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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 04/23/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 17-20 were amended, claim 16 has been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The reference was found to be reasonably pertinent to the instant application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-11, filed 04/23/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the amendment renders this interpretation moot, the amended claims are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. The added limitation integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose a condition being met such that an external force with a probability of being input has been input to the vehicle during driving, as amended in claims 1, 19, and 20. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Ewert did disclose this limitation as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The final limitation “the specific condition is met” should be “the predetermined specific condition is met” in each of the independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims are dependent on a cancelled claim and should be amended to ensure proper dependency. For this examination it will be assumed that both are dependent on claim 1.
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 1, 4-7, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philip et al. (GB 2598785 A), hereinafter Philip, in view of Ewert et al. (US 20160152208 A1), hereinafter Ewert.
With respect to claims 1, 19, and 20, Philip discloses a component status estimation system comprising: a storage configured to record 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 in a case in which it is determined that a predetermined specific condition is met 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”)
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.”)
Philip discloses a component monitoring system that determines damage of chassis components, but does not explicitly disclose determining an external force associated with a probability being input during driving.
However, Ewert teaches a processor determines that the specific condition is met in the case where an external force with a probability of being input has been input to the vehicle during driving of the vehicle. (see at least [0011] “a probability of impact of the collision object is determined by means of the surroundings sensor and is taken into account when changing the limit value.” [0019] “force sensors… are provided on the bumper in order to detect the impact of a collision object on the bumper” [0022] “The signals of the contact sensor 4 are fed to a signal processing device 7 that analyzes the impact data of the collision object on the vehicle after or while the collision object impacts the vehicle.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 load measurement of Philip to include the probability of an impact, as disclosed in Ewert, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a consideration for additional protection of a pedestrian (driver) at the time of collision such that the damage would cause added harm to the driver, see Ewert [0001].
With respect to claim 4, Philip discloses the system includes a display 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 the storage is configured to record 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 communication interface 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.”)
Claims 2-3 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philip in view of Ewert 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 in view of Ewert 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 predetermined 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 predetermined 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights