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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP 2023-151452 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: A “non-transitory recording medium” is recited, which would normally be referred to as a “non-transitory computer-readable medium.” Although the specification defines these as the computer readable types of memories, the language may be unclear as to whether the medium is used by a computer or simply recorded on a sheet of paper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 4, the “alert device” in the limitation “n alert device that issues an alert to an occupant of the vehicle” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the occupant to be alerted.
In claim 7, the “wireless transmission unit” in the limitation “a wireless transmission unit that can wirelessly send information” invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the information to be sent.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification to these claim limitations:
“[0048] a display (alert device) 38… [0091] The alert device may be a speaker”
“[0058] a communication interface (I/F) (wireless transmission unit) 26”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A component status estimation system comprising:
a recording unit in which is recorded a component status determination map representing relationships between sizes of input loads that are loads input to a vehicle, input parts, and a status of each part of a constituent component of the vehicle; and
a processor that:
estimates the sizes of the input loads and the input parts based on driving data of the vehicle, and
estimates the status of each part of the constituent component based on the sizes of the input loads and the input parts it has estimated and the component status determination map.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could mentally take driving variable data and estimate the load amount on different components in the vehicle, then based on those loads estimate a status of each component by comparing it against a load data table.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of a recording unit and a processor. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore
Claims 19 and 20 cite the same limitations as that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-3 and 5-18 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 4 recites the limitation step of “issues an alert to an occupant of the vehicle”, which is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Philip et al. (GB 2598785 A), hereinafter Philip.
With respect to claims 1, 19, and 20, Philip discloses a component status estimation system comprising: a recording unit in which is recorded a component status determination map representing relationships between sizes of input loads that are loads input to a vehicle, input parts, and a status of each part of a constituent component of the vehicle; (see at least [p. 15, ln. 30-33] “The data repository 210 comprises a component database 220 and a road database 220. The component database 220 may comprise fatigue damage values for the mechanical components of the vehicle that are being monitored by the monitoring system.” [p. 14, ln. 10-15] “Suitable parameters may include using the highest force measured per length and comparing this against a predefined value related to the engineering capacity of the component;”)
and a processor (see at least [p. 2, ln. 35-39] “the monitoring system comprises an electronic processor and an electronic memory device”) that:
estimates the sizes of the input loads and the input parts based on driving data of the vehicle, (see at least [p. 3, ln. 7-9] “estimate, from the at least one wheel centre action, a set of component-level forces for at least one mechanical component of the vehicle”)
and estimates the status of each part of the constituent component based on the sizes of the input loads and the input parts it has estimated and the component status determination map. (see at least [p. 3, ln. 10-11] “calculate, from the component-level forces, a fatigue damage value for the at least one mechanical component.” [p. 11, ln. 12-14] “For each component that is to have a fatigue damage value calculated, the minimum component-level fatigue damage capacity is used.”)
With respect to claim 4, Philip discloses the system includes an alert device that issues an alert to an occupant of the vehicle when the processor estimates that the status of at least one of the parts of the constituent component is a predetermined status. (see at least [p. 17, ln. 11-15] “The durability control module 302 may additionally generate an alert signal to the user of the vehicle if the monitoring system predicts that a component is nearing the end of its intended life.”)
With respect to claim 5, Philip discloses the processor estimates the sizes of the input loads and the input parts based on the driving data and a load estimation map representing relationships between the driving data and the input loads input to the parts of the constituent component. (see at least [p. 13, ln. 17-20] “The predefined look-up table represents the relationship between the fatigue damage value per unit distance and the road severity index. As the road severity index is based on the vehicle sensor data”)
With respect to claim 6, Philip discloses the system includes an information recording unit in which is recorded information relating to the status of each part of the constituent component estimated by the processor. (see at least [p. 4, ln. 27-30] “The monitoring system may be configured to maintain a component database comprising fatigue damage values for a plurality of mechanical components of the vehicle. In this way, the mechanical components may be monitored, and their fatigue damage data is available for review, and updating as appropriate.”)
With respect to claim 7, Philip discloses the system includes a wireless transmission unit that can wirelessly send information relating to the status of each part of the constituent component estimated by the processor. (see at least [p. 15, ln. 11-14] “The monitoring system may include communication means for communication with remote components thereof, such as a remote data repository.”)
With respect to claim 16, Philip discloses the processor estimates the sizes of the input loads and the input parts in a case in which it is determined that a predetermined specific condition is met based on the driving data. (see at least [p. 14, ln. 10-14] “parameters may include using the highest force measured per length and comparing this against a predefined value related to the engineering capacity of the component;”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philip as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rai et al. (US 2023/0373563 A1), hereinafter Rai.
With respect to claim 2, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the manufacturing method.
However, Rai teaches the constituent component is an integrally molded product manufactured by casting. (see at least [0007] “ an integrated energy absorbing system for a vehicle formed from a unitary cast metal part.”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
With respect to claim 3, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the component being a frame.
However, Rai teaches the constituent component is at least one of a front frame member or a rear frame member that are frame members of the vehicle. (see at least [0028] “cast energy absorption systems for the front and back of a vehicle that can be integrated into the frame or be part of a larger monolithic casting.”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
With respect to claim 8, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the component being a frame.
However, Rai teaches the constituent component is a frame member of the vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1, [0041] “a vehicle 100 having a central cab frame 105, a front integrated energy absorbing casting 110 and back integrated energy absorbing casting 115.”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
With respect to claim 9, Philip discloses the processor estimates the sizes of the input loads and the input parts based on the driving data and a load estimation map representing relationships between the driving data and the input loads input to the parts of the constituent component, (see at least [p. 11, ln. 12-14] “For each component that is to have a fatigue damage value calculated, the minimum component-level fatigue damage capacity is used.” [p. 13, ln. 17-20] “The predefined look-up table represents the relationship between the fatigue damage value per unit distance and the road severity index. As the road severity index is based on the vehicle sensor data”)
Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the component being a frame.
However, Rai teaches the constituent component is a frame member of the vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1, [0041] “a vehicle 100 having a central cab frame 105, a front integrated energy absorbing casting 110 and back integrated energy absorbing casting 115.”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
With respect to claim 10, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the component being a rear frame with interconnected wheel wells.
However, Rai teaches the frame member is a rear frame member that is a portion of the frame member of the vehicle, (see at least [0044] “the back integrated energy absorbing casting 115 which includes a right side 150A and left side 150B at the rearmost portion of the vehicle.”)
and the rear frame member includes, as the parts, left and right rear wheel wells and a rear crossmember that interconnects the left and right rear wheel wells. (see at least [0044] “The right side 150A of the casting 115 also includes a right wheel well 155A… The left side 150B of the casting 115 includes a left wheel well 155B…A transverse support strut 165 and a rear undercarriage 170 connect the right side 150A and left side 150B together”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
With respect to claim 11, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the component being a rear frame with interconnected wheel wells with a plurality of parts.
However, Rai teaches at least one of the left and right rear wheel wells has a plurality of the parts. (see at least [0044] “right rear crumple zone 160A that is adjacent to the right wheel well… and a left rear crumple zone 160B that is adjacent to the left wheel well.”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
With respect to claim 12, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the component being a rear frame with interconnected wheel wells with the crossmember having a plurality of parts.
However, Rai teaches the rear crossmember has a plurality of the parts. (see at least [0044] “A transverse support strut 165 and a rear undercarriage 170”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
With respect to claim 13, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the component being a front frame with interconnected wheel wells.
However, Rai teaches the frame member is a front frame member that is a portion of the frame member of the vehicle, (see at least [0047] “The front casting 110 includes the right side 120A and left side 120B”)
and the front frame member includes, as the parts, left and right front wheel wells and a front crossmember that interconnects the left and right front wheel wells. (see at least [0047] “The right side 120A also includes the wheel well 130A which surrounds the front, right wheel of the vehicle 100. The left side 120B includes the left wheel well 130B which surrounds the front, left wheel of the vehicle 100… The transverse support 135 connects the right side 120A to the left side 120B”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
With respect to claim 14, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the component being a front frame with interconnected wheel wells having a plurality of parts.
However, Rai teaches at least one of the left and right front wheel wells has a plurality of the parts. (see at least [0048] “the crumple zone 140B includes a lower crumple region 335B, a center crumple region 338B and an upper crumple region 340.”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
With respect to claim 15, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the component being a front frame with interconnected wheel wells with a crossmember having a plurality of parts.
However, Rai teaches the front crossmember has a plurality of the parts. (see at least [0048] “between the crumple zone 140B and frame mount 325B is an additional multicell region 350 which is configured to crumble or fracture following a front impact”)
As both pertain to the consideration of anticipated damage to a frame member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the frame construction disclosed in Rai, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the crumple zones to ensure they haven’t been damaged from various loading on the vehicle resulting in lower protection for the occupants, see Rai [0048].
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philip as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Song (CN 114906134 A), hereinafter Song.
With respect to claim 17, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components using acceleration, but does not explicitly disclose the load estimation occurring due to acceleration measurements in a certain shift position.
However, Song teaches it is determined that the specific condition is met when a detection value of an acceleration sensor provided at the vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value, when a detection value of a yaw rate sensor provided at the vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value, when a shift position sensor provided at the vehicle detects that a shift position is in a P range or an N range and an acceleration of a magnitude equal to or greater than a predetermined value is detected by the acceleration sensor, or when the shift position sensor detects that the shift position is in a 1st range, a 2nd range, a D range, or an R range and an acceleration of a magnitude equal to or greater than a predetermined value that is in a direction different from a traveling direction of the vehicle is detected by the acceleration sensor. (see at least [0015] “the gear position being Forward gear, the steering wheel angle is less than the first angle threshold, and the acceleration is greater than the first acceleration threshold”)
As both pertain to determining risk of damage of a vehicle while driving, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the risk of collision determination using acceleration and gear metrics disclosed in Song, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to identify a risk of colliding to engage monitoring of the damage from the collision, see Song [0051].
With respect to claim 18, Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose the condition for monitoring being based on a following vehicle distance.
However, Song teaches it is determined that the specific condition is met when a following vehicle is driving directly behind the vehicle and a size of an image representing the following vehicle and being displayed on a display provided at the vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value. (see at least [0042] “the total configuration of on-board sensors can reach 5 millimeter-wave radars, 11 smart cameras, and 2 lidars. The configuration of the on-board sensors can accurately detect the obstacle information” [0067] “when it is determined that there is a movable object behind the current vehicle and the vehicle speed V is zero, in response to the distance D being smaller than the first distance threshold… it is recognized that the current vehicle is not in a safe acceleration state.” Note: Although the image size is not given, the size of the object image is no more than a determination that the vehicle distance is too close.)
As both pertain to determining risk of damage of a vehicle while driving, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the damage monitoring system of Philip to include the risk of collision determination using acceleration and gear metrics disclosed in Song, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to identifying a risk of colliding to engage monitoring of the damage from the collision, see Song [0051].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al. (US 2023/0234598 A1) discloses an estimation algorithm configured to output a degree of deterioration of a component mounted on the vehicle in response to an input of a value of a parameter related to the component.
Nielsen et al. (US 2017/0092021 A1) discloses a vehicle monitoring system for improving the maintenance of equipment, in particular vehicles.
Barnes (US 2018/0072549 A1) discloses a load monitor including a strain gauge is mounted on a bridge that is secured at each end to locations that are on the chassis.
Pape et al. (US 2024/0183753 A1) discloses determining a condition of the components of an individual chassis includes preparing a first data set of vehicle data, which includes at least loading and/or wear data of the same or a similar chassis type over its entire lifetime.
Ueda et al. (WO 2021131091 A1) discloses an estimation device, a method for generating a training model, and a system for estimating a load weight of a specially-equipped vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669