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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on May 28, 2026 amends independent claims 1 and 13 and amends dependent claims 6, 8, 12, 17, and 19. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 28, 2026 regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot.
Examiner disagrees that Bruchhardt does not disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations recited in amended independent claims 1 and 13. The amended independent claims, which necessitates a new ground of rejection, are taught by previously cited reference, Bruchhardt, as will be shown in the rejections that follow.
The Examiner notes that the incorrect claim status identifier was used for claim 12 in the Listing of the Claims. Instead of “Original”, “Currently Amended” should have been used as the status identifier for claim 12. The appropriate claim status identifier should be used by the Applicant in subsequent responses.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 1 and 13, the words “indicative of estimated vibration” should be rewritten as “indicative of an estimated vibration”.
The foregoing changes are required to correct clerical, grammatical, and/or antecedent basis errors.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bruchhardt et al. (US 2024/0086948).
Regarding claim 1, Bruchhardt teaches a system for monitoring a component of a vehicle, the system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing computer instructions, the computer instructions when executed by the one or more processors causing the one or more processors to: (see Bruchhardt at [0114] which discloses that FIG. 4B illustrates a method 400B of computing component wear for a vehicle, according to an exemplary embodiment and that Method 400B may be used to perform background monitoring of a component of vehicles 1250 or 1260. Also, see Bruchhardt, at [0165] in conjunction with Fig. 13A, which discloses that computer system 1300 may include a processor 1302, memory 1304, storage 1306, an input/output (I/O) interface 1308, a communication interface 1310, and a bus 1312 and that where appropriate, computer system(s) 1300 may perform, at different times or at different locations, in real time or in batch mode, one or more steps of one or more methods described or illustrated herein; see Bruchhardt at [0166] which discloses that processor 1302 (e.g., compute units 1222 and 1232) may include hardware for executing instructions, such as those making up a computer program; see Bruchhardt at [0167] which discloses that memory 1304 includes main memory for storing instructions for processor 1302 to execute or data for processor 1302 to operate on.)
acquire, from a vibration sensor of the vehicle, first vibration data over one or more time segments, wherein the vibration sensor is located at a first location of the vehicle, and wherein the first vibration data is indicative of vibration at or near the first location of the vehicle; determine, based on the first vibration data, second vibration data indicative an estimated vibration experienced by the component of the vehicle, wherein the component is at a different location in the vehicle compared to the first location of the vibration sensor; and wherein the second vibration data is indicative of the estimated vibration experienced by the component at or near the second location of the vehicle (see Bruchhardt at [0105] which discloses that control system 230 may receive vibration sensor signals from vibration sensors 240 positioned on specific portions of vehicles 1250 or 1260 and that in certain embodiments, the vibration sensor signals include timeseries data. Examiner notes that one of the vibration sensors 240 may be mapped to the vibration sensor located at a first location of the vehicle. Bruchhardt at [0115-0116] discloses that one or more transfer functions may be measured, that a transfer function may describe a relationship between vibration at a first location (e.g., the location of a first vibration sensor, etc.) and vibration at a second location (e.g., the location of the portion at the component, etc.), and that it should be understood that transfer functions representing other relationships are possible, for example, a transfer function may describe a relationship between vibration at a first location and force at a second location, and that in some embodiments, an output of step 430 includes time-series force data corresponding to force experienced by the portion of the component over time. Further, see Bruchhardt at [0135] which discloses applying a transfer function to vibration data and additionally or alternatively, computing a rainflow matrix using vibration data to generate a measurement of wear associated with a component. Also, see Bruchhardt at [0143] which discloses correlating signals from a number of sensors to identify the indicator, and that for example, the vehicle may identify a vibrating strut based on identifying a first frequency signature from FFT. Examiner notes that using a transfer function to describe a relationship between a vibration at a first location and a force at a second location corresponds to second vibration data indicative an estimated vibration experienced by the component of the vehicle. Alternatively, Examiner notes that using a FFT to identify the location of the vibration source could be used. Thus, Bruchhardt teaches that the second vibration data is based on the first vibration data by way of using an exemplary transfer function technique or an FFT technique. Examiner notes that a first location corresponds to the location of the first vibration sensor while the second location corresponds to the location of the component. Therefore, the component is at a different location in the vehicle compared to the first vibration sensor. Examiner maps the first vibration sensor to the recited vibration sensor. Based on the foregoing reasons, Bruchhardt teaches wherein the second vibration data is indicative of the estimated vibration experienced by the component at or near the second location of the vehicle.)
determine, using the second vibration data and a lifetime model, accumulated exposure of the component to the estimated vibration experienced by the component of the vehicle; and (see Bruchhardt at [0006] which discloses that embodiments described herein may utilize one or more machine-learning models to make such predictions; see Bruchhardt at [0008] which further discloses that in some embodiments, the recommendation is based on a prediction related to the one or more indicators and is identified by the vehicle data analysis system using a machine-learning (ML) model trained to predict component failures using historical vehicle service data; Examiner notes that utilizing and predicting component failures over historical vehicle service data corresponds to using the second vibration data and a lifetime model; see Bruchhardt at [0041] which discloses that trend analysis may also be performed on the health metrics, which may help to reveal any potential areas of concern, and potentially to generate appropriate response actions, that trend analysis may include determining a rate of wear accumulation and that for example, the platform may generate a recommendation to service a component based on identifying an increase in a rate of wear associated with the component (or another associated component). Bruchhardt at [0104] discloses that the strain-based wear and vibration-based wear accumulating on the component may be computed separately but in parallel, that in both cases, a transfer function may be applied first to the incoming vibration sensor signals, that a temporal rainflow matrix may be integrated into a constantly updating accrual rainflow matrix which is used to compute the final wear amounts and that the wear may be compared against a threshold and a component having accumulated wear that exceeds the acceptable threshold may be identified for servicing. Bruchhardt at [0111] discloses that control system 230 may compute an accrued rainflow matrix to determine vibration-based wear on the component due to component vibration and that control system 230 compares the aggregate number of fatigue cycles and the amplitude associated with the fatigue cycles to a value associated with component failure to determine a percentage of lifetime remaining associated with the component. Further, Bruchhardt at [0126] discloses that data structure 600 includes wear measurements 630 and that wear measurements 630 may represent the results of a rainflow matrix describing a number of accumulated fatigue cycles associated with each component 620 and/or subcomponent 622. Examiner notes that accumulated wear, vibration-based wear accumulating on a component, and/or accumulated fatigue cycles corresponds to the recited accumulated exposure of the components to the estimated vibration experienced by the component of the vehicle. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
determine, using the accumulated exposure of the component to the estimated vibration, a remaining lifetime value of the component; (see Bruchhardt at [0107], for example, which discloses that in certain embodiments, determining strain includes computing a measurement of vibration at the component based on the vibration sensor signals and that control system 230 may compute a measurement of vibration at a location on a component of vehicles 1250 or 1260 by applying a first transfer function to sensor signals from a vibration sensor positioned on a wheel of vehicles 1250 or 1260 and may compute a measurement of force at the location on the component by applying a second transfer function to the measurement of vibration at the location. See Bruchhardt at [0109] which discloses that additionally or alternatively, vehicles 1250 or 1260 may store a running count of fatigue cycles associated with one or more components and that in some embodiments, control system 230 compares the aggregate number of fatigue cycles and the amplitude associated with the fatigue cycles to a value associated with component failure to determine a percentage of lifetime remaining associated with the component. Examiner maps aggregate number of fatigue cycles to accumulated exposure. Examiner maps percentage of lifetime remaining to a remaining lifetime value.)
generate a mission route for the vehicle, the mission route capable of being completed by the vehicle within the remaining lifetime value of the component; and generate one or more control signals for controlling operation of the vehicle along at least a portion of the mission route (see at least Bruchhardt at [0036] which discloses that embodiments described herein may provide fleet-level status information, including making predictions regarding fleet utilization and available capacity, that embodiments described herein may utilize machine-learning artificial intelligence to make such predictions, that embodiments described herein may generate recommendations regarding optimal times to service vehicles in the fleet, based on fleet utilization needs (e.g., volume of deliveries-both current and predicted, delivery routes, or third-party maintenance provider availability). Further, see Bruchhardt at [0102] which discloses that predictions based on the varying parameters and user interface presenting the predictions advantageously allow a user (e.g., a fleet manager managing a fleet of electric vehicles) and/or an electronic device to determine a more efficient schedule for the one or more electric vehicles that, for example, a time for maintenance and/or repair may be more accurately predicted and scheduled, that as a result, breakdown events may be prevented and/or more quickly addressed, reducing unplanned downtime for the electric vehicle (e.g., and allowing fleet schedule to be more closely followed), that as another example, routes for the vehicles may be more efficiently determined and that for instance, a vehicle with a lower estimated and/or predicted battery state-of-health may be assigned to shorter routes (to ensure the vehicle has sufficient available energy to complete the routes. Further see Bruchhardt at [0173] which discloses that firmware 1350 may include functions 1360 for transmitting control signals to components of vehicles 1250 or 1260, including other vehicle ECUs 1300. Examiner notes that predicting, determining, and scheduling more efficient delivery routes based on a more efficient schedule based on maintenance and/or repair predictions, such as predicted battery state of health, for example, to reduce unplanned downtime for a vehicle in a fleet teaches the above recited clause.).
Regarding claim 2, Bruchhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transform the first vibration data from time domain to a frequency profile in frequency domain; and determine the second vibration data using the vibration profile in the frequency domain (see Bruchhardt at [0143] which discloses that in certain embodiments, step 10 includes correlating signals from a number of sensors to identify the indicator, and that or example, the vehicle may identify a vibrating strut based on identifying a first frequency signature from FFT of signals from a first vibration sensor and identifying a second frequency signature from a FFT of signals from a second vibration sensor (wherein the first and second frequency signatures are correlated with the vibrating strut). Examiner notes that Bruchhardt teaches the application of a fast Fourier transform (FFT) to the first vibration data to transform the first vibration data from time domain to a frequency profile in the frequency domain. Examiner maps signature to profile. Examiner notes that the second vibration data is determined based on a correlation between the frequency signatures of the data or signals of the first vibration sensor and the second vibration sensor.)
Regarding claim 3, Bruchhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the second vibration data using a model determined based on test vibration data for the vibration sensor and test vibration data for the component (See Bruchhardt at [0112] which discloses that additionally or alternatively, control system 230 may compare the vibration-based wear to a threshold. In certain embodiments, control system 230 uses a first threshold for comparing strain-based wear and a second threshold for comparing vibration-based wear. In certain embodiments, if the vibration-based wear and/or strain-based wear exceeds the threshold, control system 230 generates an alert. The alert may trigger additional actions such as automatically scheduling a service appointment to service the component. In some embodiments, the first and second thresholds are determined experimentally (e.g., via coupon testing, etc.).).
Regarding claim 5, Bruchhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system is an onboard system of the vehicle (see Bruchhardt at [0041] which discloses that specifically, systems and methods of the present disclosure enable a data-driven vehicle maintenance schedule based on what is uniquely known about each individual vehicle through onboard signal monitoring and analysis.).
Regarding claim 7, Bruchhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the remaining lifetime value of the model using a prediction model (see Bruchhardt at [0079] which discloses that in some embodiments, battery prognostics (e.g., for the low-voltage battery) is performed to monitor the health of the battery and to predict its remaining useful life (RUL). Also, see Bruchhardt at [0133] which discloses that the on-board module may receive a recommendation for servicing the vehicle, that for example, the on-board module may receive a recommendation to service a drive unit gear, that in certain embodiments, the recommendation is received from a cloud-based data processing system (e.g., a vehicle data analysis system), and that in certain embodiments, the recommendation is based on a prediction related to the one or more indicators and is identified by a vehicle data analysis system using a ML model trained to predict component failures using historical vehicle service data.)
Claim 18 recites a method that performs the step recited in the system of claim 7. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 7 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 8, Bruchhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform at least one of: cause an indication of the lifetime value to be displayed on a dashboard of the vehicle; or provide the indication of the lifetime value to a remote computer device (see Bruchhardt at [0094] which discloses that at UI (user interface) 300C of FIG. 3C, the predictions related to the current health of the vehicle 102 may include a current health indicator and prediction of end of life for the HV battery of the vehicle 102; see Bruchhardt at Fig. 3C, for example, which illustratively discloses by the user interface that an End of Life Prediction is 62 months. Examiner maps the UI (user interface) to the dashboard of the vehicle. Examiner notes that an End of Life Prediction of 62 months corresponds to a lifetime value.)
Claim 19 recites a method that performs the step recited in the system of claim 8. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 8 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, Bruchhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine that the lifetime value is smaller than a threshold value; and generate an alert signal responsive to determining that the lifetime value is smaller than the threshold value (see Bruchhardt at [0063] in conjunction with Fig. 2E which discloses that FIG. 2E illustrates an example workflow diagram 200E for servicing a low-voltage battery (e.g., a 12Vbattery, a lead-acid battery), that in some embodiments, as illustrated, it is determined that the low-voltage battery requires service. Bruchhardt at [0063], for example, discloses that it is determined that the state-of-health of the low-voltage battery is below a threshold health level (e.g., when difference between the number of cycles and expected lifetime cycles is below a threshold value, when ratio between the number of cycles and expected lifetime cycles is above a threshold value, when damage accumulation is above a threshold percentage. Bruchhardt at [0063] further discloses that in accordance with a determination that the state-of-health of the low-voltage battery is below a threshold health level, a server request is created, in some embodiments, the service request is created by an electronic device (e.g., an electric vehicle, a server, a mobile device) and that in some embodiments, the service request is created in response to receiving an input (e.g., from a user after receiving a notification indicating low battery state-of-health). Examiner maps notification to the recited alert signal.).
Claim 20 recites a method that performs the step recited in the system of claim 9. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 9 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 20. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 11, Bruchhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the component includes an electric component of the vehicle (see Bruchhardt at [0002-0004] for example which discloses that components may include low-voltage and high-voltage batteries; see Bruchhardt at [0010] which discloses that embodiments described herein may predict a need to replace a high-voltage electric vehicle (EV) battery based on a prediction of battery end-of-life for vehicle use based on state-of-health-related parameters. Examiner maps high-voltage electric vehicle (EV) battery to electric component of the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 12, Bruchhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises the vibration sensor (see Bruchhardt at [0105] which discloses that control system 230 may receive vibration sensor signals from vibration sensors 240 positioned on specific portions of vehicles 1250 or 1260 and that in certain embodiments, the vibration sensor signals include timeseries data.)
Each of claims 13-15 recites a method that performs the steps recited in the systems of claims 1-3, respectively. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejections of claims 1-3 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the methods of claims 13-15. Therefore, claims 13-15 are rejected for the same reasons as stated for claims 1-3 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruchhardt et al. (US 2024/0086948) in view of Xu (CN-213026640-U).
Regarding claim 4, Bruchhardt does not expressly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the lifetime model includes an ISO-16750 standard model, which in a related art Xu teaches (see Xu at page 4 which discloses that the utility model claims a wiring harness electric control connector assembly of automobile electric power steering system, referring to the ISO20653 road vehicle-protection level evaluation and determining the protection level of the electric control connector assembly; the electric connection is checked by referring to ISO16750-4 international automobile electronic performance test standard; reference DIN IEC 60068 electric appliance technology basic environment test standard, and ISO16750-5 road vehicle electric and electronic device environment condition and test standard, …).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bruchhardt to include wherein the lifetime model includes an ISO-16750 standard model, as taught by Xu.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for checking automobile system components such as an automobile electric power steering system wiring harness electric control connector assembly, as well as electric connections and road vehicle electric and electronic device environment conditions, as suggested by Xu at pages 1 and 4.
Claim 16 recites a method that performs the step recited in the system of claim 4. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 4 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 10, Bruchhardt does not expressly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the component includes: a camera of the vehicle; a connectivity device; a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor; or a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor which in a related art Xu teaches (see Xu at the Abstract which discloses that the utility model belongs to the field of automobile system component, specifically to a wiring harness electric control connector assembly of automobile electric power steering system. Examiner maps the wiring harness electric control connector assembly of automobile electric power steering system to the recited connectivity device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bruchhardt to include wherein the component includes: a camera of the vehicle; a connectivity device; a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor; or a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, as taught by Xu.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for checking automobile system components such as an automobile electric power steering system wiring harness electric control connector assembly, as well as electric connections and road vehicle electric and electronic device environment conditions, as suggested by Xu at pages 1 and 4.
Claim 16 recites a method that performs the step recited in the system of claim 4. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 4 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 4 above.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruchhardt et al. (US 2024/0086948) in view of Koizumi (JP-2001080481-A).
Regarding claim 6, Bruchhardt does not expressly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to measure vibration at a frequency between 90 Hz and 110 Hz, which in a related art, Koizumi teaches (see Koizumi at page 4 which discloses that Reference numeral 4 shown in FIG. 1 denotes a vibration sensor, for example, an acceleration sensor attached to the end of the axle of the axle 1, and detects, for example, torsional vibration generated on the axle when a braking force is applied to the axle 1 and that although this torsional vibration varies depending on the shape of the axle, according to the experiments by the present inventors, the torsional frequency of the axle immediately before the sliding was in a frequency band of 90 to 100 Hz.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bruchhardt to include wherein the vibration sensor is configured to measure vibration at a frequency between 90 Hz and 110 Hz, as taught by Koizumi.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to detect torsional vibration generated on an axle when a braking force is applied to the axle, as suggested by Koizumi at page 4.
Claim 17 recites a method that performs the step recited in the system of claim 6. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 6 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights