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
Applicant filed claims 1-18 of US application 18/988,638 on 12/19/24.
Applicant re-filed claims 1-18 of US application 18/988,638 on 1/15/25. However, the re-filing was identical to the original filing. Claims 1-18 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, “wherein the signals include” should be “wherein [[the]] signals include”
In claim 12, “which represents the climbing resistance” should be “which represents [[the]] a climbing resistance”
In claim 14, “from the engine speed information” should be “from the measured engine speed information”
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.
Claim 2 is 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 claim 2, applicant recites, “acceleration values (a(t1), a(t2)) of the motor vehicle at the two different times (t1, t2) do not differ significantly from one another.” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear what is meant by “significantly”. In particular, it is unclear whether “significantly” means zero or greater than zero. Furthermore, if it means greater than zero, then it is unclear what value greater than zero it refers to. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite and rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Examiner’s suggestion to help applicant overcome the 112(b) rejection: applicant can overcome the rejection by simply removing the word “significantly”.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of measuring various kinematic values and engine values for a vehicle and performing calculations on them to estimate an engine torque of the vehicle. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, applicant recites, mutatis mutandis, A controller of a braking system of a motor vehicle, the controller comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program code stored thereon;
said program code being configured, when executed by said processor, to:
determine a value for a mass (in) of the motor vehicle and a motor vehicle velocity value (v(t1), v(t2)) determined at each of two different times (t1, t2) during acceleration of the motor vehicle;
calculate an engine power (P'; P) of an engine from the value for the mass (in) and the motor vehicle velocity value (v(t1), v(t2); and,
estimate a value for the engine reference torque (MRM) via the calculated engine power (P'; P) on a basis of power and torque curves, which are stored as a function of a speed (nM) of the engine.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore is directed to a process, which satisfies step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Claims 16-17 recite a device and a controller, respectively, and therefore directed to apparatuses, which also satisfy step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Under the two-prong inquiry, the claim is eligible at revised step 2A unless: Prong One: the claim recites a judicial exception; and Prong Two: the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception.
The above claim steps are directed to the concept of measuring various kinematic values and engine values for a vehicle and performing calculations on them to estimate an engine torque of the vehicle, which is an abstract idea that can be performed by a user mentally or manually and falls within the Mental Processes grouping. (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea).
Other than reciting the use of a controller in all three claims; a device, computer, and estimator in claim 16; and a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium in claim 17, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed entirely by a human. The use of one or more computing devices is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Prong Two: NO, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application similar to that shown in MPEP 2106.05).
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. All of the aforementioned additional elements are further described as being implemented by a processor executing computer code in at least claim 17 of applicant’s original disclosure. Therefore these additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The recitation of generic processors/computers does not take the above limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Moreover, the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims merely invoke the additional elements as tools that are being used in their ordinary capacity. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Examiner suggestion to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome the 101 rejections by amending the independent claims to recite, “wherein the motor vehicle is controlled based on the engine reference torque.”
This would overcome the 101 rejection because it cannot be performed mentally or manually. There is basis for such an amendment in at least paragraphs [0017], [0058], and [0060] of the specification.
Regarding claim 2, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein the two different times (t1, t2) are chosen to be so close to one another in time that acceleration values (a(t1), a(t2)) of the motor vehicle at the two different times (t1, t2) do not differ significantly from one another.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 3, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein the value for the mass (m) of the motor vehicle is determined from pneumatic spring pressures measured at the motor vehicle.21
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 4, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein the engine power (P) is calculated as follows:
wherein P is the engine power, m is the determined value of the mass of the motor vehicle, v(t1) is the value of the motor vehicle velocity determined at time t1, and v(t2) is the value of the motor vehicle velocity determined at time t2.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 5, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein, when calculating the engine power (P), at least one of following correction factors are taken into account: correction factor corra,rot, which represents an acceleration of rotating masses of the motor vehicle; correction factor corrR, which represents a rolling resistance of the wheels of the motor vehicle ;correction factor corrL, which represents an air resistance of the motor vehicle; correction factor corrst, which represents a climbing resistance of a gradient of a road used by the motor vehicle, and, correction factor corrdiv, which represents further frictional resistances.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 6, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein the engine reference torque (MRM) is estimated repeatedly; and, at least one of state models of the motor vehicle are taken into account and recursive or iterative estimation algorithms are applied.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 7, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein the engine reference torque (MRM) is estimated repeatedly; and, a Kalman filter is applied.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 8, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein the two different times (t1, t2) are checked for suitability and, if it is established that one of the two different times (t1, t2) is unsuitable, the associated motor vehicle velocity value (v(t1), v(t2)) is discarded or filtered out.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 9, applicant recites The method of claim 8, wherein, when checking the suitability of the two different times (t1, t2), signals from a braking system of the motor vehicle are taken into account; and, the signals indicate unsuitable motor vehicle behavior.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites The method of claim 8, wherein, when checking the suitability of the two different times (t1, t2), signals from a controller of an anti-lock braking system or an electronic braking system are taken into account; and, the signals indicate unsuitable motor vehicle behavior.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites The method of claim 8, wherein the signals include at least one of a brake actuation signal for signaling brake actuation and an activation signal for signaling activation of an anti- lock braking system.
However, this is just specifying the type of signals present as opposed to whether the brakes are actually controlled based on the signals.
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites The method of claim 1 further comprising: calculating a climbing resistance via an inclination sensor; calculating a correction factor corrst, which represents the climbing resistance, in dependence upon the climbing resistance; and/or, when an inclination is recognized via a gradient angle, generated by the inclination sensor, that is outside a predetermined range, a motor vehicle velocity value determined at a same time is excluded or declared to be unsuitable.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein the engine power (P) is continuously calculated repeatedly and a maximum value (Pmax) of the engine power is determined by replacement of an already existing maximum value (Pmax) of the engine power with a greater calculated value of the engine power (Pneu), provided that the greater calculated value (Pneu) has previously been evaluated as being reliable.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein measured engine speed information (nM) or engine speed information (nM) derived from information about an engaged gear and a wheel speed (nR) is used; and, the engine reference torque is determined from the engine speed information (nM) and the engine power (P).
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites The method of claim 1, wherein the engine reference torque (MRM) is continuously estimated repeatedly and a maximum value (MRM) of the engine reference torque is determined by replacement of an already existing value (MRMalt) for the maximum value with a greater estimated value of the engine reference torque (MRMneu), provided that the greater estimated value of the engine reference torque (MRMneu) has been evaluated as being reliable.
However, this is just more data gathering and processing, which can be performed mentally and manually.
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites A controller of a braking system of a motor vehicle, the controller comprising the device for determining the engine reference torque of the engine of the motor vehicle of claim 16.
However, merely specifying the controller as a computing environment does add anything additional for the same reasons as discussed for the independent claims.
Examiner suggestion to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome the 101 rejections by amending the independent claims to recite, “wherein the motor vehicle is controlled based on the engine reference torque.”
This would overcome the 101 rejection because it cannot be performed mentally or manually. There is basis for such an amendment in at least paragraphs [0017], [0058], and [0060] of the specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 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.
The closest prior art of record is Itoh (US 20100004809 A1) in view of Flaum et al. (US 20160121903 A1) in further view of Wilding (US 10697381 B2) in further view of Zhao et al. (US 20190107069 A1), hereinafter referred to as Itoh, Flaum, Wilding, and Zhao, respectively. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, Itoh discloses A method for determining an engine reference torque (MRM), used in a controller of a motor vehicle, of an engine of the motor vehicle (See at least Fig. 7 in Itoh: Itoh discloses that When engine 120 is in the load drive state, engine torque calculating unit 8240 calculates engine power request value Pe based on vehicle speed V and the engine power request value map shown in FIG. 7, and calculate an engine torque request value Te from ((engine power request value Pe)/(engine revolution speed NE)) [See at least Itoh, 0064]), the method comprising:
Flaum teaches determining a value for a mass (m) of the motor vehicle (Flaum teaches that The mass m of the motor vehicle is then determined from the speeds, v.sub.0, v.sub.1 and the drive powers P.sub.A0, P.sub.A1 at the two instants t.sub.0, t.sub.1 [See at least Flaum, 0032]) and a motor vehicle velocity value (v(t1), v(t2)) determined at each of two different times (t1, t2) (Flaum teaches that determining the speed v of the motor vehicle and the drive power P.sub.A of the motor vehicle for two different instants t.sub.0, t.sub.1, in particular ones succeeding each other rapidly [See at least Flaum, 0031]. Flaum further teaches that Here, the time interval between the two instants t.sub.0, t.sub.1 is selected in such a way that the sums of the driving resistances ΣF.sub.res of the vehicle at said two instants t.sub.0, t.sub.1 (as well as the individual driving resistances at the two instants) do not differ significantly from one another [See at least Flaum, 0031]).
Wilding teaches where calculations may occur during acceleration of the motor vehicle (See at least Fig. 2 in Wilding: Wilding teaches that In the following step S104, a power increase of the internal combustion engine is to be performed, i.e., by increasing the torque M to the torque M=M2 [See at least Wilding, Col 5, lines 54-57]).
Zhao teaches calculating an engine power (P'; P) of the engine from the value for the mass (m) and the motor vehicle velocity value (v(t1), v(t2)) (See at least Fig. 5 in Zhao: Zhao teaches that At 504, the second agent predicts driver demand power as a function of future time Pdd_pre(t). The driver demand power is predicted via the following equations [See at least Zhao, 0057]. Zhao further teaches that Pdd_pre(t) is predicted driver demand power as a function of future time, m is vehicle mass, v is vehicle speed, ρ is density of air, cd is the vehicle's coefficient of drag, A is the frontal area of the vehicle, sin and cos are trigonometric functions, e is road angle, t is a particular instance of time and the predicted driver demand power may be determined over a time represented as a vector starting with the present time and ending at a predetermined time in the future [See at least Zhao, 0058]).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method further comprising estimating a value for the engine reference torque (MRM) via the calculated engine power (P'; P) on a basis of power and torque curves, which are stored as a function of a speed (nM) of the engine.
Itoh comes close, since Itoh teaches estimating a value for the engine reference torque (MRM) via the calculated engine power (P'; P) on a basis of power and torque curves, which are stored as a function of a speed of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 7 in Itoh: Itoh discloses that When engine 120 is in the load drive state, engine torque calculating unit 8240 calculates engine power request value Pe based on vehicle speed V and the engine power request value map shown in FIG. 7, and calculate an engine torque request value Te from ((engine power request value Pe)/(engine revolution speed NE)) [See at least Itoh, 0064]).
However, determining the values in question based on the speed of the vehicle is not the same as determining the values in question based on the speed of the engine, since factors such as gear ratio, slip, and traction make it so that these values are, in effect, not the same.
None of the other prior art of record resolves this deficiency in Itoh.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 1 and 16-17 contain allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-15, these claims also contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, this claim also contains allowable subject matter at least by virtue of its dependence from claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668