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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/7/25. Applicants’ arguments regarding Inventions 1 and 4 were found persuasive. Claims 1-7 and 20-27 will be examined.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann et al (US PG Pub No. 2022/0126834) in view of Hoare et al (US Patent No. 10,183,676)
Regarding claim 1, Schiffmann teaches A wheel end module for a heavy-duty vehicle, the wheel end module comprising a processing device (paragraph 32 and 36 figure 1), a dual polarized radar module (32 figure 1 paragraph 30-31 and 36-37) arranged to transmit a radar signal towards a surface supporting the vehicle, and a load sensing arrangement, (paragraph 31-34 receive backscatter)
where the processing device is arranged to determine a parameter related to a normal force associated with at least one wheel of the heavy-duty vehicle by the load sensing arrangement, (figure 3 paragraph 45-47 longitudinal force of each wheel is F and N normal force)
where the processing device is arranged to determine a parameter related to a friction coefficient of the surface by the radar module, (76 figure 3 paragraph 50 friction characteristic)
where the processing device is arranged to determine a wheel force generating capability of the at least one wheel, based on the normal force related parameter and on the friction coefficient related parameter, (paragraph 51 and 52 friction characteristic is determined then adequate braking distance is determined)
where the wheel end module is arranged to output the wheel force generating capability on an output interface of the wheel end module. (78 figure 3 paragraph 51)
Schiffmann does not explicitly teach however Hoare teaches and to receive backscatter from the radar signal (column 7 line 62-67 and column 8 line 1-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schiffmann based on the teachings of Hoare to teach and to receive backscatter from the radar signal. The motivation would be to detect and area of low friction caused by water ice or wet grass (Hoare column 7 line 60-65).
Regarding claim 3, Schiffmann teaches where the radar module is arranged to determine a distance to the surface in connection to the at least one wheel based on the radar signal, where the processing device is arranged to determine the normal force related parameter based on the distance to the surface and on a predetermined relation between normal force and distance to the surface. (76 figure 3 underneath vehicle; compute road surface).
Regarding claim 4, Schiffmann teaches where the processing device is arranged to determine the normal force related parameter as a preconfigured default value (paragraph 47 assuming that normal force N is the same).
Regarding claim 5, Schiffmann teaches where the radar module is configured to determine a velocity of the at least one wheel with respect to the surface, and where the wheel end module is arranged to output the velocity on the output interface (figure 3 see figure 2 box; figure 2 60 compute wheel slip paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 6, Schiffmann teaches comprising at least one wheel speed sensor, or an interface to a wheel speed sensor, where the wheel speed sensor is arranged to determine respective rotational velocities of the at least one wheel, (figure 2 wheel rotation speed paragraph 41-43) wherein the processing device is arranged to determine a wheel slip and/or a slip angle of the at least one wheel based on the rotational velocity and on the velocity of the at least one wheel with respect to the surface, where the wheel end module is arranged to output the wheel slip and/or the slip angle on the output interface (paragraph 43 braking slip rotation to provide wheel slip provided in 62).
Regarding claim 7, Schiffmann teaches comprising an electric machine, where the processing device is arranged to control an axle speed of the electric machine based on a target wheel slip received on an input interface of the wheel end module (paragraph 51 examiner interprets vehicle brakes as electric machine there are electric control in many vehicle brakes).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann et al (US PG Pub No. 2022/0126834) and Hoare et al (US Patent No. 10,183,676) in view of Lempkowski et al (US Patent No. 5,621,413)
Regarding claim 2, Schiffman does not teach however Lempkowski teaches where the load sensing arrangement comprises a suspension displacement sensor and/or a suspension bellow pressure sensor arranged in connection to the at least one wheel, where the processing device is arranged to determine the normal force related parameter based on a predetermined relation between normal force and suspension displacement and/or suspension bellow pressure. (abstract 635 figure 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schiffman based on the teachings of Lempkowski to teach where the load sensing arrangement comprises a suspension displacement sensor and/or a suspension bellow pressure sensor arranged in connection to the at least one wheel, where the processing device is arranged to determine the normal force related parameter based on a predetermined relation between normal force and suspension displacement and/or suspension bellow pressure. The motivation would be to use metric in antiskid braking systems (Lempkowski column 1 line 10-20)
Claim(s) 21, 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann et al (US PG Pub No. 2022/0126834) in view of Hoare et al (US Patent No. 10,183,676)
Regarding claim 21, Schiffmann teaches A computer implemented method for determining a wheel force generating capability of at least one wheel on a heavy-duty vehicle, the method comprising
transmitting a radar signal by a radar transceiver towards a surface supporting the vehicle, and receiving backscatter from the transmitted radar signal, where the radar signal comprises, processing the received backscatter by a processing device to
determine a parameter related to a friction coefficient of the surface,
determining a parameter related to a normal force associated with the at least one wheel of the heavy-duty vehicle by a load sensing arrangement of the heavy-duty vehicle, and
determining the wheel force generating capability of the of at least one wheel based on the normal force related parameter and on the friction coefficient related parameter. (see claim 1 above)
Schiffmann does not explicitly teach however Hoare teaches a first polarization component and a second polarization component different from the first polarization component (column 7 line 62-67 and column 8 line 1-25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schiffmann based on the teachings of Hoare to teach a first polarization component and a second polarization component different from the first polarization component. The motivation would be to detect and area of low friction caused by water ice or wet grass (Hoare column 7 line 60-65).
Additionally, as the restriction is withdrawn, claim 21 is rejected under the limitations of claim 1 as the limitations of claim 21 are obvious variants of rejected claim 1 as applicant admitted on page 2 of restriction response that inventions 1 and 4 are variants of each other. See MPEP 803
Regarding claim 23, see the rejection of claim 3 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Regarding claim 24, Schiffmann teaches comprising coordinating one or more motion support devices, MSD, based on the friction coefficient related parameter (78 figure 3 paragraph 510.)
Regarding claim 25, Schiffmann teaches comprising determining an operational design domain, ODD, of the heavy-duty vehicle comprising a maximum longitudinal velocity and/or a maximum lateral velocity at least partly based on the friction coefficient related parameter (78 figure 3 paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 26, Schiffman teaches A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the method of claim 21 (figure 2 and 3, 78 paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 27, Schiffman teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 21. (figure 2 and 3, 78 paragraph 51).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann et al (US PG Pub No. 2022/0126834) and Hoare et al (US Patent No. 10,183,676) in view of Lempkowski et al (US Patent No. 5,621,413)
Regarding claim 22, see the rejection of claim 2 as the limitations are substantially similar
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747