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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 — Threshold recitations
Claim 1 recites in the body that “the determination threshold value changes according to a moving mean value of the axial accelerations,” and then recites in the wherein clause that the determination threshold value is “a value obtained by multiplying a moving mean value of the axial accelerations at predetermined time intervals by a predetermined coefficient.” It is unclear whether the body recitation is intended to define a broader relationship co-extensive with the wherein clause, or a distinct and additional requirement. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites that the wheel separation determination part acts “when the axial acceleration exhibits a sinusoidal pattern characteristic of wheel looseness.” The specification as filed does not describe a sinusoidal pattern. It describes only that “specific axial acceleration occurs when the nut is loosened” and illustrates that specific acceleration as discrete excursions above a threshold at timings t1 through t5 (FIG. 4; [0024], [0036]). Neither the term “sinusoidal” nor any equivalent description of a continuous periodic waveform appears in the disclosure. Applicant is accordingly required to identify support for this limitation in the application as filed or to cancel it as new matter.
It is further noted that this limitation, even if supported, does not distinguish over the art of record: Carlstrom expressly discloses that “Where a wheel is loose a sinusoidal acceleration pattern appears in the direction lateral to the vehicle's direction of travel” ([0007]), and claims data processing means “programmed to determine the presence of lateral acceleration exhibiting a sinusoidal profile as indication of a loose wheel.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 — Indefiniteness / antecedent basis
Claim 1, from which Claim 9 depends, recites “a wheel” in the singular. Claim 9 introduces “a plurality of wheels of the vehicle” and then recites “axial acceleration of the one wheel.” There is no antecedent basis for “the one wheel,” and it is unclear whether that phrase refers back to “a wheel” of Claim 1, to one unspecified member of the newly introduced plurality, or to a further wheel not previously recited.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0299573 A1 (Carlstrom) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0007632 A1 (Welch).
Claims 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0299573 A1 (Carlstrom) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0007632 A1 (Welch), and further in view of European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 795 448 A2 (Yamaura).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Carlstrom
Carlstrom discloses:
A wheel state determination apparatus comprising:
See at least:
“FIG. 1 illustrates a vehicle drive train 10 to which the system and method of the invention are applied.” (Carlstrom m0016)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses a vehicle-based system for analyzing wheel acceleration and identifying wheel and tire conditions. The disclosed vehicle drive-train system corresponds to the claimed wheel state determination apparatus.
an acceleration acquisition part
See at least:
“Wheel acceleration data is generated by the ten accelerometers 19 mounted with respect to each wheel including each of the two wheels in dual mounted pairs.” (Carlstrom 0018)
Rationale: The accelerometers generate wheel acceleration data, thereby disclosing an acceleration acquisition part. The claimed designation “part” describes the function performed by the disclosed accelerometers and associated vehicle electronics.
that sequentially acquires axial accelerations
See at least:
“The accelerometers 19 are wireless devices and signals therefrom are received by a wireless receiver 24 which is coupled to the ABS system controller 22 or to body computer 26. ABS system controller 22 may be adapted to handle the additional data stream representing acceleration data.” (Carlstrom 0018)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses an acceleration data stream supplied to a controller. Sequential acquisition is at least implicit, and would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, because a data stream representing changing wheel acceleration necessarily consists of successive acceleration measurements processed over time. The axial characterization is addressed by the disclosed wheel-lateral acceleration geometry below.
in an axial direction of a wheel
See at least:
“The placement of the two axis accelerometers 19 on the wheels, displaced a predetermined distance from axis of rotation of the wheels, allows the accelerometers to detect rotational acceleration and lateral acceleration of the wheels.” (Carlstrom 0019)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly identifies lateral acceleration of a wheel. In a conventional vehicle-wheel coordinate system, the direction lateral to the vehicle’s direction of travel corresponds to the direction along the wheel’s rotational axis. Accordingly, selecting Carlstrom’s lateral channel as the wheel-axis channel would have been a PHOSITA-obvious geometric identification, rather than a change to the disclosed sensor arrangement.
while a vehicle is traveling,
See at least:
“At a constant vehicle speed in a straight line, or steady state turn, the wheels should exhibit, at any fixed point on the wheel which is displaced from the axis of rotation, a fixed point rotational velocity which varies sinusoidally.” (Carlstrom 0019)
Rationale: The cited disclosure expressly evaluates wheel acceleration while the vehicle is moving at a vehicle speed. Thus, the recited traveling condition is disclosed.
the axial accelerations being detected
See at least:
“The accelerometers 19 measure both rotational acceleration and lateral acceleration.” (Carlstrom 0016)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses detection of wheel acceleration. In view of the preceding wheel-axis identification, the disclosed lateral acceleration measurements correspond to the claimed axial acceleration measurements.
by an acceleration sensor attached to a wheel member
See at least:
“Each dual rear drive wheel assembly has an accelerometer 19 installed on both its inner and outer wheel.” (Carlstrom 0016)
Rationale: An accelerometer installed on a wheel is an acceleration sensor attached to a wheel member.
of each wheel of the vehicle; and
See at least:
“A front steering axle 32 is provided with wheels 34R and 34L, each having an accelerometer 19 installed thereon.” (Carlstrom 0016)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses an accelerometer installed on each of the identified vehicle wheels. The same paragraph also discloses accelerometers on the inner and outer wheels of the dual rear assemblies.
a wheel separation determination part
See at least:
“As illustrated in FIG. 5, an analogous circuit 500 provides for comparing the observed acceleration signal to a comparator 504 which generates a periodic signal as soon as the amplitude of the acceleration profile 600 exceeds a minimum.” (Carlstrom 0026)
Rationale: The disclosed comparator evaluates a wheel acceleration signal and produces an output when the acceleration profile satisfies a fault condition. The comparator and associated processing therefore correspond to a wheel separation determination part.
that determines that a possibility of the wheel coming off is high
See at least:
“Where the amplitude of the profile increases with the time the most usual cause is a progressively looser wheel.” (Carlstrom 0026)
Rationale: Carlstrom does not expressly use the phrase “possibility ... is high.” That characterization would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, however, because Carlstrom identifies increasing sinusoidal lateral acceleration as evidence of a progressively loosening wheel and provides a comparator output when the acceleration exceeds a minimum. In a wheel-safety monitoring system, classifying that affirmative fault state as a high possibility of wheel separation would be a predictable safety classification performed by the controller, not a change to the disclosed sensing structure.
when the axial acceleration exhibits a sinusoidal pattern
See at least:
“Where a wheel is loose a sinusoidal acceleration pattern appears in the direction lateral to the vehicle’s direction of travel.” (Carlstrom 0007)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses a sinusoidal acceleration pattern associated with a loose wheel. Because the relevant lateral channel is the wheel-axis channel as discussed above, applying the sinusoidal-pattern test to that channel would have been obvious to a PHOSITA.
characteristic of wheel looseness
See at least:
“Wheel acceleration in the lateral direction is used for determining wheel Sway associated with a loose wheel condition.” (Carlstrom 0007)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly links the wheel acceleration condition to a loose wheel condition. Thus, the sinusoidal pattern is used as an indicator characteristic of wheel looseness.
while the vehicle is traveling,
See at least:
“At a constant vehicle speed in a straight line, or steady state turn, the wheels should exhibit, at any fixed point on the wheel which is displaced from the axis of rotation, a fixed point rotational velocity which varies sinusoidally.” (Carlstrom 0019)
Rationale: This is the second occurrence of the traveling condition in the claim. Carlstrom expressly evaluates the wheel signal during vehicle movement, thereby accounting for this separate claim occurrence.
a notification control part
See at least:
“As illustrated in FIG. 5, an analogous circuit 500 provides for comparing the observed acceleration signal to a comparator 504 which generates a periodic signal as soon as the amplitude of the acceleration profile 600 exceeds a minimum.” (Carlstrom 0026)
Rationale: The comparator generates the fault output used by the vehicle system. A controller receiving that comparator output constitutes a notification control part at least implicitly and would have been an obvious implementation of Carlstrom’s disclosed fault-detection circuitry.
to provide notification to that effect
See at least:
“A non-zero recurring output from comparator 312 indicates a likely out of round tire condition which may be indicated to the vehicle operator in conventional fashion.” (Carlstrom 0023)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses indicating a comparator-determined wheel condition to the vehicle operator. Although paragraph 0023 discusses the companion comparator 312, the disclosure establishes the conventional operator-notification function for the disclosed acceleration-fault processing. Applying the same operator indication to the loose-wheel comparator 504 would have been obvious because both outputs represent wheel-condition faults generated by the same vehicle controller.
that the wheel comes off
See at least:
“Where the amplitude of the profile increases with the time the most usual cause is a progressively looser wheel.” (Carlstrom 0026)
Rationale: Carlstrom does not expressly state the particular warning phrase “that the wheel comes off.” The claimed warning content would nevertheless have been PHOSITA-obvious because the disclosed progressively loosening wheel is an impending wheel-separation condition. Communicating the expected safety consequence of the detected loose-wheel condition would have been a predictable operator-warning choice.
when it is determined by the wheel separation determination part
See at least:
“An analogous circuit 500 provides for comparing the observed acceleration signal to a comparator 504 which generates a periodic signal as soon as the amplitude of the acceleration profile 600 exceeds a minimum.” (Carlstrom 0026)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses a conditional comparator output generated when the wheel acceleration profile satisfies the disclosed fault criterion. The operator indication would therefore be initiated in response to the determination performed by the wheel-condition comparator.
that the possibility is high,
See at least:
“Where the amplitude of the profile increases with the time the most usual cause is a progressively looser wheel.” (Carlstrom 0026)
Rationale: This is the second occurrence of the high-risk determination in the claim. As with the earlier occurrence, treating the disclosed progressively loosening wheel as a high-risk state for purposes of generating a warning would have been a predictable PHOSITA-obvious safety classification.
while the vehicle is traveling.
See at least:
“At a constant vehicle speed in a straight line, or steady state turn, the wheels should exhibit, at any fixed point on the wheel which is displaced from the axis of rotation, a fixed point rotational velocity which varies sinusoidally.” (Carlstrom 0019)
Rationale: This is the third occurrence of the traveling condition in the claim. Carlstrom’s wheel-acceleration analysis is expressly performed under vehicle-motion conditions.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Carlstrom
Carlstrom does not expressly disclose or otherwise fully account for the following limitations:
a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions
for the processor to execute:
at predetermined intervals
and a number of times the acquired axial acceleration exceeds a determination threshold value
reaches a predetermined number of times
within a predetermined time
the determination threshold value changes
according to a moving mean value of the axial accelerations; and
that causes a notification part
by displaying information on a screen
and outputting sound
wherein the wheel separation determination part sets,
as the determination threshold value,
a value obtained by multiplying a moving mean value of the axial accelerations
at predetermined time intervals
by a predetermined coefficient
Disclosure by Welch
Welch discloses:
a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions
See at least:
“Bus 1010 may include one or more communication paths that permit communication among the components of device 1000. Processor 1020 may include a processor, microprocessor, or processing logic that may interpret and execute instructions. Memory 1030 may include any type of dynamic storage device that may store information and instructions for execution by processor 1020.” (Welch 0073)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses a processor and memory communicating through a bus, with the memory storing instructions for execution by the processor. This corresponds to the claimed processor-memory structure.
for the processor to execute:
See at least:
“Device 1000 may perform certain operations described above in response to processor 1020 executing software instructions stored in a computer-readable medium, such as memory 1030.” (Welch 0076)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses processor execution of software instructions stored in memory.
at predetermined intervals
See at least:
“For example, analysis component 220/240 may periodically (e.g., at a 50 Hz sampling frequency) sample three axes acceleration values from accelerometer 210.” (Welch 0032)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses periodic acceleration sampling at a predetermined sampling frequency. Applying the same periodic sampling operation to Carlstrom’s wheel-mounted acceleration data would have been a controller-side implementation of the disclosed wheel-signal processing.
and a number of times the acquired axial acceleration exceeds a determination threshold value
See at least:
“When samplec is equal to one ... samplec may be incremented ... to indicate the length of the ongoing acceleration event.” (Welch 0045)
“When M is not greater than event threshold ... [and] when M is greater than event threshold ... the process flow may ... determine whether samplec is greater than a minimum event length.” (Welch 0045-0046)
Rationale: Welch expressly compares an acceleration-derived quantity with an event threshold and maintains a count of successive samples during the continuing threshold-exceeding event. Welch calculates the disclosed quantity M from three axes rather than expressly identifying a single wheel-axis acceleration. In combination with Carlstrom, however, selecting the wheel-related axial/lateral channel for the threshold comparison would have been a PHOSITA-obvious controller-side selection because Carlstrom expressly identifies that channel as the loose-wheel signal.
reaches a predetermined number of times
See at least:
“The value for the minimum event length may be set at a value that corresponds to a minimum number of consecutive acceleration samples, above event threshold, that represent an acceleration event.” (Welch 0046)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses a predetermined minimum number of consecutive above-threshold acceleration samples. The samplec count therefore reaches a selected number before the event is accepted. Applying that known count criterion to Carlstrom’s wheel-axis acceleration signal would have produced the claimed persistence test with predictable results.
the determination threshold value changes
See at least:
“A variable event threshold may be defined and used to store a threshold value indicating when an amount of acceleration, as measured by accelerometer 210, is large enough to indicate the occurrence of an acceleration event.” (Welch 0040)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses a variable event threshold. Because the threshold is generated from an acceleration baseline that is recalculated from sampled data, the threshold changes when the relevant baseline changes. Applying the variable threshold to Carlstrom’s wheel-separation comparator would have been an obvious software implementation.
according to a moving mean value of the axial accelerations; and
See at least:
“The running mean may be calculated on a per-axis basis. For example, for each axis, the running mean may be calculated by summing all measured acceleration values ... and dividing by the corresponding number of samples.” (Welch 0033)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses a moving or running mean calculated separately for each acceleration axis. A running mean of the most recent acceleration samples is a moving mean within the ordinary meaning of the claimed statistical operation. Selecting the wheel-related axial channel in Carlstrom’s system would have been an obvious use of Welch’s per-axis processing.
that causes a notification part
See at least:
“Output component 1050 may include a mechanism that outputs information to the operator.” (Welch 0074)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses an output component that provides information to an operator. When incorporated into Carlstrom’s controller, the processor would cause the output component to provide the comparator-generated wheel-condition notification.
by displaying information on a screen
See at least:
“Output component 1050 may include a mechanism that outputs information to the operator, such as a display.” (Welch 0074)
Rationale: Welch expressly identifies a display as an output mechanism. Using the display to communicate Carlstrom’s detected loose-wheel condition would have been a predictable application of the disclosed operator-output component.
and outputting sound
See at least:
“Output component 1050 may include a mechanism that outputs information to the operator, such as a display, a speaker, one or more light emitting diodes (‘LEDs), etc.” (Welch 0074)
Rationale: Welch expressly identifies a speaker as an output mechanism. Providing both the disclosed display output and the disclosed speaker output for a safety-related wheel condition would have been an obvious selection of known operator-notification modalities.
wherein the wheel separation determination part sets,
See at least:
“A variable event threshold may be defined and used to store a threshold value indicating when an amount of acceleration ... is large enough to indicate the occurrence of an acceleration event.” (Welch 0040)
Rationale: Carlstrom supplies the wheel-separation determination circuitry, while Welch supplies the threshold-setting operation. Applying Welch’s threshold-generation routine within Carlstrom’s wheel-separation comparator would have been an obvious controller-side modification that leaves Carlstrom’s sensor and loose-wheel detection architecture unchanged.
as the determination threshold value,
See at least:
“In one implementation, event threshold may be set based on a predetermined constant multiplied by gravity estimate.” (Welch 0040)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses setting an event threshold for use in the acceleration comparison. In the combined system, that event threshold would serve as the determination threshold used by Carlstrom’s wheel-separation comparator.
a value obtained by multiplying a moving mean value of the axial accelerations
See at least:
“The running mean may be calculated on a per-axis basis.” (Welch 0033)
“Event threshold may be set based on a predetermined constant multiplied by gravity estimate.” (Welch 0040)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses both per-axis running-mean processing and multiplication of a baseline quantity by a predetermined constant to establish an event threshold. Welch’s disclosed gravity estimate is calculated from three running-mean components, so Welch does not expressly disclose the exact scalar moving mean of the wheel axial acceleration recited in the claim. Nevertheless, the claimed scalar-axis implementation would have been PHOSITA-obvious in view of Carlstrom’s express isolation of the lateral wheel-acceleration channel for loose-wheel detection and Welch’s express teaching that running means may be calculated on a per-axis basis. A skilled artisan would have selected the relevant wheel-axis mean rather than combine unrelated acceleration axes, thereby preserving the signal Carlstrom identifies as indicative of looseness. The modification would use the same threshold-calibration function disclosed by Welch and would have a reasonable expectation of success.
at predetermined time intervals
See at least:
“Analysis component 220/240 may periodically (e.g., at a 50 Hz sampling frequency) sample three axes acceleration values from accelerometer 210.” (Welch 0032)
“The running mean may be updated after every new sample or after every predetermined number of new samples.” (Welch 0033)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses periodic sampling and updating the running mean after a predetermined sampling event. When the sampling frequency is fixed, those updates occur at predetermined time intervals. Applying that timing to Carlstrom’s wheel acceleration signal would have been a predictable digital-processing implementation.
by a predetermined coefficient
See at least:
“Event threshold may be set based on a predetermined constant multiplied by gravity estimate.” (Welch 0040)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses multiplication by a predetermined constant. The disclosed predetermined constant corresponds to the claimed predetermined coefficient when the threshold-setting operation is applied to the selected wheel-axis moving mean.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom and Welch
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom and Welch before them, to apply Welch’s processor-based periodic sampling, per-axis running-mean processing, threshold generation, event-length counting, and operator-output teachings to Carlstrom’s wheel-mounted acceleration system.
Carlstrom and Welch are technically compatible because both process acceleration measurements obtained from vehicle-associated sensors to identify abnormal vehicle conditions. Carlstrom expressly identifies a wheel-mounted lateral acceleration channel as useful for detecting a loose wheel, while Welch expressly teaches periodic sampling, per-axis running means, threshold comparisons, event-length counting, and output through a display or speaker. The proposed modification would retain Carlstrom’s wheel-mounted accelerometers and its sinusoidal loose-wheel analysis, while adding controller-side signal-processing operations already used for sampled vehicle acceleration data. The combination would reduce false indications caused by isolated acceleration disturbances by requiring a sustained threshold condition, provide an adaptive baseline for changing operating conditions, and generate predictable operator warnings. Because the modification uses known sampling, averaging, comparison, counting, and output functions according to their established purposes, a PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Carlstrom and Welch
After combining the teachings of Carlstrom and Welch, the following limitation remains insufficiently supported by an express teaching:
within a predetermined time
Disclosure by Yamaura
Yamaura discloses:
within a predetermined time
See at least:
“The predetermined number for the ‘count’ value Cp can be replaced with a predetermined time period, such as 1 second or 2 seconds, measured from the beginning of the routine.” (Yamaura, p. 7)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly discloses replacing a count-based evaluation interval with a selected predetermined time period. Yamaura’s disclosed signal is a wheel-speed signal, but the relevant teaching is the controller-side use of a predetermined time gate. Applying that known time-gating operation to Welch’s above-threshold acceleration-sample count in the Carlstrom system would have been a PHOSITA-obvious implementation. The modification does not replace Carlstrom’s wheel-mounted acceleration sensor; it merely defines the duration over which the already-counted acceleration events are evaluated.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura before them, to evaluate Welch’s above-threshold wheel-acceleration samples over a predetermined time period as taught by Yamaura in Carlstrom’s loose-wheel detection system.
Carlstrom supplies the wheel-mounted acceleration signal and the sinusoidal signal associated with wheel looseness. Welch supplies the periodic sampling, threshold comparison, running-mean processing, event-length counting, processor execution, and display/speaker output. Yamaura supplies a known timing implementation in which a count-based evaluation may be bounded by a selected period such as one or two seconds. Applying that timing arrangement to the Carlstrom-Welch system would improve reliability by preventing a warning from being generated from an isolated acceleration disturbance and by requiring the selected number of above-threshold samples to occur within a defined evaluation period. The references concern compatible vehicle wheel and acceleration-signal processing, the proposed modification requires only conventional counter and timer logic, and the functions of the respective elements would remain unchanged after combination. A PHOSITA therefore would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 3,
Breakdown for Claim 3
The wheel state determination apparatus according to claim 1,
herein the processor further executes:
a road surface determination part
that determines a road surface condition
of a road surface
on which the vehicle travels,
and wherein the wheel separation determination part changes the determination threshold value
according to the road surface condition
determined by the road surface determination part.
103 Prior Art Mapping
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Carlstrom
Carlstrom discloses the following Claim 3 limitations:
herein the processor further executes:
See at least:
“It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the process represented by the circuit 302 may be implemented by programming of a digital computer, such as body computer 26.” (Carlstrom 0022)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses that the processing performed by its wheel-acceleration system is implemented by programming a digital computer. Thus, Carlstrom supplies the processor-execution framework into which the additional road-surface routine can be incorporated.
of a road surface
See at least:
“Requiring periodicity, particularly periodicity with a frequency harmonized to the rotational velocity, should limit or eliminate indications of tire defects stemming from exogenous shocks to the tires, even where coming from highway pavement expansion cracks.” (Carlstrom 0018)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly identifies highway pavement as the surface producing external shocks at the vehicle tires. A PHOSITA would have understood highway pavement to be the road surface referenced by this limitation.
on which the vehicle travels,
See at least:
“For vehicle movement in a straight line, whether vehicle velocity is constant or not, lateral acceleration at the same point should be zero.” (Carlstrom 0019)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses the wheel-acceleration system operating during vehicle movement. In combination with Carlstrom’s highway-pavement disclosure, the vehicle-travel relationship is accounted for.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Carlstrom
Carlstrom does not expressly disclose the following remaining limitations:
a road surface determination part
that determines a road surface condition
and wherein the wheel separation determination part changes the determination threshold value
according to the road surface condition
determined by the road surface determination part.
Disclosure by Welch
Welch addresses only the remaining variable-threshold function:
and wherein the wheel separation determination part changes the determination threshold value
See at least:
“Process 400 may further include determining an event threshold (block 435). A variable event threshold may be defined and used to store a threshold value indicating when an amount of acceleration, as measured by accelerometer 210, is large enough to indicate the occurrence of an acceleration event. In one implementation, event threshold may be set based on a predetermined constant multiplied by gravity estimate.” (Welch 0040)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses a variable threshold. Applying that variable threshold to Carlstrom’s previously established wheel-separation comparator provides the threshold-changing function. At this stage, Welch supplies the variable-threshold mechanism; the road-surface control input is addressed only by Yamaura below.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom and Welch
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom and Welch before them, to apply Welch’s variable-threshold processing to Carlstrom’s wheel-separation comparator.
The interim functional sequence is coherent: Carlstrom supplies the wheel acceleration signal and comparator, and Welch supplies a variable threshold for that comparator. Carlstrom also discloses that acceleration data may be transmitted to and processed by body computer 26 (Carlstrom 0018). The modification uses Welch’s threshold mechanism for its established function and would predictably improve reliability by permitting the comparator threshold to adapt to changing operating conditions.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Carlstrom and Welch
After combining Carlstrom and Welch, the following limitations remain:
a road surface determination part
that determines a road surface condition
according to the road surface condition
determined by the road surface determination part.
Disclosure by Yamaura
Yamaura addresses only the remaining road-surface limitations:
a road surface determination part
See at least:
“For the purpose of determining a road surface condition, as shown in Fig. 3, the control unit 2 (precisely the processor) comprises a wheel-speed computing portion 2a, a band-pass filter 2d, an amplitude integrating portion 2b, and a road surface condition discrimination portion 2c.” (Yamaura, p. 4)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly discloses a processor-side “road surface condition discrimination portion 2c,” corresponding to the claimed road surface determination part.
that determines a road surface condition
See at least:
“The processor of the control unit 2 computes or calculates a wheel speed on the basis of the pulse signal SS from the wheel speed sensor 1 and at the same time determines the road surface condition on the basis of specified frequency components included in the pulse signal SS...” (Yamaura, p. 4)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly states that the processor determines the road surface condition.
according to the road surface condition
See at least:
“The operational characteristics of the actuator 3 are properly varied depending upon the road surface condition discriminated or determined by the processor of the control unit 2...” (Yamaura, p. 4)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly teaches that vehicle-control operation is varied depending on the processor-determined road surface condition. Yamaura does not expressly identify the varied parameter as the wheel-separation determination threshold. That specific application is rendered obvious by applying Yamaura’s road-condition output to Welch’s variable threshold already incorporated into Carlstrom’s comparator.
determined by the road surface determination part.
See at least:
“Thus, the processor of the control unit 2 determines through the flow from step S8 via step S9 to step S11 that the road surface condition is bad.” (Yamaura, p. 7)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly discloses that the processor determines the road surface condition through the road-condition processing routine.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura before them, to execute Yamaura’s road-surface determination routine on Carlstrom’s body computer and use the resulting road surface condition to control Welch’s variable threshold applied to Carlstrom’s wheel-separation comparator.
The complete functional sequence is as follows. Carlstrom provides wheel-mounted acceleration data, wheel-speed data, and body computer 26. The body computer executes the existing wheel-condition analysis. Yamaura supplies a compatible processor-side routine that determines a road surface condition using vehicle wheel-related data and produces a road-condition result. Welch supplies the variable threshold used in the acceleration-event comparison. The determined road surface condition is therefore available as an upstream control input for changing the variable threshold used by Carlstrom’s wheel-separation comparator.
Carlstrom expressly recognizes that highway pavement expansion cracks can produce exogenous shocks affecting wheel-acceleration indications (Carlstrom 0018). A PHOSITA would consequently have had a reason to adjust the comparator threshold under different road conditions to reduce false wheel-separation indications on rough roads while preserving sensitivity on good roads. The modification requires only a predictable conditional software operation using existing processor, sensor, and comparator functionality, with a reasonable expectation of success.
After combining the teachings of Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura, all limitations of Claim 3 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
The relationship “and wherein the wheel separation determination part changes the determination threshold value according to the road surface condition” is not expressly disclosed in one reference. It is the proposed obvious modification of the combined teachings. Accordingly, it is characterized as PHOSITA-obvious based on the articulated functional sequence, not as inherent. This is consistent with MPEP §2143, which requires an articulated reason for the modification and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura establishes the apparatus of Claim 3, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Carlstrom
Carlstrom discloses the following Claim 4 limitations:
wherein the acceleration acquisition part further acquires circumferential acceleration
See at least:
“The accelerometers 19 measure both rotational acceleration and lateral acceleration.” (Carlstrom 0016)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses wheel-mounted accelerometers acquiring rotational acceleration. At a fixed point on a rotating wheel, rotational acceleration corresponds to the tangential or circumferential acceleration component. Thus, the claimed circumferential acceleration is expressly disclosed in substance, with the circumferential terminology being the ordinary coordinate description of Carlstrom’s rotational acceleration.
in a circumferential direction of the wheel
See at least:
“The placement of the two axis accelerometers 19 on the wheels, displaced a predetermined distance from axis of rotation of the wheels, allows the accelerometers to detect rotational acceleration and lateral acceleration of the wheels.” (Carlstrom 0019)
Rationale: The accelerometers are mounted on the wheel at a known distance from the rotational axis and detect rotational acceleration. A PHOSITA would understand the rotational component at that location as occurring in the circumferential or tangential direction of the wheel.
Carlstrom also provides the functional input and processing architecture inherited from Claim 3. Carlstrom does not expressly disclose acquisition of a separate radial acceleration component or determining road surface condition based on the circumferential and radial acceleration components.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Carlstrom
and radial acceleration
in a radial direction of the wheel,
on a basis of the circumferential acceleration
and the radial acceleration
acquired by the acceleration acquisition part.
Disclosure by Welch
Welch addresses only the remaining radial-acceleration acquisition limitations:
and radial acceleration
See at least:
“For example, analysis component 220/240 may periodically (e.g., at a 50 Hz sampling frequency) sample three axes acceleration values from accelerometer 210.” (Welch 0032)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses sampling three acceleration axes. Applied to Carlstrom’s wheel-mounted accelerometer arrangement, the additional sampled axis provides the radial acceleration component while the previously established circumferential component is retained.
in a radial direction of the wheel,
See at least:
“The accelerometer 210 may be an accelerometer that measures proper acceleration.” (Welch 0021)
Rationale: Welch’s multi-axis accelerometer provides acceleration components that can be assigned to selected coordinate directions. In view of Carlstrom’s known wheel-axis geometry and wheel-mounted sensor location, assigning one sampled axis to the radial direction of the wheel would have been a predictable coordinate-selection operation. This specific radial designation is not express in Welch but would have been obvious to a PHOSITA.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom and Welch
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom and Welch before them, to apply Welch’s multi-axis acceleration acquisition to Carlstrom’s wheel-mounted accelerometer system so that the system acquires both rotational/circumferential and radial acceleration components.
Carlstrom supplies a wheel-mounted accelerometer positioned relative to the wheel’s rotational axis. Welch supplies a known three-axis acceleration-acquisition technique. Applying Welch’s multi-axis acquisition to Carlstrom would allow additional wheel-frame acceleration information to be acquired without changing the basic wheel-monitoring architecture. The modification would improve characterization of wheel motion and road-induced disturbances, use known elements for their established purposes, and provide a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Carlstrom and Welch
on a basis of the circumferential acceleration
and the radial acceleration
acquired by the acceleration acquisition part.
Disclosure by Yamaura
Yamaura addresses the remaining relationship between the acquired acceleration components and road-surface determination:
on a basis of the circumferential acceleration
See at least:
“The processor of the control unit 2 computes or calculates a wheel speed on the basis of the pulse signal SS from the wheel speed sensor 1 and at the same time determines the road surface condition on the basis of specified frequency components included in the pulse signal SS...” (Yamaura, p. 4)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly determines road surface condition from wheel-related signal information. Carlstrom further discloses that wheel rotational velocity can be derived from rotational acceleration signals (Carlstrom 0019). Accordingly, using the acquired circumferential acceleration to provide or derive the wheel-related signal used by Yamaura’s road-surface routine would have been obvious.
and the radial acceleration
See at least:
“The integration means may compute the integrated value (Sa) by integrating an amplitude of resonance-frequency components of vertical oscillation of an unsprung mass of the vehicle for the predetermined period of time, the resonance-frequency components being included in the wheel speed signal.” (Yamaura, p. 4)
Rationale: Yamaura determines road surface condition from wheel and unsprung-mass motion caused by road-surface input vibrations. In view of Carlstrom and Welch’s acquired radial acceleration component, using radial acceleration as an additional wheel-motion input for Yamaura’s road-surface determination would have been a predictable multi-axis signal-processing modification.
acquired by the acceleration acquisition part.
See at least:
“In this case, the system may more accurately determine the road surface condition on the basis of specified frequency components ... included in the four pulse signals SS from the four sensors.” (Yamaura, p. 4)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly teaches using multiple acquired sensor signals to improve road-surface determination. Applying that multi-input processing to the circumferential and radial acceleration signals acquired by the acceleration acquisition part would have been an obvious implementation of Yamaura’s signal-combination teaching.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura before them, to use the circumferential and radial acceleration components acquired in the combined Carlstrom-Welch system as inputs for Yamaura’s road-surface determination process.
The resulting functional sequence is coherent. Carlstrom provides wheel-mounted acceleration sensing and a processor-based vehicle-control architecture. Welch provides multi-axis acquisition so that a radial component can be obtained in addition to Carlstrom’s rotational/circumferential component. Yamaura provides a processor-side road-surface determination routine based on wheel-related signal fluctuations and teaches that multiple acquired signals can improve road-surface determination. Using the already acquired circumferential and radial acceleration components as inputs to that routine would have been a predictable way to improve accuracy and responsiveness without changing the underlying wheel-monitoring system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura
After combining the teachings of Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura, all limitations of Claim 4 are disclosed or rendered obvious.
The limitations “on a basis of the circumferential acceleration,” “and the radial acceleration,” and “acquired by the acceleration acquisition part” are not expressly disclosed in one reference. They are supported as PHOSITA-obvious modifications based on the combined multi-axis acquisition and wheel-signal road-surface processing teachings. The principal vulnerability is therefore the specific use of both acceleration components as the basis for road-surface determination; that relationship should be presented as an articulated obviousness rationale, not as inherent disclosure.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura establishes the apparatus of Claim 4, which is the basis for Claim 5. The Claim 4 limitations are not remapped.
Disclosure by Carlstrom
Carlstrom discloses the inherited wheel-mounted acceleration platform. Carlstrom does not expressly disclose the added Claim 5 functions involving extraction of vertical oscillation and road-surface classification.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Carlstrom
wherein the road surface determination part extracts vertical oscillation pertaining to the road surface
from the circumferential acceleration and the radial acceleration acquired by the acceleration acquisition part,
and determines a type of the road surface
on a basis of the vertical oscillation.
Disclosure by Welch
Welch discloses or renders obvious:
from the circumferential acceleration and the radial acceleration acquired by the acceleration acquisition part,
See at least:
“For example, analysis component 220/240 may periodically (e.g., at a 50 Hz sampling frequency) sample three axes acceleration values from accelerometer 210.” (Welch 0032)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses acquisition of three-axis acceleration values. Applied to Carlstrom’s wheel-mounted accelerometer, the three measured components could predictably be assigned to wheel-coordinate components, including circumferential and radial components. The exact circumferential/radial designation is not express in Welch, but would have been obvious in view of Carlstrom’s known wheel-axis geometry. This mapping addresses the new source relationship in Claim 5 and does not remap the parent Claim 4 acquisition limitations.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom and Welch
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom and Welch before them, to apply Welch’s three-axis acceleration acquisition to Carlstrom’s wheel-mounted accelerometer system and assign the measured components to wheel-coordinate directions, including circumferential and radial directions. The modification would use the same type of acceleration data already acquired by Carlstrom, would require only predictable coordinate assignment and signal processing, and would improve characterization of wheel motion.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Carlstrom and Welch
wherein the road surface determination part extracts vertical oscillation pertaining to the road surface
and determines a type of the road surface
on a basis of the vertical oscillation.
Disclosure by Yamaura
Yamaura discloses or renders obvious:
wherein the road surface determination part extracts vertical oscillation pertaining to the road surface
See at least:
“In step S6, a specified filtering process is made to the current one pulse read through step S4 by means of a band-pass filter 2d, so as to extract or pass resonance-frequency components of vertical oscillation of the unsprung mass of the vehicle within a definite band of 10 to 15 Hz.” (Yamaura, p. 4)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly discloses filtering a wheel-related signal to extract frequency components of vertical oscillation. Yamaura’s detailed description associates those oscillation components with road-surface condition.
and determines a type of the road surface
See at least:
“Rflag = 1 signals that the current road surface condition is bad, whereas Rflag = 0 signals that the current road surface condition is good.” (Yamaura, p. 5)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly discloses classifying the road surface into different conditions. Treating the resulting classified condition as a road-surface type would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to categorize road conditions for vehicle control.
on a basis of the vertical oscillation.
See at least:
“the system of the embodiment shown in Figs. 2 and 3 utilizes the amplitude of the resonance-frequency components of vertical oscillation of the unsprung mass, which frequency components are included in the pulse signal SS from the wheel speed sensor 1, as a vehicle-behavior factor or a vehicle-behavior component being correlative with the road surface condition.” (Yamaura, p. 5)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly determines road-surface condition using the magnitude of vertical-oscillation components. The claimed basis relationship is therefore disclosed in substance.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura before them, to apply Yamaura’s vertical-oscillation filtering and road-surface classification to the circumferential and radial acceleration channels acquired in the combined Carlstrom-Welch apparatus. Carlstrom supplies wheel-mounted acceleration data, Welch supplies multi-axis acquisition and coordinate handling, and Yamaura supplies a known filtering and classification process for extracting vertical oscillation associated with road-surface condition. The modification would use compatible sensor data and conventional signal-processing operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
After combining the teachings of Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura, all limitations of Claim 5 are asserted to be disclosed or rendered obvious. The use of circumferential and radial acceleration as the source signals is an obvious modification rather than an express disclosure.
Regarding Claim 6
The combination of Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura establishes the apparatus of Claim 5, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Carlstrom
Carlstrom does not expressly disclose identifying road surfaces as gravel or paved according to vertical-oscillation magnitude.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Carlstrom
wherein the road surface determination part determines that the road surface is gravel
if a magnitude of the vertical oscillation is greater than a predetermined value,
and determines that the road surface is paved
if the magnitude of the vertical oscillation is smaller than the predetermined value.
Disclosure by Welch
Welch discloses or renders obvious:
if a magnitude of the vertical oscillation is greater than a predetermined value,
See at least:
“Process 400 may further include computing the Zero mean magnitude of the Zero mean acceleration values (block 445).” (Welch 0042)
“Process 400 may further include determining whether the calculated Zero mean magnitude value, M, is greater than the event threshold value (event threshold) (block 455).” (Welch 0044)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses calculating an acceleration magnitude and comparing that magnitude with a predetermined event threshold. Welch does not expressly identify the magnitude as vertical oscillation associated with a road surface. In view of the vertical-oscillation processing already established by Yamaura and the coordinate processing of Welch, applying the magnitude comparison to the vertical component would have been a predictable modification.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom and Welch
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom and Welch before them, to calculate a magnitude of the relevant wheel-acceleration component and compare that magnitude with a predetermined threshold. Welch’s magnitude-comparison process is compatible with Carlstrom’s processor-based wheel-monitoring system and provides a predictable way to distinguish larger and smaller acceleration conditions.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Carlstrom and Welch
wherein the road surface determination part determines that the road surface is gravel
and determines that the road surface is paved
if the magnitude of the vertical oscillation is smaller than the predetermined value.
Disclosure by Yamaura
Yamaura discloses or renders obvious:
wherein the road surface determination part determines that the road surface is gravel
See at least:
“During traveling on good roads ... the amplitudes ... of vertical oscillation of the unsprung mass of the vehicle become small ... During traveling on bad roads ... the amplitudes ... become great.” (Yamaura, p. 5)
Rationale: Yamaura does not expressly identify the high-oscillation category as gravel. A PHOSITA would nevertheless have found it obvious to assign the high-oscillation category to gravel when the system is calibrated to distinguish gravel from paved road surfaces.
and determines that the road surface is paved
See at least:
“Rflag = 1 signals that the current road surface condition is bad, whereas Rflag = 0 signals that the current road surface condition is good.” (Yamaura, p. 5)
Rationale: Yamaura does not expressly use the word “paved.” Assigning the low-oscillation or “good” category to paved road is a PHOSITA-obvious labeling and calibration choice when the intended classification is between paved and unpaved road surfaces.
if the magnitude of the vertical oscillation is smaller than the predetermined value.
See at least:
“When step S9 determines that the integrated value Sa is less than the threshold value y, step S10 proceeds in which a flag Rflag is reset to ‘0’.” (Yamaura, p. 5)
Rationale: Yamaura expressly discloses a below-threshold condition for identifying the lower-oscillation road category. Applying that condition to the magnitude of the extracted vertical oscillation would have been an obvious implementation choice.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura before them, to configure the combined system to classify high-magnitude vertical oscillation as gravel and low-magnitude vertical oscillation as paved. Welch supplies magnitude-threshold processing, and Yamaura supplies vertical-oscillation-based two-category road-surface classification. Assigning road-material labels and calibrating the predetermined threshold would have been a predictable use of the known classifier for vehicle control and road-surface identification.
After combining the teachings of Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura, all limitations of Claim 6 are asserted to be rendered obvious. The “gravel” and “paved” classifications are PHOSITA obvious modifications.
Regarding Claim 8
The combination of Carlstrom and Welch establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 8. The Claim 1 limitations are not remapped.
Disclosure by Carlstrom
Carlstrom discloses:
wherein the wheel separation determination part sets, as the determination threshold value,
See at least:
“The anticipated acceleration profile and the observed acceleration profile provide the input to a summer 308 with the remainder, or deviance curve, from the summer providing one of two inputs to a comparator 312. The second input is a threshold signal which in effect, allows determination of the energy level in the unanticipated acceleration profile.” (Carlstrom 0023)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses a threshold signal used by a comparator in the wheel-acceleration analysis. The specific moving-standard-deviation formula is not disclosed.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Carlstrom
a value obtained by adding a moving standard deviation to the moving mean value of the axial accelerations.
Disclosure by Welch
Welch discloses or renders obvious:
a value obtained by adding a moving standard deviation to the moving mean value of the axial accelerations.
See at least:
“The running mean ... may refer to the mean of a given number (e.g., N) of data samples, such as the mean of the most recent N data samples.” (Welch 0033)
“the distance between the representative cluster centroid, D, and a given acceleration event can be used in conjunction with the circular standard deviation of the acceleration event.” (Welch 0062)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses a moving or running mean of recent acceleration samples and a standard-deviation calculation associated with acceleration data. Welch does not expressly disclose adding the moving standard deviation to the moving mean to form the threshold. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use the standard deviation as a variability margin added to the moving mean, thereby producing an adaptive threshold that reduces false determinations caused by changing acceleration noise.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom and Welch
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom and Welch before them, to use Welch’s running-mean and standard-deviation processing to generate Carlstrom’s threshold signal by adding a moving standard deviation to a moving mean value of the axial accelerations. The modification would preserve Carlstrom’s comparator architecture while making the threshold responsive to signal variability, thereby improving detection reliability.
Regarding Claim 9
The combination of Carlstrom and Welch establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Carlstrom
Carlstrom discloses:
wherein the acceleration acquisition part acquires the axial accelerations of each of a plurality of wheels of the vehicle,
See at least:
“Wheel acceleration data is generated by the ten accelerometers 19 mounted with respect to each wheel including each of the two wheels in dual mounted pairs.” (Carlstrom 0018)
Rationale: Carlstrom expressly discloses acceleration sensors associated with each of multiple wheels and collection of the resulting wheel-acceleration data. The axial-direction characterization is carried forward from Claim 1; the new Claim 9 feature addressed here is acquisition for each of a plurality of wheels.
The limitation and the wheel separation determination part determines that a possibility of the wheel coming off is high is inherited from Claim 1 and is not remapped.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Carlstrom
when axial acceleration of the one wheel is outside a range indicated by the mean value of the axial accelerations of the plurality of wheels and a standard deviation.
Disclosure by Welch
Welch discloses or renders obvious:
when axial acceleration of the one wheel is outside a range indicated by the mean value of the axial accelerations of the plurality of wheels and a standard deviation.
See at least:
“The running mean ... may refer to the mean of ... the most recent N data samples ... The running mean may be calculated on a per-axis basis.” (Welch 0033)
“the distance between the representative cluster centroid, D, and a given acceleration event can be used in conjunction with the circular standard deviation of the acceleration event.” (Welch 0062)
“Process 400 may further include determining whether the calculated Zero mean magnitude value, M, is greater than the event threshold value.” (Welch 0044)
Rationale: Welch expressly discloses mean-based processing, per-axis processing, standard-deviation processing, and comparison against a threshold. Welch does not expressly disclose calculating the mean and standard deviation across corresponding axial channels of multiple wheels. Applying those statistical operations to Carlstrom’s already-collected plurality of wheel signals would have been a predictable peer-group comparison. A wheel falling outside the mean-plus-or-minus-standard-deviation range would thereby be identified as anomalous.
Motivation to Combine Carlstrom and Welch
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom and Welch before them, to apply Welch’s mean, standard-deviation, and comparison processing to the corresponding axial acceleration channels acquired from Carlstrom’s plurality of wheel accelerometers. The modification would use the same processor-based wheel data already collected by Carlstrom and would predictably improve rejection of common-mode disturbances while increasing the reliability of identifying an anomalous wheel.
After combining the teachings of Carlstrom and Welch, all limitations of Claim 9 are asserted to be rendered obvious. The cross-wheel mean-and-standard-deviation range is PHOSITA obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. To the extent the arguments address the prior rejection based on Carlstrom in view of Bujak, James, and Wicks, those arguments are moot because the present examination concerns amended claims and a different factual record, including Carlstrom in view of Welch, and Yamaura where applicable. The present rejection is not based on Bujak, James, or Wicks.
To the extent Applicant’s arguments are understood to challenge the present Carlstrom-Welch combination, and Yamaura combination where applicable, those arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Carlstrom’s lateral acceleration and the claimed axial acceleration
Applicant asserts that Carlstrom’s lateral acceleration cannot correspond to the claimed axial acceleration. This argument relies on an unsupported distinction between coordinate terminology and the physical orientation of a vehicle wheel.
Carlstrom discloses accelerometers mounted with respect to individual vehicle wheels and measuring wheel acceleration in multiple directions. Carlstrom further identifies lateral acceleration as the signal produced when a wheel sways to and fro due to a loose wheel. See Carlstrom, paragraphs 0016, 0019, and 0026. Paragraph 0026 expressly describes a sinusoidal lateral-acceleration profile associated with wheel sway and identifies a loose wheel as a cause of that sway.
For a conventional vehicle wheel, the wheel axial direction is along the wheel axle, which extends laterally or transversely relative to the vehicle. Accordingly, Carlstrom’s disclosed lateral wheel-acceleration channel corresponds to the acceleration along the wheel axis in the disclosed vehicle configuration. The rejection does not improperly substitute Carlstrom’s rotational acceleration for the claimed axial acceleration. Rather, it relies on Carlstrom’s lateral acceleration, which is the acceleration channel Carlstrom associates with loose-wheel sway.
Thus, Carlstrom’s disclosure is technically consistent with the limitation requiring that “the axial acceleration exhibits a sinusoidal pattern characteristic of wheel looseness.” Applicant has not identified any claim language or specification definition requiring “axial” to exclude the lateral/transverse direction of the wheel axle.
Applicant also characterizes Carlstrom as merely detecting a general wheel condition. That characterization is incomplete. Carlstrom specifically discloses that a loose wheel produces a lateral acceleration profile in the form of a sinusoidal curve and that the amplitude may increase as the wheel becomes progressively looser. See Carlstrom, paragraph 0026. This is a direct technical teaching of using a sinusoidal acceleration signature to identify wheel looseness.
The present rejection does not rely on Bujak, James, or Wicks
Applicant’s arguments concerning Bujak’s multi-axis accelerometer, James’s engine misfire counter, and Wicks’s radar-based CFAR threshold do not address the present rejection. Whether or not Applicant’s characterization of those references is correct, those references are not the references relied upon in the present rejection.
Welch is materially different from Wicks. Welch concerns processing acceleration measurements and expressly discloses periodic sampling, running-mean calculations, adaptive thresholding, event counting, and operator outputs. Welch therefore provides a technically pertinent vehicle-acceleration-processing teaching for use with Carlstrom’s wheel-acceleration signal.
Welch discloses periodically sampling acceleration measurements and calculating a running mean of the sampled acceleration. See Welch, paragraphs 0032–0033. Welch further discloses calculating a gravity estimate from the running mean values and setting an event threshold based on a predetermined constant multiplied by that gravity estimate. See Welch, paragraphs 0034 and 0040. Welch also discloses counting samples that remain above the threshold and determining whether the count exceeds a minimum event length. See Welch, paragraphs 0044–0047. Finally, Welch discloses a processor and memory and identifies a display and speaker as output components. See Welch, paragraphs 0073–0074.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed to radar returns, electromagnetic propagation, and radar CFAR processing do not identify any deficiency in the current combination.
Moving-mean threshold and threshold exceedance counting
Applicant contends that the applied art does not disclose the claimed moving-mean threshold calculation. That contention does not account for Welch’s express disclosure.
Welch calculates a running mean from recently sampled acceleration values and updates the running mean as additional samples are acquired. See Welch, paragraph 0033. Welch then uses the mean-derived gravity estimate in determining a variable event threshold based on a predetermined constant. See Welch, paragraphs 0034 and 0040.
At a minimum, Welch renders obvious applying that adaptive, mean-based threshold processing to the acceleration component identified by Carlstrom as diagnostic of wheel looseness. Carlstrom identifies the lateral/axial wheel-acceleration signal as the relevant signal for detecting loose-wheel sway, while Welch teaches normalizing acceleration-event detection using a running mean and a coefficient-based threshold. Selecting the relevant wheel-axis component for Welch’s known processing is a predictable implementation choice dictated by Carlstrom’s identification of the diagnostic signal.
Welch also discloses that an event begins when the processed acceleration exceeds the event threshold and that a counter is incremented while the acceleration remains above the threshold. See Welch, paragraphs 0044–0046. Because Welch samples periodically, the number of counted samples necessarily corresponds to a number of threshold exceedances within a known time interval. Implementing the minimum event length as a predetermined number of samples within a predetermined time is therefore a routine digital-processing implementation of Welch’s disclosed event-counting operation.
Applicant has not identified any evidence that the claimed coefficient, sampling interval, count, or time period produces an unexpected technical result. The claim does not recite a particular coefficient value, sampling frequency, mathematical optimization, or critical time interval. The cited combination therefore supplies a reasoned basis for the claimed adaptive threshold and threshold-exceedance determination.
Notification by display and sound
Applicant argues that the prior rejection did not establish both visual and audible notification. That argument is likewise directed to the prior combination and does not address Welch.
Welch expressly discloses an output component that may include a display and a speaker. See Welch, paragraph 0074. Applying those known output mechanisms to Carlstrom’s detected loose-wheel event would have provided the operator with both visual and audible warning information. The modification would use each known component for its established purpose and would have produced the predictable result of communicating a detected vehicle condition through visual and audible outputs.
Motivation to combine Carlstrom and Welch
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom and Welch before them, to process Carlstrom’s wheel-mounted acceleration signal using Welch’s periodic sampling, running-mean normalization, adaptive thresholding, event-counting, and display/speaker output techniques.
Carlstrom and Welch are technically compatible. Carlstrom discloses wheel-mounted acceleration sensing, computer-based processing, comparator thresholding, and identification of a sinusoidal acceleration signature associated with wheel looseness. See Carlstrom, paragraphs 0018, 0022, and 0026. Welch independently discloses a vehicle acceleration-processing system that samples acceleration, calculates running means, establishes a variable threshold, counts threshold-exceeding samples, and provides information to an operator. See Welch, paragraphs 0032–0047 and 0073–0074.
A person of ordinary skill would have had a reason to apply Welch’s adaptive processing to Carlstrom’s acceleration signal because running-mean normalization accounts for changing baseline acceleration and the variable threshold improves reliable detection under differing operating conditions. Applying the processing to Carlstrom’s lateral/axial wheel signal would have been a predictable use of known signal-processing operations in the same general vehicle-sensing environment. Carlstrom’s existing computer and comparator architecture would have provided a reasonable implementation platform, and the expected result would have been improved reliability in distinguishing a loose-wheel acceleration event from ordinary acceleration variations.
The rationale is not based on Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap. Carlstrom independently identifies the loose-wheel sinusoidal signal, and Welch independently teaches the running-mean, adaptive-threshold, event-counting, and output operations. The combination follows the functional sequence disclosed by the references: wheel acceleration is sensed by Carlstrom; the acceleration is sampled and processed using Welch’s running-mean and threshold techniques; threshold exceedances are counted; and the resulting condition is communicated through Welch’s disclosed display and speaker.
Yamaura, where applicable to the road-surface limitations
For claims requiring road-surface determination or adjustment of processing based on road-surface condition, Applicant’s arguments directed to Wicks remain inapplicable. Yamaura is an automotive road-surface detection reference that processes wheel-related vehicle signals and determines whether a road condition is rough or good based on detected vibration characteristics and threshold comparisons. See Yamaura, pages 3–7.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Carlstrom, Welch, and Yamaura before them, to use Yamaura’s road-surface determination in conjunction with Carlstrom’s wheel-condition detection and Welch’s adaptive acceleration processing.
The combination would have been motivated by the known effect of road roughness on vehicle and wheel acceleration measurements. Adjusting a detection threshold based on the determined road condition would have reduced false indications caused by road-induced vibration and improved detection reliability. Yamaura’s road-surface processing is complementary to, rather than inconsistent with, Carlstrom’s wheel-condition monitoring and Welch’s acceleration threshold processing. The proposed combination would have required only the predictable use of known signal-processing and vehicle-condition determination techniques.
Alleged pick-and-choose combination
Applicant characterizes the rejection as an improper combination of unrelated references. That characterization does not describe the present rejection. The present rejection relies principally on Carlstrom and Welch, with Yamaura used only where necessary for the additional road-surface limitations.
Section 103 does not impose a numerical limit on the number of references that may be considered. The relevant inquiry is whether the combination is supported by an articulated reason and whether a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143. Here, the references concern compatible vehicle sensing and signal-processing technologies, and each proposed modification uses a known element for its established function.
The present rejection therefore does not require reconstructing the claimed apparatus from unrelated disclosures. It uses Carlstrom for the wheel-mounted loose-wheel acceleration signal, Welch for known digital acceleration processing and notification, and Yamaura, where applicable, for road-surface determination and road-condition-dependent processing.
Alleged hindsight and improper claim roadmap
Applicant’s reliance on hindsight is unpersuasive. The Examiner is required to consider the claim language when performing the obviousness analysis; doing so does not establish hindsight. The relevant teachings were independently disclosed in the references before consideration of the claim.
Carlstrom independently teaches that loose-wheel sway produces a sinusoidal lateral acceleration profile. Welch independently teaches running-mean acceleration processing, coefficient-based variable thresholding, threshold-exceedance counting, and display/speaker outputs. Yamaura independently teaches vehicle road-surface determination using vibration-related wheel signals and threshold comparisons. The combination is supported by technical compatibility, predictable operation, and the recognized benefit of improving the reliability of vehicle-condition detection.
The principles identified in KSR do not prohibit the combination. Rather, KSR requires an articulated reason to combine familiar elements according to known methods and confirms that a rigid requirement for an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation is improper. The present rejection includes an articulated technical rationale and is not based solely on conclusory hindsight.
Alleged synergy or unexpected result
Applicant asserts that the claimed combination produces a synergistic result. That assertion is unsupported attorney argument. Applicant has not provided comparative testing, a declaration, or other evidence demonstrating that the combination produces an unexpected result, critical performance improvement, or effect disproportionate to the known functions of the individual features.
The cited features perform their expected functions: wheel acceleration is sensed, acceleration data is processed using a running mean and adaptive threshold, threshold exceedances are counted, road conditions may be determined, and an operator is notified. Combining those known operations to improve reliability and reduce false detections is a predictable result of the combination.
A claim must be considered as a whole, but consideration as a whole does not prevent the Examiner from relying on the known relationship among the claimed elements. Applicant has not shown that the elements interact in a manner that produces an unexpected result or that the result is greater than the predictable aggregation of the disclosed functions.
Dependent claims
Applicant’s general assertion that dependent claims 3–6 and 8–9 are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1 is not persuasive. Each dependent claim has been considered with all limitations of the claim from which it depends, together with its additional limitations. The fact that a claim is dependent does not establish patentability where the incorporated limitations and added limitations are taught or rendered obvious by the applied combination.
The arguments directed to Bujak, James, and Wicks are moot as to the present rejection. Further, Applicant has not provided a separate technical explanation showing why the particular added limitations of claims 3–6 and 8–9 would be non-obvious over the present claim-specific combination.
Applicant’s disclaimer and reservation statements
Applicant’s statement that the specification contains no disclaimer or disavowal does not establish patentability. The present rejection does not rely on an alleged disclaimer, admission, or prosecution-history estoppel. It is based on the claim language, the disclosures of the applied references, and the articulated reasons for combining those disclosures.
Applicant’s reservation of rights and statement that the claims are in condition for allowance likewise do not constitute substantive evidence of patentability and do not overcome the factual findings set forth in the rejection.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed specifically to the prior Carlstrom-Bujak-James-Wicks rejection are moot because they do not address the present amended claims and the present Carlstrom-Welch combination, with Yamaura where applicable. To the extent the arguments are directed to the current rejection, they are unpersuasive because Carlstrom discloses the loose-wheel sinusoidal acceleration signature, Welch discloses the compatible adaptive acceleration-processing and notification techniques, and Yamaura supplies the road-surface teachings required for the applicable dependent claims.
The §103 rejections set forth in the present Office Action are therefore maintained.
The governing USPTO obviousness framework is summarized in MPEP §2141 and MPEP §2143.
Conclusion
The following publications are identified as relevant to the claimed subject matter and are made of record. They are not relied upon in the claim mapping or rejection below.
Okada
The Examiner notes Okada, US 2015/0006104 A1, published January 1, 2015, as relevant to Claim 1’s wheel-based sensing. Okada describes acceleration sensors associated with wheels, radial acceleration signals generated during wheel rotation, periodic acquisition, processor-based processing, and visual warning. This publication is not relied upon in the claim mapping below.
Mancosu
The Examiner notes Mancosu, US 2007/0255510 A1, published on November 1, 2007, as relevant to Claims 3–6. Mancosu describes tire-mounted acceleration measurements in radial and tangential directions, processor-memory processing, sampling, variable means, roughness estimation, and road-surface classification. Mancosu is of record but not relied upon for mapping or rejection purposes.
Latarnik
The Examiner notes Latarnik, US 6,439,045 B1, issued August 27, 2002, with PCT publication WO 98/52780 dated November 26, 1998, as relevant to Claims 8 and 9. Latarnik describes individual-wheel measurements, statistical means, standard-deviation scattering measures, comparative ranges, and optical or audible warnings. It is not relied upon in mapping.
Hattab
The Examiner notes Hattab, US 2019/0144006 A1, published May 16, 2019, as relevant to Claim 1. Hattab describes processor-memory control, per-wheel vibration analysis, recursive means, threshold comparison, loose-wheel detection, and alerts. Hattab is placed on the record for completeness and is not relied upon in this Office Action’s claim mapping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights