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 Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffone (US 20160332633 A1), in view of Parry et al. (GB 2590326 A) herein Parry.
In regards to Claim 1, Raffone discloses the following:
1. A method performed by an apparatus of a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining, based on a quantity of one or more weight estimations that have been applied to vehicle data and based on a variation condition being satisfied, a forgetting factor; (see at least [0039] “vehicle mass estimates”, “mass estimation has been chosen Recursive Least Square with forgetting factor”, [0070] Equation 17 for “vehicle mass M” [wherein] “in order to overcome this degradation has been used RLS algorithm with forgetting factor (μ) which minimizes prediction error according to quadratic principle, and reduces RLS problem about progressive decay”, wherein claim 11 and [0058] “every time that predetermined events occur that make unreliable the previous vehicle mass estimation” is understood to be a variation condition being satisfied.)
It is noted that Raffone discloses vehicle mass, which is not explicitly a vehicle weight. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Raffone’s determination of vehicle mass as the claimed determination of vehicle weight, because mass and weight are art-recognized, predictably related measures of the same vehicle loading condition in terrestrial vehicle systems. Weight is the local gravitational force on a body, and in common technical and commercial usage “weight” is often used synonymously with mass. Further, the results of this substitution would have been predictable.
Raffone discloses the following:
determining estimated weight information of the vehicle by applying, to the vehicle data, a weight estimation that is based on recursive least squares (RLS) associated with the forgetting factor; (see at least [0039] “vehicle mass estimates”, “mass estimation has been chosen Recursive Least Square with forgetting factor”)
updating the estimated weight information by repeatedly applying, to the vehicle data (see at least [0039] “Recursive Least Square”, inherent, see also [0071] “estimation variance for every sampling period”)
Raffone is silent, but Parry teaches the following:
and until a total quantity of weight estimations that have been applied to the vehicle data reaches a threshold value, (page 15, lines 15-20 “vehicle mass estimate output by the algorithm is continuously refined and therefore increasingly accurate. As noted earlier, a calibrated period is defined for the algorithm to produce a mass estimate of sufficient accuracy. This period may be defined in terms of a discrete number of iterations of the mass estimate algorithm , or as a time period.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Parry with the invention of Raffone, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of producing an accurate estimated value of the vehicle load for travel along a gradient, in order to produce a shift map and a set of shift points appropriate for the corresponding to the effective gradient. (Parry, page 2, lines 20-29)
Raffone discloses the following:
one or more additional weight estimations that are based on RLS associated with a variable forgetting factor, (see at least [0071] “forgetting factor μ has been managed in a typical mode for estimation of constant parameters”)
wherein the variable forgetting factor is updated based on a current quantity of weight estimations that have been applied to the vehicle data; (see at least [0071] “forgetting factor μ has been managed in a typical mode for estimation of constant parameters”)
and controlling, based on the updated estimated weight information, the vehicle. (see at least [0040] “recognize particular conditions of vehicle load distribution and to correct longitudinal acceleration measure in order to limit this inerasable error on slope estimation improving further estimation precision.”)
In the alternative, see also Parry. (page 22, lines 15-21 “select an appropriate shift map” and “determine a set of shift points”) See above for motivation to combine.
In regards to Claim 6, Raffone discloses the following:
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether the variation condition is satisfied, based on at least one of: a difference in the estimated weight information between two time frames being greater than a threshold difference, (see at least claim 11)
or a reset state in which the vehicle transitions from an OFF state to an ON state. (optional)
In regards to claims 11 and 16: Claims 11 and 16 are the vehicles performing the methods of claims 1 and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 1 and 6, above.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffone in view of Parry as applied, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 107168104 B) herein Hu.
In regards to Claim 2, Raffone suggests, but Hu more explicitly teaches the following:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein, as the current quantity of weight estimations that have been applied to the vehicle data increases, the variable forgetting factor increases and a forgetting feature of the variable forgetting factor decreases. (see at least [0227] “Vehicle mass is a slow variable. Since the initial mass value may deviate significantly from the actual mass, a large confidence decay is needed at the beginning of the identification process. This means a small forgetting factor is chosen at this stage. As identification progresses, the results converge to near the actual vehicle mass, requiring a larger forgetting factor to minimize confidence decay.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hu with the invention of Raffone, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing exceeding maximum output torque of the motor and maximum braking torque of the brake due to too many passengers located in the vehicle. (Hu, [0006]-[0008])
In regards to Claim 3, Raffone suggests, but Hu more explicitly teaches the following:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein an increase in the variable forgetting factor is proportional to an increase in the current quantity of weight estimations that have been applied to the vehicle data. (see at least [0227] “Vehicle mass is a slow variable. Since the initial mass value may deviate significantly from the actual mass, a large confidence decay is needed at the beginning of the identification process. This means a small forgetting factor is chosen at this stage. As identification progresses, the results converge to near the actual vehicle mass, requiring a larger forgetting factor to minimize confidence decay.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hu with the invention of Raffone, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing exceeding maximum output torque of the motor and maximum braking torque of the brake due to too many passengers located in the vehicle. (Hu, [0006]-[0008])
In regards to claims 12-13: Claims 12-13 are the vehicles performing the methods of claims 2-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 2-3, above.
Claim 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffone in view of Parry as applied, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 20140278040 A1) herein Singh.
In regards to Claim 7, Raffone is silent, but Singh teaches the following:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the updating of the estimated weight information comprises: determining filtered estimated weight information by applying an adaptive rate-limit filter to the estimated weight information. (see at least [0086] “The load estimate 40 is used in a moving average filter 42 and an initial guess is thereby generated for a discrete Kalman Filter 44.”, [0089] “A discrete Kalman Filter 44 is deployed, taking the output from switch 44 and the initial guess from the Moving Average Filter 42 and generating a filtered Load Estimate 50 therefrom.” and [0103] “An Adaptive Load Transfer Ratio (ALTR) Estimation 58 is then made using the static load LTR in combination with the acceleration data a.sub.x, a.sub.y from a vehicle CAN Bus 60.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Singh with the invention of Raffone, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing tire loading information to a vehicle operator and/or vehicle systems such as braking for vehicle operation and safety. (Singh, [0002]-[0003])
In regards to Claim 17: Claim 17 is the vehicle performing the method of claim 7, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 7, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 14 and 18 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. Claims 5, 9-10, 15 and 19-20 depend from claims 4, 8, 14 and 18, and therefore are similarly objected too.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
April 2, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights