM model, see specification at [0047]), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data and obtain a result.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim (see non-italic text for additional elements):
“An apparatus for estimating a lateral velocity of a vehicle” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
“the apparatus comprising: a storage configured to store a long short-term memory (LSTM) model in a multiple input single output (MISO) type; and a controller operatively connected to the storage” adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“obtain a longitudinal velocity, a lateral acceleration, and a yaw rate of the vehicle” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
“estimate the lateral velocity of the vehicle, which corresponds to the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate, based on the LSTM model” adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., estimating a lateral velocity of a vehicle), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
append generic computer components (i.e., the apparatus comprising: a storage configured to store a long short-term memory (LSTM) model in a multiple input single output (MISO) type; and a controller operatively connected to the storage) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (i.e., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f), item 2); and
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering by selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 2-8 and 12-16), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source), generic computer components and/or field of use (Claims 7-9, 11 and 15-17), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
The examiner suggests applicant to positively recite the application of the lateral velocity of the vehicle in the related field (e.g., control driving of the vehicle based on the lateral velocity to improve stability of the vehicle; see specification at [0013]-[0015], [0052], [0085]) to improve the claims’ eligibility, since according to the Office guidance:
“Even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula or detailed mental process), the Court has held that a claim may not preempt that judicial exception” (see 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; “III. Update on Certain Areas of the USPTO’s Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Applicable to AI Inventions”, section “A. Evaluation of Whether a Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception (Step 2A)”); and
“For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 7, 9-11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (Kong D, Wen W, Zhao R, Lv Z, Liu K, Liu Y, Gao Z. Vehicle Lateral Velocity Estimation Based on Long Short-Term Memory Network. World Electric Vehicle Journal. 2022; 13(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj13010001, IDS reference), hereinafter ‘Kong’, in view of Ashrafi (US 5742919 A), hereinafter ‘Ashrafi’.
Regarding claim 1.
Kong discloses:
An apparatus for estimating a lateral velocity of a vehicle (Abstract: a deep learning method for estimating lateral velocity of a vehicle using a LSTM network is presented; examiner interprets the method to be run on a computer system), the apparatus comprising:
a long short-term memory (LSTM) model in a multiple input single output (MISO) type (p. 2, par. 4: an estimation model is based on an LSTM network having an architecture comprising multiple inputs and one output (see Fig. 4; see also p. 5, section “3.2. Definition of Lateral Velocity Estimation Problem” - p. 7, section “3.3.1. Sensor Input Layer”)); and
obtain a longitudinal velocity, a lateral acceleration, and a yaw rate of the vehicle (p. 6-7, section “3.3.1. Sensor Input Layer”: sensor inputs include longitudinal speed, lateral acceleration and yaw rate); and
estimate the lateral velocity of the vehicle, which corresponds to the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate, based on the LSTM model (p. 5, section “3.2. Definition of Lateral Velocity Estimation Problem” - p. 6, section “3.3. Lateral Velocity Estimation Model”: lateral velocity is estimated using the sensor inputs and the LSTM network).
Kong does not explicitly disclose (see italic text):
the apparatus comprising: a storage configured to store the long short-term memory (LSTM) model; and a controller operatively connected to the storage and configured to perform the recited steps (see above).
Ashrafi teaches:
“Referring now to FIG. 5, a processor means within control module 16 operates on data provided by speed module 22, steering angle sensor 24, yaw rate sensor 26 and lateral acceleration sensor 28. Data from the speed module, steering angle, yaw rate and lateral acceleration sensors are fed into a central processor unit (CPU) 56, by means of input/output circuits (I/O). 54 … A random access memory (RAM), 58, stores data for use by the CPU … The CPU processes data from the speed module, steering angle, yaw rate and lateral acceleration sensors according to the algorithms shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 to compensate yaw rate and lateral acceleration signals and to determine there from a lateral velocity signal for controlling the dynamics of the motor vehicle” (col. 4, line 49 – col. 5, line 9: a control module (apparatus) includes CPU (controller) and memory (storage) for storing data from sensors and determine lateral velocity of a vehicle according to algorithms (analogous to LSTM model) and the data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi to incorporate the apparatus comprising: a storage configured to store a long short-term memory (LSTM) model; and a controller operatively connected to the storage and configured to perform the steps described in Kong, in order to facilitate the analysis while improving the accuracy of the results.
Regarding claim 7.
Kong in view of Ashrafi discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Kong does not explicitly disclose:
the controller is further configured to: determine the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, through a wheel speed sensor operatively connected to the controller.
Ashrafi further teaches:
“Although many types of automotive speed sensors are known, one type suitable for use with a system according to the present invention comprises a speed module 22 for receiving input from speed sensors 14 located at each of the four wheels. The speed module derives a longitudinal vehicle speed signal by combining the signals from the speed sensors 14” (col. 3, lines 34-40: speed sensors positioned in the wheels send measurements to a speed module (analogous to controller) in order to derive longitudinal vehicle speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi to configure the controller to: determine the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, through a wheel speed sensor operatively connected to the controller, in order to utilize reliable measurements for accurate determination of the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9.
Kong in view of Ashrafi discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Kong further discloses:
the controller is further configured to: obtain the lateral acceleration and the yaw rate of the vehicle from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor operatively connected to the controller (p. 6, section “3.3.1. Sensor Input Layer”: yaw rate and lateral acceleration are measured by IMU (see claim 1 for controller; see also Ashrafi at Fig. 5 regarding yaw rate sensor and lateral acceleration sensor connected to control module)).
Regarding claim 10.
Kong discloses:
A method for estimating a lateral velocity of a vehicle (Abstract: a deep learning method for estimating lateral velocity of a vehicle using a LSTM network is presented), the method comprising:
a long short-term memory (LSTM) model in a multiple input single output (MISO) type (p. 2, par. 4: an estimation model is based on an LSTM network having an architecture comprising multiple inputs and one output (see Fig. 4; see also p. 5, section “3.2. Definition of Lateral Velocity Estimation Problem” - p. 7, section “3.3.1. Sensor Input Layer”));
obtaining a longitudinal velocity, a lateral acceleration, and a yaw rate of the vehicle (p. 6-7, section “3.3.1. Sensor Input Layer”: sensor inputs include longitudinal speed, lateral acceleration and yaw rate); and
estimating the lateral velocity of the vehicle, which corresponds to the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate, based on the LSTM model (p. 5, section “3.2. Definition of Lateral Velocity Estimation Problem” - p. 6, section “3.3. Lateral Velocity Estimation Model”: lateral velocity is estimated using the sensor inputs and the LSTM network).
Kong does not explicitly disclose (see italic text):
storing, by a storage, the long short-term memory (LSTM) model; and the obtaining and estimating are performed by a controller operatively connected to the storage.
Ashrafi teaches:
“Referring now to FIG. 5, a processor means within control module 16 operates on data provided by speed module 22, steering angle sensor 24, yaw rate sensor 26 and lateral acceleration sensor 28. Data from the speed module, steering angle, yaw rate and lateral acceleration sensors are fed into a central processor unit (CPU) 56, by means of input/output circuits (I/O). 54 … A random access memory (RAM), 58, stores data for use by the CPU … The CPU processes data from the speed module, steering angle, yaw rate and lateral acceleration sensors according to the algorithms shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 to compensate yaw rate and lateral acceleration signals and to determine there from a lateral velocity signal for controlling the dynamics of the motor vehicle” (col. 4, line 49 – col. 5, line 9: a control module includes CPU (controller) and memory (storage) for storing data from sensors and determine lateral velocity of a vehicle according to algorithms (analogous to LSTM model) and the data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi to store, by a storage, the long short-term memory (LSTM) model; and to perform the obtaining and estimating steps described in Kong by a controller operatively connected to the storage, in order to facilitate the analysis while improving the accuracy of the results.
Regarding claim 11.
Kong in view of Ashrafi discloses all the features of claim 10 as described above.
Kong further discloses:
the obtaining of the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate of the vehicle includes: obtaining, by the controller, a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle (p. 6-7, section “3.3.1. Sensor Input Layer”: longitudinal acceleration is also collected (see claim 10 for controller)).
Regarding claim 15.
Kong in view of Ashrafi discloses all the features of claim 10 as described above.
Kong does not explicitly disclose:
the obtaining of the longitudinal velocity, the lateral velocity, and the yaw rate of the vehicle includes: determining, by the controller, the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, through a wheel speed sensor operatively connected to the controller.
Ashrafi further teaches:
“Although many types of automotive speed sensors are known, one type suitable for use with a system according to the present invention comprises a speed module 22 for receiving input from speed sensors 14 located at each of the four wheels. The speed module derives a longitudinal vehicle speed signal by combining the signals from the speed sensors 14” (col. 3, lines 34-40: speed sensors positioned in the wheels send measurements to a speed module (analogous to controller) in order to derive longitudinal vehicle speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi to incorporate the obtaining of the longitudinal velocity, the lateral velocity, and the yaw rate of the vehicle including: determining, by the controller, the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, through a wheel speed sensor operatively connected to the controller, in order to utilize reliable measurements for accurate determination of the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 17.
Kong in view of Ashrafi discloses all the features of claim 10 as described above.
Kong further discloses:
the obtaining of the longitudinal velocity, the lateral velocity, and the yaw rate of the vehicle includes: obtaining, by the controller, the lateral acceleration and the yaw rate of the vehicle from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor operatively connected to the controller (p. 6, section “3.3.1. Sensor Input Layer”: yaw rate and lateral acceleration are measured by IMU (see claim 1 for controller; see also Ashrafi at Fig. 5 regarding yaw rate sensor and lateral acceleration sensor connected to control module)).
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Ashrafi, and in further view of Yoshioka (JP 3572920 B2), hereinafter ‘Yoshioka’.
Regarding claim 2.
Kong in view of Ashrafi discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Kong does not disclose:
the controller is further configured to: obtain a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle and determine whether a wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, by use of the longitudinal velocity and the longitudinal acceleration.
Yoshioka teaches:
“When a slip occurs in the tire, the wheel speed v3 rapidly increases, and when the difference between the wheel acceleration d(v3)/dt of the wheel at the third wheel speed and the longitudinal G detected by the longitudinal acceleration sensor 48C becomes larger than a predetermined amount, the tire slips” ([0084]: wheel slip is determined based on wheel speed (analogous to longitudinal velocity) and the longitudinal acceleration (G) (see also [0082]-[0083], [0085]-[0086]; see also Zhang reference cited below at p. 3, par. 2 regarding longitudinal speed being estimated based on slip condition)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi, and in further view of Yoshioka to configure the controller to: obtain a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle and determine whether a wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, by use of the longitudinal velocity and the longitudinal acceleration, in order to establish the vehicle road conditions for accurate calculations and reliable results.
Regarding claim 5.
Kong in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka discloses all the features of claim 2 as described above.
Kong does not disclose:
the controller is further configured to: determine whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, based on a difference between a variation in the longitudinal velocity and the longitudinal acceleration.
Yoshioka further teaches:
“When a slip occurs in the tire, the wheel speed v3 rapidly increases, and when the difference between the wheel acceleration d(v3)/dt of the wheel at the third wheel speed and the longitudinal G detected by the longitudinal acceleration sensor 48C becomes larger than a predetermined amount, the tire slips” ([0084]: when wheel slip occurs, wheel speed increases (analogous to variation in the longitudinal velocity), and a difference between the wheel acceleration, which is determined from wheel speed (i.e., dv3/dt), and the longitudinal acceleration (G) becomes larger than a predetermined amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka to configure the controller to: determine whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, based on a difference between a variation in the longitudinal velocity and the longitudinal acceleration, in order to provide robust determination of vehicle road conditions for accurate calculations and reliable results.
Regarding claim 6.
Kong in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka discloses all the features of claim 2 as described above.
Kong does not disclose:
the controller is further configured to: determine whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, based on a differential value of the longitudinal velocity.
Yoshioka further teaches:
“When a slip occurs in the tire, the wheel speed v3 rapidly increases, and when the difference between the wheel acceleration d(v3)/dt of the wheel at the third wheel speed and the longitudinal G detected by the longitudinal acceleration sensor 48C becomes larger than a predetermined amount, the tire slips” ([0084]: when wheel slip occurs, wheel speed increases, and a difference between the wheel acceleration, which is determined as a differential value of the wheel speed (i.e., dv3/dt, analogous to differential value of the longitudinal velocity) and the longitudinal acceleration (G) becomes larger than a predetermined amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka to configure the controller to: determine whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, based on a differential value of the longitudinal velocity, in order to provide robust determination of vehicle road conditions for accurate calculations and reliable results.
Claims 3-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka, and in further view of Zhang (Zhang D, Song Q, Wang G, Liu C. A Novel Longitudinal Speed Estimator for Four-Wheel Slip in Snowy Conditions. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(6):2809. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062809), hereinafter ‘Zhang’.
Regarding claim 3.
Kong in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka discloses all the features of claim 2 as described above.
Kong further discloses:
the controller is further configured to: estimate the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, the lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and the yaw rate of the vehicle (p. 5, section “3.2. Definition of Lateral Velocity Estimation Problem” - p. 6, section “3.3. Lateral Velocity Estimation Model”: lateral velocity is estimated using the sensor inputs including the longitudinal velocity, lateral acceleration and yaw rate).
Kong does not explicitly disclose (see italic text):
the estimation is in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle does not occur.
Zhang teaches:
“Estimating longitudinal speed based on wheel speed and estimating based on acceleration are quite different. The former is more accurate without wheel slip while the latter is better without frequent switching between acceleration and deceleration” (p. 3, par. 2: longitudinal speed is estimated from wheel speed when no wheel slip, therefore, when no wheel slip is detected, wheel speed is more reliable for calculating longitudinal speed, which is used for estimating lateral velocity according to Kong’s disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka, and in further view of Zhang, to perform the estimation in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle does not occur, in order to establish the vehicle road conditions for accurate calculations and reliable results.
Regarding claim 4.
Kong in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka discloses all the features of claim 2 as described above.
Kong further discloses:
the controller is further configured to: estimate the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the final longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate (p. 5, section “3.2. Definition of Lateral Velocity Estimation Problem” - p. 6, section “3.3. Lateral Velocity Estimation Model”: lateral velocity is estimated using the sensor inputs including the longitudinal velocity, lateral acceleration and yaw rate).
Kong does not explicitly disclose (see italic text):
estimate a final longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, using the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle; and
the estimation of the lateral velocity of the vehicle is in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs.
Zhang teaches:
“Estimating longitudinal speed based on wheel speed and estimating based on acceleration are quite different. The former is more accurate without wheel slip while the latter is better without frequent switching between acceleration and deceleration” (p. 3, par. 2: longitudinal speed (final longitudinal velocity) is estimated from wheel speed when no wheel slip (analogous to longitudinal velocity), and from the acceleration (analogous to longitudinal acceleration) when slip occurs; therefore, when slip is detected, longitudinal acceleration is more reliable for calculating longitudinal speed, which is used for estimating lateral velocity according to Kong’s disclosure (see also Yoshioka at [0083] regarding when slip occurs, vehicle speed (analogous to final longitudinal velocity) is determined from longitudinal acceleration G, otherwise, vehicle speed is based on wheel speed (analogous to longitudinal velocity under no slip conditions))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka, and in further view of Zhang, to estimate a final longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, using the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle; and to perform the estimation of the lateral velocity of the vehicle in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, in order to establish the vehicle road conditions for accurate calculations and reliable results.
Regarding claim 12.
Kong in view of Ashrafi discloses all the features of claim 11 as described above.
Kong further discloses:
the estimating of the lateral velocity of the vehicle includes:
estimating, by the controller, the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate (p. 5, section “3.2. Definition of Lateral Velocity Estimation Problem” - p. 6, section “3.3. Lateral Velocity Estimation Model”: lateral velocity is estimated using the sensor inputs including the longitudinal velocity, lateral acceleration and yaw rate (see claim 10 for controller)); and
estimating the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the final longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate (p. 5, section “3.2. Definition of Lateral Velocity Estimation Problem” - p. 6, section “3.3. Lateral Velocity Estimation Model”: lateral velocity is estimated using the sensor inputs including the longitudinal velocity, lateral acceleration and yaw rate (see claim 10 for controller)).
Kong does not disclose (see italic text):
determining, by the controller, whether a wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, by use of the longitudinal velocity and the longitudinal acceleration;
estimating, by the controller, the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle does not occur;
estimating, by the controller, a final longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, using the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle; and
estimating the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the final longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate, in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs.
Regarding “determining, by the controller, whether a wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, by use of the longitudinal velocity and the longitudinal acceleration”, Yoshioka teaches:
“When a slip occurs in the tire, the wheel speed v3 rapidly increases, and when the difference between the wheel acceleration d(v3)/dt of the wheel at the third wheel speed and the longitudinal G detected by the longitudinal acceleration sensor 48C becomes larger than a predetermined amount, the tire slips” ([0084]: wheel slip is determined based on wheel speed (analogous to longitudinal velocity) and the longitudinal acceleration (G) (see also [0082]-[0083], [0085]-[0086]; see also Zhang at p. 3, par. 2 regarding longitudinal speed being estimated based on slip condition)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi, and in further view of Yoshioka, to determine, by the controller, whether a wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, by use of the longitudinal velocity and the longitudinal acceleration, in order to establish the vehicle road conditions for accurate calculations and reliable results.
Regarding “estimating, by the controller, the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle does not occur; estimating, by the controller, a final longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, using the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle; and estimating the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the final longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate, in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs”, Zhang teaches:
“Estimating longitudinal speed based on wheel speed and estimating based on acceleration are quite different. The former is more accurate without wheel slip while the latter is better without frequent switching between acceleration and deceleration” (p. 3, par. 2: longitudinal speed (or final longitudinal velocity) is estimated from wheel speed when no wheel slip (analogous to longitudinal velocity), and from the acceleration (analogous to longitudinal acceleration) when slip occurs; therefore, when no wheel slip is detected, wheel speed is more reliable for calculating longitudinal speed, which is used for estimating lateral velocity according to Kong’s disclosure; and when slip is detected, longitudinal acceleration is more reliable for calculating longitudinal speed, which is used for estimating lateral velocity according to Kong’s disclosure (see also Yoshioka at [0083] regarding when slip occurs, vehicle speed (analogous to final longitudinal velocity) is determined from longitudinal acceleration G, otherwise, vehicle speed is based on wheel speed (analogous to longitudinal velocity under no slip conditions))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi and Yoshioka, and in further view of Zhang, to estimate, by the controller, the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle does not occur; to estimate, by the controller, a final longitudinal velocity of the vehicle, using the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle; and to estimate the lateral velocity of the vehicle, based on the final longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate, in response that the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, in order to establish the vehicle road conditions for accurate calculations and reliable results.
Regarding claim 13.
Kong in view of Ashrafi, Yoshioka and Zhang discloses all the features of claim 12 as described above.
Kong does not disclose:
the determining of whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs includes: determining, by the controller, whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, based on a difference between a variation in the longitudinal velocity and the longitudinal acceleration.
Yoshioka further teaches:
“When a slip occurs in the tire, the wheel speed v3 rapidly increases, and when the difference between the wheel acceleration d(v3)/dt of the wheel at the third wheel speed and the longitudinal G detected by the longitudinal acceleration sensor 48C becomes larger than a predetermined amount, the tire slips” ([0084]: when wheel slip occurs, wheel speed increases (analogous to variation in the longitudinal velocity), and a difference between the wheel acceleration, which is determined from wheel speed (i.e., dv3/dt), and the longitudinal acceleration (G) becomes larger than a predetermined amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi, Yoshioka and Zhang, to incorporate the determining of whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs including: determining, by the controller, whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, based on a difference between a variation in the longitudinal velocity and the longitudinal acceleration, in order to provide robust determination of vehicle road conditions for accurate calculations and reliable results.
Regarding claim 14.
Kong in view of Ashrafi, Yoshioka and Zhang discloses all the features of claim 12 as described above.
Kong does not disclose:
the determining of the whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs includes: determining, by the controller, whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, based on a differential value of the longitudinal velocity.
Yoshioka further teaches:
“When a slip occurs in the tire, the wheel speed v3 rapidly increases, and when the difference between the wheel acceleration d(v3)/dt of the wheel at the third wheel speed and the longitudinal G detected by the longitudinal acceleration sensor 48C becomes larger than a predetermined amount, the tire slips” ([0084]: when wheel slip occurs, wheel speed increases, and a difference between the wheel acceleration, which is determined as a differential value of the wheel speed (i.e., dv3/dt, analogous to differential value of the longitudinal velocity) and the longitudinal acceleration (G) becomes larger than a predetermined amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi, Yoshioka and Zhang to incorporate the determining of the whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs including: determining, by the controller, whether the wheel slip of the vehicle occurs, based on a differential value of the longitudinal velocity, in order to provide robust determination of vehicle road conditions for accurate calculations and reliable results.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Ashrafi, and in further view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 8.
Kong in view of Ashrafi discloses all the features of claim 7 as described above.
Kong does not disclose:
the controller is further configured to: determine the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle by applying a tire model of the vehicle to a rotation velocity of a wheel of the vehicle, which is measured through the wheel speed sensor.
Zhang teaches:
“Estimating longitudinal speed based on wheel speed and estimating based on acceleration are quite different. The former is more accurate without wheel slip while the latter is better without frequent switching between acceleration and deceleration” (p. 3, par. 2: longitudinal speed is estimated from wheel speed); and
“The wheel speed signal from the wheel speed encoder is an angular speed. This angular wheel speed is determined by counting the number of ticks in each sampling period. The parameters marked on the tire, for example, 245/50 R19, indicate the width of the tire, the width-to-depth ratio and rim diameter, respectively. The actual rotating tire radius and the manufacturer’s tire radius can differ because tire pressure can affect the actual rotating tire radius. By multiplying the wheel radius and the tire rotation factor (η), the wheel speeds vi,j can be written as follows: Vi,j = 3.6∙ωij∙Rij∙ω.” (p. 3-4, section “2.1.1. Wheel Rotation Speed Calibration and Result Comparison”: wheel speed is obtained from angular wheel speed (rotation velocity) measured by wheel speed encoder and tire parameters (tire model)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi, and in further view of Zhang, to configure the controller to: determine the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle by applying a tire model of the vehicle to a rotation velocity of a wheel of the vehicle, which is measured through the wheel speed sensor, in order to utilize reliable measurements corresponding to the actual tire conditions for accurate determination of the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16.
Kong in view of Ashrafi discloses all the features of claim 15 as described above.
Kong does not disclose:
the determining of the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle includes: determining, by the controller, the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle by applying a tire model of the vehicle to a rotation velocity of a wheel of the vehicle, which is measured through a wheel speed sensor operatively connected to the controller.
Zhang teaches:
“Estimating longitudinal speed based on wheel speed and estimating based on acceleration are quite different. The former is more accurate without wheel slip while the latter is better without frequent switching between acceleration and deceleration” (p. 3, par. 2: longitudinal speed is estimated from wheel speed); and
“The wheel speed signal from the wheel speed encoder is an angular speed. This angular wheel speed is determined by counting the number of ticks in each sampling period. The parameters marked on the tire, for example, 245/50 R19, indicate the width of the tire, the width-to-depth ratio and rim diameter, respectively. The actual rotating tire radius and the manufacturer’s tire radius can differ because tire pressure can affect the actual rotating tire radius. By multiplying the wheel radius and the tire rotation factor (η), the wheel speeds vi,j can be written as follows: Vi,j = 3.6∙ωij∙Rij∙ω.” (p. 3-4, section “2.1.1. Wheel Rotation Speed Calibration and Result Comparison”: wheel speed is obtained from angular wheel speed (rotation velocity) measured by wheel speed encoder and tire parameters (tire model)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong in view of Ashrafi, and in further view of Zhang, to incorporate the determining of the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle including: determining, by the controller, the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle by applying a tire model of the vehicle to a rotation velocity of a wheel of the vehicle, which is measured through a wheel speed sensor operatively connected to the controller, in order to utilize reliable measurements corresponding to the actual tire conditions for accurate determination of the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ISHIGURO KAZUNORI et al., JP 2924802 B2, Power transmission control device for vehicles
Reference discloses slip occurs when wheel speed rapidly increases and the difference between the wheel acceleration and the longitudinal acceleration is larger than a predetermined amount.
Um; Ik Jin et al., US 20220080952 A1, ROAD SURFACE RECOGNITION APPARATUS, VEHICLE HAVING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING VEHICLE
Reference discloses obtaining longitudinal slip ratio based on wheel speed data and longitudinal acceleration data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights