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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/683,550, filed on 07/09/2026. The application has a foreign Priority date of 08/19/2021.
Claims 15-28 filed on 05/20/2020 were examined. Claims 15-28 received on 002/14/2024 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 15 and 28 are currently amended. Claims 16-27 are presented as previous.
Definition of terms that may be used for citation purpose:
Figure = Fig., paragraph = P., column = Col., for example column 12 = Col. 12
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 .
Inventorship
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments have successfully overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections for claims 15-28. These rejections are therefore withdrawn.
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.
Claims 15, 20-23, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210012131) in view of TSUDA IKUYA (JP 2020157802 A).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses a method for determining and characterizing road unevenness of a roadway (¶0069, “ accurately determine the front-rear length of a pothole ”), comprising the following steps:
generating sensor data using at least one wheel speed sensor and/or at least one acceleration sensor of a motor vehicle driving on the roadway (¶0013, “The front-rear length of the bump of the sensor recognition information may be determined by starting to accumulate distances by integrating a wheel speed with respect to a unit time from a point in time when a variation of wheel acceleration determined through a wheel speed sensor”); and
determining and characterizing the road unevenness by an arithmetic unit using the generated sensor data, wherein the characterizing of the road unevenness includes determining at least a length, a width, and a depth of the road unevenness (¶0011, “the camera recognition information and the sensor recognition information related to the obstacle may be at least one of a distance between the vehicle and the obstacle, a front-rear length and height of a bump, and a front-rear length and depth of a pothole.”).
Kim does not explicitly disclose but, TSUDA teaches activating an anti-lock brake system of the motor vehicle to arrest at least partially a movement of the motor vehicle based on the road unevenness exceeding a threshold (¶0097, “ when the rough road amounts BAf and BAr are set to the first rough road amounts BAf1 and BAr1 which are small, the antilock brake control is relatively easy to be executed even if it is determined to be a rough road.”)
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the characterization of a road surface disclosed in Kim activating the antilock brake taught by TSUDA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted improving the accuracy of rough road determination and correction to improve the accuracy of antilock brake control.
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses wherein characterizing the road unevenness includes determining the depth and/or height of the road unevenness based on an amplitude of a change in wheel speed and/or based on an amplitude of a change in a vertical acceleration measured by the at least one acceleration sensor (¶0013).
Regarding claim 21, Kim discloses wherein the characterizing of the road unevenness takes place based on the sensor data of the at least one wheel speed sensor, and wherein a result of the characterizing of the road unevenness is made plausible based on the sensor data of the at least one acceleration sensor (¶0013-0014).
Regarding claim 22, Kim discloses wherein the wheel speed sensor senses pulses as a function of a movement of a pulse wheel arranged on a wheel of the motor vehicle, and wherein the characterizing of the road unevenness includes determining the length of the road unevenness based on the basis of a number of changes in the pulses in the time period between driving onto and leaving the road unevenness (¶0068).
Regarding claim 23, Kim discloses wherein the determining of the road unevenness includes determining a position of the road unevenness relative to a reference point of the motor vehicle based on a determined cornering and/or individual wheel evaluation (¶0047).
Regarding claim 26, Kim discloses wherein the arithmetic unit is an arithmetic unit external to the motor vehicle; and wherein the sensor data are output to the arithmetic unit via an interface of the motor vehicle (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 15.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210012131) in view of TSUDA IKUYA (JP 2020157802 A) and further in view of NAGAYAMA (JP 2017040486 A).
Regarding claim 16, Kim does not explicitly disclose but, NAGAYAMA teaches wherein the wheel speed sensor senses pulses as a function of a movement of a pulse wheel arranged on a wheel of the motor vehicle, wherein the arithmetic unit determines an angular profile of a wheel speed based on changes in the sensed pulses as a function of time, and wherein the arithmetic unit detects the road unevenness based on the determined angular profile of the wheel speed (page 08, lines 32-35, “road surface profile measuring apparatus and measuring method of the present invention, the angular velocity data ωf .sub.4 (h) sampled at the sampling frequency f .sub.4 measured by the angular velocity sensor”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the road surface profile taught in NAGAYAMA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted quickly and easily measure a road surface profile.
Regarding claim 17, NAGAYAMA further teaches wherein the arithmetic unit determines the road unevenness when a magnitude of an angular change in the wheel speed exceeds a threshold value (page 08, lines 32-35, “road surface profile measuring apparatus and measuring method of the present invention, the angular velocity data ωf .sub.4 (h) sampled at the sampling frequency f .sub.4 measured by the angular velocity sensor”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the road surface profile taught in NAGAYAMA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted quickly and easily measure a road surface profile.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210012131), TSUDA IKUYA (JP 2020157802 A) and further in view of MOERBE (DE 102018200330 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kim does not explicitly disclose but, MOERBE teaches wherein the arithmetic unit calculates a frequency behavior of a wheel speed based on the sensor data generated by the wheel speed sensor, and wherein the arithmetic unit determines the road unevenness based on the calculated frequency behavior of the wheel speed (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the frequency behavior taught in MOERBE with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more reliable damage detection.
Claims 19, 24, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210012131), TSUDA IKUYA (JP 2020157802 A) and further in view of KIMURA (JP 2020013537 A)
Regarding claim 19, Kim does not explicitly disclose but, KIMURA teaches wherein the arithmetic unit, for characterizing the road unevenness, determines a type and/or property of the road unevenness based on the sensor data (page 33, lines 1-2).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the frequency behavior taught in KIMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more reliable damage detection.
Regarding claim 24, KIMURA teaches wherein the arithmetic unit determines and/or characterizes the road unevenness by taking into account a driving situation or a driver event, including a braking event or acceleration event or a steering event or a speed of the motor vehicle (page 05, lines 1-9).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the frequency behavior taught in KIMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more reliable damage detection.
Regarding claim 25, KIMURA teaches wherein the arithmetic unit determines and/or characterizes the road unevenness using a machine learning model and/or statistical model which receives input data dependent on the sensor data (page 24, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 27, KIMURA teaches wherein the arithmetic unit is a control unit of an anti-lock brake system of the motor vehicle (page 05, line 14).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dougherty (9,88,6856) discloses Systems, methods, and apparatuses are described for communicating the occurrence of incident near misses between vehicles. In one embodiment, for example, a controller receives sensor data related to an operation of a vehicle. The sensor data is analyzed to determine whether a near collision has occurred with respect to the vehicle. A warning message is generated and transmitted in response to the determination that a near collision occurred (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights