DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a method (or computing device) for receiving data and processing said data [e.g., manipulating data, sending data, etc.].
Receiving data and processing said data are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea. The abstract ideal falls into the category of abstract ideas of “mental processes” since it involves an evaluation that could be performed in the human mind. The additional elements recited in the respective claims, such as a tire, a wheel, a tire sensor, and/or a generic control system of a vehicle, while being beyond the judicial exception, are all individually known, conventional elements of a vehicle or a vehicle computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps (or processes) of receiving data and processing said data only generally link the use of the judicial exception to the environment of a generic vehicle and/or a generic control system of a vehicle. Furthermore, there is no transformation or reduction of any vehicle component to a different state or thing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered as a whole with each of the additional elements, the claim(s) simply append(s) well-understood conventional vehicle components to the judicial exception with a high generality.
The dependent claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-18 also do not recite any additional limitations beyond the abstract idea itself [e.g., the subject matter of the dependent claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-18 is similarly with respect to processing data and/or performing calculations with respect to individually known, conventional elements of a vehicle or a vehicle computer, without significantly more].
The dependent claims 5-7, 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency from the respective independent claims, however, the examiner notes that the dependent claims 5-7, 12-14 and 19-20 do recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [e.g., via the limitations concerning the adjusting of an operation of an antilock brake system (ABS) of the vehicle, the adjusting of an operation of a traction control system (TCS) of the vehicle, and/or the activation of a brake drying system of the vehicle in combination with the other claim limitations].
As such, the aforementioned rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be overcome by incorporating the subject matter per the dependent claims 5-7, 12-14 and/or 19-20 into the respective independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
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 1-20 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 regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, each claim recites “the ambient temperature and relative humidity data having been collected by a tire sensor mounted to an exterior of a tire of the vehicle or an exterior of a wheel of the vehicle”. The claims are rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned limitation(s) is/are intended to define a step or process that is necessarily distinct from the receiving of ambient temperature and relative humidity data “from a vehicle” limitation(s) [e.g., it is not exactly clear as to what necessarily distinguishes the receiving of data from a vehicle from the collecting of data by a tire sensor].
Regarding claims 19-20, each claim recites “the current coefficient of friction”. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to which limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., claims 19-20 depend from claim 15, not from claim 18].
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 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20110264300 A1 (Tuononen) in view of EP 4197768 A1 (Stoian).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Tuononen (Figures 1-2) teaches a method [and commensurate system comprising a computing device comprising a processor and a memory, and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions (defined and/or encompassed by the computer described per claim 11)] (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with claims 1, 11), comprising:
receiving ambient temperature and relative humidity data from [a sensor of] a vehicle (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0023]-[0025], [0039]-[0052] and claim 6) [e.g., “In the FIG. 1, the top graph is a road sensor's classification result X, varying in the example among classes A, B, C, and D. The true measuring result, however, is a multidimensional vector, which may comprise information for example about the reflection factors of a road sensor, the polarity of a reflection, and the directions of a reflection on various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, about temperature, humidity, etc.”],
applying a machine-learning model to the temperature and humidity data from the vehicle to predict [e.g., estimate] a road condition for the vehicle (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0025], [0039]-[0052]) [e.g., “when the road surface changes, the classified database will be searched for a road measuring value as fresh and identical as possible and the maximum friction estimate corresponding to this measuring value will be used as an estimate also for the current road surface or a suitable value will be interpolated from closely correlated old maximum friction estimates. The classification, interpolation or the modeling of a correlation between the road sensor's measuring results and friction can be effected by using known statistical methods, or a multidimensional result vector of the measuring sensor can be classified by using, for example, a neural network or a corresponding learning classification algorithm”]; and
sending the road condition for the vehicle to a control system [e.g., braking control system] of the vehicle (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0016]) [e.g., “The road surface classification data obtained by means of a sensor can be beneficial even without knowledge about maximum friction because, for example in full-scale braking on snow, it is advisable to allow more slipping than on tarmac or ice. Hence, on different materials, the maximum friction force results from different amounts of slippage and knowing the type of road surface may assist in selecting a more effective control algorithm for example for ABS brakes. With measurements conducted during a braking or slip controlling action, finding the most effective way of braking takes usually less time if the type of road surface or the friction properties of the road is known in advance”].
Tuononen fails to explicitly or expressly teach wherein the ambient temperature and relative humidity data has been collected by a tire sensor mounted to an exterior of a tire of the vehicle or an exterior of a wheel of the vehicle [e.g., the ambient temperature and relative humidity data per Tuononen is not necessarily collected by a tire sensor mounted as claimed, and as such, Tuononen fails to teach the aforementioned underlined configuration for collecting the ambient temperature and relative humidity data]; [e.g., further noting that Tuononen does at least suggest the aforementioned subject matter and/or possibility when discussing the relevant prior art, via at least paragraph [0013], lines 6-13 and paragraph [0039], lines 8-11]; [e.g., “The tire can be fitted with sensors measuring strains, accelerations or forces for facilitating a measuring process. Progress in the art has been rapid and in all likelihood the estimation of tire friction advances also in the future, for example by virtue of sensors integrated in a tire, a rim or a wheel hub. Therefore, quite probably, the maximum friction can be estimated in the future with a lesser-than-before friction force and more reliably than before”]; [e.g., “In addition, the road surface can be measured also outside the tires' traveling lines in order to enable a warning to be given about an inconsistent grip of the road”].
However, Stoian (Figure 1) teaches an analogous vehicle comprising vehicle tires (2), wherein said tires are equipped with a tire sensor (3) in the form of a temperature sensor (4) and a humidity sensor (5), wherein said tire sensor is mounted to an exterior of the vehicle tires and configured to measure an outside (or external) temperature and humidity of the road surface, and wherein the data/measured values from the temperature and humidity sensors is/are processed to subsequently regulate a traction (or braking) control system of the vehicle (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0028]-[0034]) [e.g., “The temperature sensor 4 measures the temperature outside the vehicle tyre 2, i.e. the ambient temperature close to the road surface. The humidity sensor 5 measures the humidity outside of the vehicle tyre 2, i.e. the humidity of the road surface”].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly have the road sensor(s) per Tuononen include (or further include) a tire sensor mounted to an exterior of a respective tire of the vehicle to measure the temperature and humidity of the road surface as an alternative [e.g., also again noting that Tuononen already contemplates the possibility of integrating sensors in a tire, a rim, or a wheel hub for the purpose(s) of improving the reliability of the corresponding prediction(s)/estimation(s)], as suggested by Stoian, so as to have a sensor arrangement that enables faster measurements and/or improved accuracy and/or reliability via direct and/or localized measurements and/or via being less susceptible to environmental interference [e.g., as opposed to having a sensor arrangement that relies on indirect sensing (or sensors) farther from the road surface(s) and/or a sensor arrangement that is more susceptible to environmental influences such as dirt, dust, rain, snow, etc.] (implicit in view of well-known and/or basic engineering logic/principles concerning the utilization of direct and indirect sensing (or sensors) in tires and/or vehicle control systems); (also see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0012]).
Additionally (or alternatively), one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily considered and/or contemplated existing solutions (or sensor arrangements) for obtaining the ambient temperature and relative humidity data [e.g., such as that of Stoian], and implemented said solutions accordingly, without the exercise of inventive skill [e.g., one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, the intended driving environment(s), etc.), without exercising inventive skill], and furthermore, the result(s)/effect(s) to be yielded via obtaining the ambient temperature and relative humidity data via a tire sensor mounted to an exterior of a tire of the vehicle would have been highly predictable in view of the teachings/context per Stoian [e.g., Stoian clearly provides that the aforementioned solution (or sensor arrangement) is advantageous and/or desirable for obtaining temperature and humidity data to be used for traction control/braking optimization(s), and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) disclosed by Stoian when applying the teachings per Stoian to the system(s)/method(s) per Tuononen].
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Tuononen in view of Stoian teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tuononen (Figures 1-2) further teaches or suggests training the machine-learning model to predict the road condition based at least in part on historic weather data that includes a relationship between temperature, relative humidity, and weather conditions (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0016], [0025], [0039] and claim 6).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Tuononen in view of Stoian teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tuononen (Figures 1-2) further teaches or suggests wherein the control system is configured to calculate a predicted wear level for the tire of the vehicle (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0029]-[0033], [0049]-[0050]) [e.g., “Normally, the driver does not notice slowly changing driving characteristics, for example the deterioration of maximum friction caused by the wearing of a tire or wheel suspension. A method according to the invention enables tracking the friction properties of a tire as a function of time, since the system monitors not only the maximum friction but also the road surface measuring results and enables comparing to each other the results measured with a similar road surface in similar conditions”]; [e.g., “The centralized estimation of maximum friction may also provide information about disparities of the maximum friction in the tires of vehicles moving in line. For example the icy smooth road creates a large difference between the typical studded tire and non-studded winter tire. This knowledge can be used for warning all the road users by roadside displays”]; [e.g., disparities in the maximum friction of tires being with respect to a wear level of the tires].
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Tuononen in view of Stoian teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tuononen (Figures 1-2) further teaches or suggests wherein the control system is configured to calculate a current coefficient of friction for a road based at least in part on the road condition (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with abstract and paragraphs [0016], [0025]).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Tuononen in view of Stoian teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tuononen (Figures 1-2) further teaches or suggests wherein the control system is further configured to adjust an operation of an antilock brake system (ABS) of the vehicle based at least in part on the current coefficient of friction (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with abstract and paragraphs [0016], [0025]) [e.g., “The road surface classification data obtained by means of a sensor can be beneficial even without knowledge about maximum friction because, for example in full-scale braking on snow, it is advisable to allow more slipping than on tarmac or ice. Hence, on different materials, the maximum friction force results from different amounts of slippage and knowing the type of road surface may assist in selecting a more effective control algorithm for example for ABS brakes. With measurements conducted during a braking or slip controlling action, finding the most effective way of braking takes usually less time if the type of road surface or the friction properties of the road is known in advance”].
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Tuononen in view of Stoian teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tuononen (Figures 1-2) further teaches or suggests wherein the control system is further configured to adjust an operation of a traction control system (TCS) of the vehicle based at least in part on the current coefficient of friction (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with abstract and paragraphs [0005], [0016], [0025], [0034]) [e.g., the disclosed slippage control system and/or slip controlling action being with respect to a traction control system]; [e.g., using the brakes to control slip is a core function of a traction control system].
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20110264300 A1 (Tuononen) in view of EP 4197768 A1 (Stoian) in further view of DE 102022112621 B3 (Scharinger).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Tuononen in view of Stoian teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Tuononen fails to explicitly or expressly teach wherein the control system is further configured to activate a brake drying system of the vehicle based at least in part on the road condition of the vehicle.
However, Scharinger (Figures 1-2) teaches an analogous vehicle (1) including a corresponding control system (4) and braking system (2, 3) (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraph [0045]), and wherein the control system is configured to activate [e.g., trigger] a brake drying system of the vehicle based at least in part on the road condition of the vehicle (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0002], [0014]-[0015], [0031]-[0034]) [e.g., “the situational information is considered the trigger for whether or not to apply the brakes. In this context, applying the brakes for cleaning and/or heating means applying them in a way that does not result in a noticeable deceleration of the motor vehicle”]; [e.g., “in order to determine the provided situation information, at least one of the following information is taken into account: the outside temperature; the brake disc temperature; the duration of the parking process; humidity; the vehicle's environment; weather”]; [e.g., “Alternatively or additionally, the situation information can describe precipitation in the vicinity of the vehicle, for example whether it is currently raining and/or snowing. Such a current situation may indicate that a layer of ice and/or other coating, for example of salt water, is forming or has formed on the brake disc of the brake”]; [e.g., e.g., a wet or icy road condition is part of the vehicle’s environment].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly activate [e.g., trigger] a brake drying system of the vehicle based at least in part on the road condition of the vehicle as a modification (or an alternative) in the system/method per Tuononen [e.g., having a trigger based on a road condition (wet, dry, icy, etc.) for applying the brakes for cleaning and/or heating purposes and/or applying the brakes in a way that does not result in a noticeable deceleration of the motor vehicle], as suggested by Scharinger, in order to prevent a reduction in the coefficient of friction of the brake(s) which would limit the intended (or optimal) braking effect of the brake(s) during certain road and/or weather conditions, and thereby ensure that the friction estimation(s)/prediction(s) per Tuononen remain as accurate as possible to ensure that the brake(s) is/are applied optimally regardless of said certain road and/or weather conditions (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0002], [0014]-[0015], [0031]-[0034]).
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Tuononen and Scharinger are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning braking systems of vehicles, techniques for optimizing brake performance in accordance with temperature, humidity, road and/or weather conditions, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) via accordingly applying the brake drying system functionality per Scharinger to the system/method per Tuononen to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) pertaining to the cleaning/heating/drying of the brake(s) of the vehicle, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, the intended driving environment(s), etc.), without exercising inventive skill].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747