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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 06/26/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 12, 15-22, 25, 26, 34, and 35 have been amended; no claims have been added, canceled, or withdrawn. Claims 1-37 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to claims 1, 7, 18, 25, 26, 34, and 35 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections of claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant asserts on page 1 of the remarks that interpretation of “vehicle control system” in claims 30, 31, and 33 does not invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
PNG
media_image1.png
408
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “system” amounts to a non-structural generic placeholder for the term “means” in the claims, the associated phrasing “vehicle control” functionally modifies “system” without providing further modification of “system” with sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions, and “configured to perform the method of claim 1 and control or regulate a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the determined maximum coefficient of friction” functionally modifies “vehicle control system” without providing further modification of “vehicle control system” with sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. Even though “vehicle control system” in the claims is devoid of any structure, the examiner acknowledges Applicant’s unsupported opinion that the claimed “vehicle control system” includes “controllers, sensors, actuators, and associated hardware and software for performing vehicle controller functions.” For at least the reasons provided above, and in view of at least MPEP 2181_I & 2181_I_A, the interpretation of “vehicle control system” in claims 30, 31, and 33 has been maintained.
Applicant asserts on pages 10-16 of the remarks that the rejections of claims 1-25 and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper and cannot be maintained.
Applicant first attempts to support this contention by asserting that “[the] recited operations are performed in the context of determining wheel-road friction characteristics based on vehicle dynamics and wheel behavior, rather than merely observing information and forming judgments in the human mind” (see page 11 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment (e.g., “in the context of determining wheel-road friction characteristics based on vehicle dynamics and wheel behavior”) (e.g., see: MPEP 2106_I). Nothing in the method of claim 1 forecloses the steps of the method from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. Each and every aspect of the method of claim 1 can be performed mentally and/or is the equivalent of human mental work (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)_III). The method of claim 1 does not even require use of particular structure (e.g., a computer) to carrying out any of the steps of the method, although situations in which a concept is performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept also directed to claiming of a mental process (i.e., claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer) (e.g., see: MPEP 2106_C).
The first-listed step “determining a reference wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein accelerations of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road and a yaw behavior of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road are determined and used in said determining the reference wheel acceleration,” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, is unmistakably directed to a “mental process” covering performance of the limitation in the human mind that, in the context of the claim, encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments, and it is unclear why exactly Applicant believes that “determining a reference wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein accelerations of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road and a yaw behavior of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road are determined and used in said determining the reference wheel acceleration” cannot be performed mentally and is not the equivalent of human mental work, including with pen and paper. Also, it is clear that inclusion, by amendment, of “wherein accelerations of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road and a yaw behavior of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road are determined and used in said determining the reference wheel acceleration” further defines “determining a reference wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein accelerations of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road and a yaw behavior of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road are determined and used in said determining the reference wheel acceleration” as encompassing a mathematical concept, which is also an abstract idea, as a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation, and a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation (there is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation) (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)_I_B).
The second-listed step “determining a real wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein a slip behavior of the wheel on a road surface is determined and used in said determining the real wheel acceleration,” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, is also unmistakably directed to a “mental process” covering performance of the limitation in the human mind that, in the context of the claim, encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments, and it is unclear why exactly Applicant believes that “determining a real wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein a slip behavior of the wheel on a road surface is determined and used in said determining the real wheel acceleration” cannot be performed mentally and is not the equivalent of human mental work, including with pen and paper. Also, it is clear that inclusion, by amendment, of “wherein a slip behavior of the wheel on a road surface is determined and used in said determining the real wheel acceleration” further defines “determining a real wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein a slip behavior of the wheel on a road surface is determined and used in said determining the real wheel acceleration” as encompassing a mathematical concept.
The third-listed step “comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration,” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, is also unmistakably directed to a “mental process” covering performance of the limitation in the human mind that, in the context of the claim, encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments, and it is unclear why exactly Applicant believes that “comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration” cannot be performed mentally and is not the equivalent of human mental work, including with pen and paper.
The fourth-listed step “determining the maximum coefficient of friction from said comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration,” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, is also unmistakably directed to a “mental process” covering performance of the limitation in the human mind that, in the context of the claim, encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments, and it is unclear why exactly Applicant believes that “determining the maximum coefficient of friction from said comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration” cannot be performed mentally and is not the equivalent of human mental work, including with pen and paper.
Independent claims 34 and 35 include, as computer-implemented functions, each of the steps of the method of claim 1.
As with claim 1, nothing in claims 34 and 35 forecloses the computer-implemented functions from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. Each and every aspect of the computer-implemented functions of claims 34 and 35 can be performed mentally and/or is the equivalent of human mental work (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)_III). As discussed in detail above, a concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept is also directed to claiming of a mental process.
Applicant goes on to assert on pages 11-12 of the remarks that none of the steps of claim 1 and the computer-implemented functions of claims 34 and 35 constitutes a “mental process” because:
PNG
media_image2.png
18
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
266
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For at least the reasons already provided above, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s comments that the “operations” of claims 1, 34, and 35 “are not merely observations or judgements that can practically be performed in the human mind” amounts to nothing more than unsupported attorney argument and ignores the broad phrasing of the claims, which do not set forth any requirement for any particular technique(s) to constrain each of the “determining…” (or “determine…”) and the “comparing…” (or “compare…”) in the context of these claims so as to exclude a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments and to exclude mathematical relationships.
Applicant further asserts on page 12 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image4.png
304
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner acknowledges that Applicant agrees that “for a vehicle system of a vehicle” in claims 34 and 35 is an “intended-use statement.” The examiner also does not disagree that this intended use statement identifies an intended technological environment for performing the abstract ideas of the claims. As discussed in detail above, an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are unpersuasive.
Applicant goes on to assert on page 12 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image5.png
376
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in detail above, the method of claim 1 does not even require use of particular structure (e.g., a computer) to carrying out any of the steps of the method, although situations in which a concept is performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept also directed to claiming of a mental process (i.e., claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer) (e.g., see: MPEP 2106_C). It is unmistakable that the operations of claims 34 and 35 are performed on the generic computer structure of claims 34 and 35. Simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, is not a patentable application of that principle (e.g., see: MPEP 2106_I). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)_III).
Applicant further asserts, without evidence, on page 13 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image6.png
348
590
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing about claims 34 and 35 improves the functioning of the claimed generic computer structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(d)_I). As discussed in detail above, an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, and limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment does not define an improvement to the functioning of the claimed generic computer structure of claims 34 and 35 or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Each of claims 1, 34, and 35 merely determines a value (the “maximum coefficient of friction”) through a set of broadly-phrased operations, each of which being an abstract idea in the form of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept. Also, in view of the prior art of record (e.g., see the PTO-892 Notice of References form mailed 05/06/2026) and the Background section of Applicant’s specification, it was already well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine a maximum coefficient of friction. Also, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “the resulting friction information is a vehicle-operating parameter”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also asserts on page 13 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image7.png
204
592
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The scope of claims 26 and 30 is unmistakably different from the scope of each of claims 1, 34, and 35. With respect to claims 26 and 30, the examiner again submits that inclusion of the above identified additional limitations corresponding to “controlling or regulating a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the at least one determined maximum coefficient of friction” and “control or regulate a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the determined maximum coefficient of friction,” respectively, are sufficient to integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. However, claims 1, 34, and 35 neither necessarily include “controlling or regulating a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the at least one determined maximum coefficient of friction” or “control or regulate a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the determined maximum coefficient of friction” and do not integrate the aforementioned abstract ideas into a practical application.
Lastly, Applicant asserts on page 14 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image8.png
132
584
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s generic comments are unsupported and ignore the detailed rationales set forth by the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C 101, and Applicant’s remarks appear to demonstrate a misunderstanding, by Applicant, of the requirements of Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test for products and processes set forth by MPEP 2106. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 14-16, 18 and 19 arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of independent claims 1, 26, and 34, as amended, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,203,121 to Kato et al., and independent claim 35, as amended, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0274607 to Carresjo et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 recites “longitudinal slip” in line 8, which should be amended to instead recite --the longitudinal slip-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a longitudinal slip” in line 1 of the claim.
Claim 25 recites “transverse slip” in line 9, which should be amended to instead recite --the transverse slip-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a transverse slip” in lines 1-2 of the claim.
Claim 35 recites “a vehicle” in line 2, which should be amended to instead recite --[[a]] the vehicle-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “A vehicle” in line 1 of the claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 is: “vehicle control system” in claims 30-31 and 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 19-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 19, as amended, now recites “wherein maximum coefficients of friction for several wheels are determined from the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 1-3, and claim 19 is dependent from claim 1. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “wherein maximum coefficients of friction for several wheels are determined from the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” necessarily introduces further step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed method and/or necessarily further limits a previously introduced step of the claimed method. Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is intended by inclusion of “wherein maximum coefficients of friction for several wheels are determined from the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in the context of the method of claim 19. Also, neither claim previously introduces “respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 2-3 of claim 19, and it is unclear whether the “reference wheel acceleration of the wheel” introduced in line 3 of amended claim 1 and/or the “real wheel acceleration of the wheel” introduced in line 7 of claim 1 is/are intended to be included by or excluded from “the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 2-3 of claim 19. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “wherein maximum coefficients of friction for several wheels are separately determined from the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 1-4, and claim 20 is dependent from claim 1. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “wherein maximum coefficients of friction for several wheels are separately determined from the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” appears to necessarily introduce a further step to be performed as part of the claimed method and/or further limit a previously introduced step of the claimed method. Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is intended by inclusion of “wherein maximum coefficients of friction for several wheels are separately determined from the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels r” in the context of the method of claim 20. Also, neither claim previously introduces “respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 2-3 of claim 20, and it is unclear whether the “reference wheel acceleration of the wheel” introduced in line 3 of amended claim 1 and/or the “real wheel acceleration of the wheel” introduced in line 7 of claim 1 is/are intended to be included by or excluded from “the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 2-3 of claim 20. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the vehicle has at least two or more axles and maximum coefficients of friction are determined for some or all wheels of non-liftable axles based on the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the wheels” in lines 1-4, and claim 21 is dependent from claim 1. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “maximum coefficients of friction are determined for some or all wheels of non-liftable axles based on the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the wheels” appears to necessarily introduce a further step to be performed as part of the claimed method and/or further limit a previously introduced step of the claimed method. Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is intended by inclusion of “maximum coefficients of friction are determined for some or all wheels of non-liftable axles based on the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the wheels” in the context of the method of claim 21. Also, neither claim previously introduces “respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 3-4 of claim 21, and it is unclear whether the “reference wheel acceleration of the wheel” introduced in line 3 of amended claim 1 and/or the “real wheel acceleration of the wheel” introduced in line 7 of claim 1 is/are intended to be included by or excluded from “the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 3-4 of claim 21. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the vehicle has two to five axles and maximum coefficients of friction are determined for some or all wheels of non-liftable axles based on the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the wheels” in lines 1-4, and claim 22 is dependent from claim 1. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “maximum coefficients of friction are determined for some or all wheels of non-liftable axles based on the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the wheels” appears to necessarily introduce a further step to be performed as part of the claimed method and/or further limit a previously introduced step of the claimed method. Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is intended by inclusion of “maximum coefficients of friction are determined for some or all wheels of non-liftable axles based on the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the wheels” in the context of the method of claim 22. Also, neither claim previously introduces “respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 3-4 of claim 22, and it is unclear whether the “reference wheel acceleration of the wheel” introduced in line 3 of amended claim 1 and/or the “real wheel acceleration of the wheel” introduced in line 7 of claim 1 is/are intended to be included by or excluded from “the respective reference wheel accelerations and real wheel accelerations of the several wheels” in lines 3-4 of claim 22. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 25, as amended, now recites refers to “the wheel speed in the y direction” in line 13; however, claim 25 depends from claim 1, and neither claim appears to previously introduce “a wheel speed in the y direction,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the wheel speed in the y direction” in line 13 of the claim. Claim 25 does, however, previously introduce “a wheel speed” in line 12, with the “wheel speed” of line 12 being associated with a first variable that differs from a second variable associated with the “wheel speed” in line 13. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend “a wheel speed” in line 12 to instead recite --a wheel speed in the x direction,-- AND to amend “the wheel speed” in line 13 to instead recite --[[the]] a wheel speed--.
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 1-25 and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claims 1 and 26 are each directed to a method. Claim 30 is directed to a “vehicle control system” (e.g., an apparatus) that fully incorporates the method of claim 1. Independent claim 34 is directed to a “control unit” (e.g., an apparatus). Independent claim 35 is directed to a “vehicle” (e.g., an apparatus). Claims 2-25 depend from claim 1, claims 27-29 depend from claim 26, claims 31-33 depend from claim 30, and claims 36 and 37 depend from claim 35. Therefore, claims 1-37 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1, 26, 30, 34, and 35 each include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a maximum coefficient of friction of a wheel of a vehicle on a road, the method comprising:
determining a reference wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein accelerations of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road and a yaw behavior of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road are determined and used in said determining the reference wheel acceleration;
determining a real wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein a slip behavior of the wheel on a road surface is determined and used in said determining the real wheel acceleration;
comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration; and
determining the maximum coefficient of friction from said comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration.
Claim 26 recites:
A vehicle control method for a vehicle comprising:
determining at least one maximum coefficient of friction,
wherein said determining the at least one maximum coefficient of friction includes determining a reference wheel acceleration of a wheel, wherein accelerations of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road and a yaw behavior of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road are determined and used in said determining the reference wheel acceleration;
wherein said determining at least one maximum coefficient of friction further includes determining a real wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein a slip behavior of the wheel on a road surface is determined and used in said determining the real wheel acceleration;
wherein said determining at least one maximum coefficient of friction further includes comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration, wherein the maximum coefficient of friction is determined from said comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration; and
controlling or regulating a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the at least one determined maximum coefficient of friction.
Claim 30 recites:
A vehicle control system configured to
perform the method of claim 1 and
control or regulate a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the determined maximum coefficient of friction.
Claim 34 recites:
A control unit for a vehicle control system of a vehicle, the control unit comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code for determining a maximum coefficient of friction of a wheel of the vehicle on a road stored thereon;
said program code being configured, when executed by said processor, to:
determine a reference wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein accelerations of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road and a yaw behavior of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road are determined and used in said determining the reference wheel acceleration;
determine a real wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein a slip behavior of the wheel on a road surface is determined and used in said determining the real wheel acceleration;
compare the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration; and
determine the maximum coefficient of friction from the compared reference wheel acceleration and real wheel acceleration.
Claim 35 recites:
A vehicle comprising:
a control unit for a vehicle control system of a vehicle;
at least two non-liftable axles;
an inertial sensor unit;
said control unit including a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code for determining a maximum coefficient of friction of a wheel of the vehicle on a road stored thereon;
said program code being configured, when executed by said processor, to:
determine a reference wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein accelerations of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road and a yaw behavior of at least one of the vehicle and the wheel on the road are determined and used in said determining the reference wheel acceleration;
determine a real wheel acceleration of the wheel, wherein a slip behavior of the wheel on a road surface is determined and used in said determining the real wheel acceleration;
compare the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration; and
determine the maximum coefficient of friction from the compared reference wheel acceleration and real wheel acceleration.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, each of “determining…” (or “determine…”) and “comparing…” (or “compare…”) in the context of these claims encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments. Additionally, each of the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations. Accordingly, each of claims 1, 26, 30, 34, and 35 recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are the underlined portions provided above while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea.”
With respect to claims 26 and 30, the examiner submits that inclusion of the above identified additional limitations corresponding to “controlling or regulating a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the at least one determined maximum coefficient of friction” and “control or regulate a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the determined maximum coefficient of friction,” respectively, are sufficient to integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
However, with respect to claims 1, 34, and 35, the examiner submits, for the following reasons, that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, each instance of the recitation of “for a vehicle control system of a vehicle” in claims 34 and 35, amounts to nothing more than a recitation of intended use or purpose that is not germane to patentability of the claims (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02 & 2114_II).
Recitations of the “control unit,” the “processor,” the “non-transitory computer readable medium,” and the “program code” in each of claims 34 and 35 amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity that merely defines use of a computing device (e.g., a computer) to support performing of an associated process, all recited at a high level of generality (e.g., see: MPEP 2106). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0274607 to Carresjo et al., for example, teaches that it was conventionally known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a vehicle with each of non-liftable axles (as discussed by at least ¶ 0084) and an inertial sensor unit (as discussed by at least ¶ 0202).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1, 34, and 35 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As discussed in detail above, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-25, which depend from claim 1, and claims 36 and 37, which depend from claim 35, do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Thus, claims 2-25, 36, and 37 are also ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-29 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 30-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 30 fully incorporates rejected claim 1. Claims 31-33 depend from claim 30.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to independent claim 26, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, neither taught nor suggested a vehicle control method including “wherein said determining at least one maximum coefficient of friction further includes comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration, wherein the maximum coefficient of friction is determined from said comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration; and controlling or regulating a driving behavior of the vehicle on the basis of the at least one determined maximum coefficient of friction” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Claims 27-29 are dependent from claim 26.
With respect to claim 30, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, neither taught nor suggested a vehicle control system including “control or regulate a driving behavior of the vehicle on a basis of the determined maximum coefficient of friction” together with “comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration; and determining the maximum coefficient of friction from said comparing the reference wheel acceleration and the real wheel acceleration” from claim 1 as claim 30 fully incorporates the method of claim 1) in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim (which fully incorporates the method of claim 1). Claims 31-33 are dependent from claim 30.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights