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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 19 February 2025, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits. Claims 1-25 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 February 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 8 and 20 both include the similar limitation including “based on secondary information, such as based on applied brake pressure”. However, the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Examiner notes wherein the claimed phrase “such as based on applied brake pressure” may be replaced with “wherein the secondary information corresponds to applied brake pressure”, in order to overcome these claim objections. Ex Parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74.Appropriate correction is required.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire, from a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor, first input data representing brake temperature values that have been measured for a brake of a vehicle by the temperature sensor;
acquire, from a different second input device, second input data representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake;
compare the first input data and the second input data; and
determine that the brake is dragging based on the comparison of the first input data and the second input data.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim(s) recite(s) a system, therefore the claim(s) fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “acquire, from a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor, first input data representing brake temperature values that have been measured for a brake of a vehicle by the temperature sensor” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally acquires (i.e. receives, detects, observes, etc.) first input data representing brake temperature values that have been measured for a brake of a vehicle by the temperature sensor. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the first input device, or temperature sensor, in this instance), and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “acquire, from a different second input device, second input data representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally acquires (i.e. receives, detects, observes, etc.) second input data representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the different second input device in this instance), and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “compare the first input data and the second input data” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally evaluates (i.e., predicts, interprets, etc.) first and second input data. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines, and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determine that the brake is dragging based on the comparison of the first input data and the second input data” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally evaluates (i.e. predicts, interprets, etc.) if the brake is dragging based on the comparison of the first input data and the second input data. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines, and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
As provided above, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, independent claim 1 recites a series of steps that merely require “a computer system comprising processing circuitry”, “a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor” and “a different second input device”. However, the “computer system comprising processing circuitry” is merely describing a generic computing component(s) that executes data analysis, and the “first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor” and “a different second input device” merely describes insignificant pre-solutionary activity (i.e. means for acquiring first input data and/or second input data). Therefore, claim 1 recites a judicial exception of an abstract idea, specifically, a mental process, because (1) the collecting of the data used for the data analysis may be considered insignificant pre-solutionary activity, and (2) the human mind may be considered analogous to generic computing structure. Additionally, in support of this analysis under Step 2A, Prong One, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A. clearly explains that claims that contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. This section of the MPEP also mentions Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein the courts found that the claims recited a mental process because they merely included collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, when the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. These findings from Electric Power Group are thus very relevant/analogous to the findings of the Examiner with regards to the instant application’s independent claim 1 being analyzed under 35 USC 101, Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No.
Claim 1, is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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.
Regarding the claimed limitation(s)/element(s) of “a computer system comprising processing circuitry”, “a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor” and “a different second input device”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are simply computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality to which the abstract ideas are applied. These generic computing elements merely automate the abstract idea(s) presented above, without adding significantly more to distinguish themselves, such as by having unique structural components that incorporate features that cannot be done in the human mind. Regarding the claimed “computer system”, as it is stated in the claim and the specification, are generic computing element(s) that, as stated in paragraph 0060, “The computer system 700 may comprise at least one computing device or electronic device capable of including firmware, hardware, and/or executing software instructions to implement the functionality described herein. The computer system 700 may include processing circuitry 702 (e.g., processing circuitry including one or more processor devices or control units), a memory 704, and a system bus 706”, and further as in paragraph 0044 wherein “The computer system comprises processing circuitry 20 which may be in operative communication with different input devices that may provide informational input to the processing circuitry 20...The first input device 22 comprises, or is in the form of, a temperature sensor…there is also illustrated a second input device 24, which is different from the first input device 22. The second input device 24 is configured to provide second input data 28 representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values”. Thus for the additional element(s) of claim 1 analyzed individually, and/or taken as a whole, there is insufficient reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications, since the additional elements merely recite automating the abstract ideas. 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.
Step 2B, evaluation: Inventive Concept – No.
Claim 1, is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
With regards to Step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as described above in Step 2A Prong Two. Specifically, the claimed “a computer system comprising processing circuitry”, “a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor” and “a different second input device” as defined in the specification, only recite applying generic computing elements to execute functions of the claim, and therefore do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Generally, applying an exception using generic computing element(s) or receiving and interpreting data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, since independent claim 1 is (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-12, these claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite an abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that are not well understood, routine or conventional. Therefore claims 2-12 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, A computer-implemented method, comprising:
acquiring, by processing circuitry of a computer system, from a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor, first input data representing brake temperature values that have been measured for a brake of a vehicle by the temperature sensor;
acquiring, by the processing circuitry, from a different second input device, second input data representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake;
comparing, by the processing circuitry, the first input data and the second input data; and
determining, by the processing circuitry, that the brake is dragging based on the comparison of the first input data and the second input data.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim(s) recite(s) a method (i.e. process), therefore the claim(s) fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “acquiring, by processing circuitry of a computer system, from a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor, first input data representing brake temperature values that have been measured for a brake of a vehicle by the temperature sensor” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally acquires (i.e. receives, detects, observes, etc.) first input data representing brake temperature values that have been measured for a brake of a vehicle by the temperature sensor. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the first input device, or temperature sensor, in this instance), and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “acquiring, by the processing circuitry, from a different second input device, second input data representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally acquires (i.e. receives, detects, observes, etc.) second input data representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the different second input device in this instance), and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “comparing, by the processing circuitry, the first input data and the second input data” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally evaluates (i.e., predicts, interprets, etc.) first and second input data. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines, and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determining, by the processing circuitry, that the brake is dragging based on the comparison of the first input data and the second input data” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human mentally evaluates (i.e. predicts, interprets, etc.) if the brake is dragging based on the comparison of the first input data and the second input data. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines, and therefore Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
As provided above, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, independent claim 13 recites a series of method steps that merely require “processing circuitry of a computer system”, “a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor” and “a different second input device”. However, the “processing circuitry of a computer system” is merely describing a generic computing component(s) that executes data analysis, and the “first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor” and “a different second input device” merely describes insignificant pre-solutionary activity (i.e. means for acquiring first input data and/or second input data). Therefore, claim 13 recites a judicial exception of an abstract idea, specifically, a mental process, because (1) the collecting of the data used for the data analysis may be considered insignificant pre-solutionary activity, and (2) the human mind may be considered analogous to generic computing structure. Additionally, in support of this analysis under Step 2A, Prong One, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A. clearly explains that claims that contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. This section of the MPEP also mentions Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein the courts found that the claims recited a mental process because they merely included collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, when the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. These findings from Electric Power Group are thus very relevant/analogous to the findings of the Examiner with regards to the instant application’s independent claim 13 being analyzed under 35 USC 101, Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No.
Claim 1, is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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.
Regarding the claimed limitation(s)/element(s) of “processing circuitry of a computer system”, “a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor” and “a different second input device”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are simply computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality to which the abstract ideas are applied. These generic computing elements merely automate the abstract idea(s) presented above, without adding significantly more to distinguish themselves, such as by having unique structural components that incorporate features that cannot be done in the human mind. Regarding the claimed “computer system”, as it is stated in the claim and the specification, are generic computing element(s) that, as stated in paragraph 0060, “The computer system 700 may comprise at least one computing device or electronic device capable of including firmware, hardware, and/or executing software instructions to implement the functionality described herein. The computer system 700 may include processing circuitry 702 (e.g., processing circuitry including one or more processor devices or control units), a memory 704, and a system bus 706”, and further as in paragraph 0044 wherein “The computer system comprises processing circuitry 20 which may be in operative communication with different input devices that may provide informational input to the processing circuitry 20...The first input device 22 comprises, or is in the form of, a temperature sensor…there is also illustrated a second input device 24, which is different from the first input device 22. The second input device 24 is configured to provide second input data 28 representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values”. Thus for the additional element(s) of claim 13 analyzed individually, and/or taken as a whole, there is insufficient reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications, since the additional elements merely recite automating the abstract ideas. 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.
Step 2B, evaluation: Inventive Concept – No.
Claim 13, is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
With regards to Step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 13 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as described above in Step 2A Prong Two. Specifically, the claimed “processing circuitry of a computer system”, “a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor” and “a different second input device” as defined in the specification, only recite applying generic computing elements to execute functions of the claim, and therefore do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Generally, applying an exception using generic computing element(s) or receiving and interpreting data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, since independent claim 13 is (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 13 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 14-25, these claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite an abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that are not well understood, routine or conventional. Therefore claims 14-25 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 11-13, 20 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al (US 2023/0373455 A1, issued to Salter) in view of Heath (US 10,272,277 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Salter teaches a computer system (Figures 1-3, braker controller 104) comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire, from a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor (Figures 1 & 2, vehicle sensor(s) 110), first input data representing brake temperature values that have been measured for a brake (Figure 1, brake system 102) of a vehicle (Figure 1, vehicle 100) by the temperature sensor (Figures 1 & 2; at least paragraph 0033, wherein “the brake controller 104 can, via the user interface 108, alert a user of the vehicle 100 of the status of the brake system 102 (e.g., the temperature, the derate level, the braking capability, the service life, etc.) and user mitigation actions” and further as in paragraph 0046, wherein “vehicle sensors 110 can include one or more sensors to measure the temperatures of the components of the brake system 102”);
acquire, from a different second input device (Figure 1, central server 114 and/or Figure 3, memory interface circuitry 308), second input data representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraph 0035, wherein “the central server 114 can transmit information to the brake controller 104 relating to the thermal model and/or thresholds related to the components of the brake system 102” and further as in paragraph 0052, wherein “The memory interface circuitry 308 can access a temperature model associated with the vehicle 100.”);
compare the first input data and the second input data (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraph 0051 wherein “the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 can use a thermal model and/or a look-up table retrieved by the memory interface circuitry 308 to determine the derate of individual brake components (e.g., the information associated with the components 506A, 506B, 506C, 506D, 506E of FIG. 5, etc.). In such examples, the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 can use the current temperature of the individual brake components, the ambient temperature, etc. as inputs into the thermal model and/or look-up table” and further as in at least paragraph 0067, wherein “the derate levels 508A, 508B, 508C, 508D, 508E can be calculated by the brake controller 104 (e.g., the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 of FIG. 3, etc.) based on the temperature(s) of the respective components 506A, 506B, 506C, 506D, 506E and a thermal model associated with the components. In some such examples, the derate levels can correspond to the temperature of the corresponding component (e.g., a derate level of 0 corresponds to a component temperature not exceeding a first temperature threshold, a derate level of 1 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding the first temperature threshold, a derate level of 2 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding a second temperature threshold greater than the first temperature threshold, a derate level of 3 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding a third temperature threshold greater than the second temperature threshold, etc.) In other examples, the derate level can be determined by any other suitable means (e.g., performance metrics determined by the brake performance determiner circuitry 312, etc.)”); and
determine that the brake is derate (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraph 0051 wherein “the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 can use a thermal model and/or a look-up table retrieved by the memory interface circuitry 308 to determine the derate of individual brake components (e.g., the information associated with the components 506A, 506B, 506C, 506D, 506E of FIG. 5, etc.). In such examples, the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 can use the current temperature of the individual brake components, the ambient temperature, etc. as inputs into the thermal model and/or look-up table” and further as in at least paragraph 0067, wherein “the derate levels 508A, 508B, 508C, 508D, 508E can be calculated by the brake controller 104 (e.g., the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 of FIG. 3, etc.) based on the temperature(s) of the respective components 506A, 506B, 506C, 506D, 506E and a thermal model associated with the components. In some such examples, the derate levels can correspond to the temperature of the corresponding component (e.g., a derate level of 0 corresponds to a component temperature not exceeding a first temperature threshold, a derate level of 1 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding the first temperature threshold, a derate level of 2 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding a second temperature threshold greater than the first temperature threshold, a derate level of 3 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding a third temperature threshold greater than the second temperature threshold, etc.) In other examples, the derate level can be determined by any other suitable means (e.g., performance metrics determined by the brake performance determiner circuitry 312, etc.)”). Examiner notes wherein Salter teaches that one or more brakes are monitored to determine if they are derate (i.e. performance degradation) based on a comparison and determination of acquired temperature data (i.e. first input data) and acquired temperature model data (i.e. second input data) including temperature thresholds, as provided in the referenced sections of Salter herein. Examiner further notes wherein “brake dragging” would reasonably fall under the umbrella of “performance degradation” related to the one or more brakes. That said, Salter is silent specifically wherein the determined derate of the one or more brakes specifically includes and/or correlates to brake dragging.
Heath, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a brake monitoring system for a vehicle that is used to detect failure/malfunction in one or more brakes of said vehicle. Heath goes on to teach wherein a temperature sensor of one or more brakes collects temperature data and then compares the temperature data to pre-set temperature data to determine if one or more of the brakes is stuck and/or dragging. Heath further teaches wherein based on a detection that the one or more brakes are sticking/dragging, an alert/notification is provided to a driver of the vehicle (Figures 1-5; at least as in column 4, lines 60-65, column 5, lines 9-26 and column 8, lines 1-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Salter to include Heath’s brake analysis techniques to determine if one or more brakes are dragging, since Heath teaches wherein such brake analysis techniques enhances the performance of the brakes as well as contributes towards increasing the overall fuel efficiency of the vehicle, thereby providing a more robust vehicle braking system.
Regarding claim 8, in view of the above combination of Salter and Heath, Salter further teaches wherein the second input device comprises a temperature estimator configured to estimate the brake temperature based on secondary information, such as based on applied brake pressure (Figures 3, 5 & 11; at least as in paragraphs 0051-0056 and 0066-0067).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the above combination of Salter and Heath, Salter further teaches wherein the second input device comprises a pressure sensor and the second input data represents brake pressure values measured by the pressure sensor, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine that the brake pressure is 0 bar; register a sliding average of the acquired measured brake temperature values; determine that the sliding average exceeds a predefined threshold; and determine that the brake is dragging based on the determination that the predefined threshold has been exceeded (Figures 3, 5 & 11; at least as in paragraphs 0051-0056 and 0066-0067).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the above combination of Salter and Heath, Salter further teaches wherein the second input device is configured to provide a measure or an estimate of a brake torque applied by the brake, wherein the second input data comprises brake torque values translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake (Figures 3, 5 & 11; at least as in paragraphs 0044-0045 and 0051-0056).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the above combination of Salter and Heath, Salter further teaches, a vehicle (Figure 1, vehicle 100) comprising the computer system of claim 1, the vehicle further comprising: the first input device, providing the first input data to the processing circuitry; the second input device, providing the second input data to the processing circuitry; and the brake (specifically as provided in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Salter teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
acquiring, by processing circuitry of a computer system (Figures 1-3, braker controller 104), from a first input device comprising or being in the form of a temperature sensor (Figures 1 & 2, vehicle sensor(s) 110), first input data representing brake temperature values that have been measured for a brake (Figure 1, brake system 102) of a vehicle (Figure 1, vehicle 100) by the temperature sensor (Figures 1 & 2; at least paragraph 0033, wherein “the brake controller 104 can, via the user interface 108, alert a user of the vehicle 100 of the status of the brake system 102 (e.g., the temperature, the derate level, the braking capability, the service life, etc.) and user mitigation actions” and further as in paragraph 0046, wherein “vehicle sensors 110 can include one or more sensors to measure the temperatures of the components of the brake system 102”);
acquiring, by the processing circuitry, from a different second input device (Figure 1, central server 114 and/or Figure 3, memory interface circuitry 308), second input data representing parameter values in the form of or translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraph 0035, wherein “the central server 114 can transmit information to the brake controller 104 relating to the thermal model and/or thresholds related to the components of the brake system 102” and further as in paragraph 0052, wherein “The memory interface circuitry 308 can access a temperature model associated with the vehicle 100.”);
comparing, by the processing circuitry, the first input data and the second input data (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraph 0051 wherein “the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 can use a thermal model and/or a look-up table retrieved by the memory interface circuitry 308 to determine the derate of individual brake components (e.g., the information associated with the components 506A, 506B, 506C, 506D, 506E of FIG. 5, etc.). In such examples, the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 can use the current temperature of the individual brake components, the ambient temperature, etc. as inputs into the thermal model and/or look-up table” and further as in at least paragraph 0067, wherein “the derate levels 508A, 508B, 508C, 508D, 508E can be calculated by the brake controller 104 (e.g., the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 of FIG. 3, etc.) based on the temperature(s) of the respective components 506A, 506B, 506C, 506D, 506E and a thermal model associated with the components. In some such examples, the derate levels can correspond to the temperature of the corresponding component (e.g., a derate level of 0 corresponds to a component temperature not exceeding a first temperature threshold, a derate level of 1 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding the first temperature threshold, a derate level of 2 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding a second temperature threshold greater than the first temperature threshold, a derate level of 3 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding a third temperature threshold greater than the second temperature threshold, etc.) In other examples, the derate level can be determined by any other suitable means (e.g., performance metrics determined by the brake performance determiner circuitry 312, etc.)”); and
determining, by the processing circuitry, that the brake is derate (Figures 1-3; at least as in paragraph 0051 wherein “the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 can use a thermal model and/or a look-up table retrieved by the memory interface circuitry 308 to determine the derate of individual brake components (e.g., the information associated with the components 506A, 506B, 506C, 506D, 506E of FIG. 5, etc.). In such examples, the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 can use the current temperature of the individual brake components, the ambient temperature, etc. as inputs into the thermal model and/or look-up table” and further as in at least paragraph 0067, wherein “the derate levels 508A, 508B, 508C, 508D, 508E can be calculated by the brake controller 104 (e.g., the brake thermal health estimator circuitry 306 of FIG. 3, etc.) based on the temperature(s) of the respective components 506A, 506B, 506C, 506D, 506E and a thermal model associated with the components. In some such examples, the derate levels can correspond to the temperature of the corresponding component (e.g., a derate level of 0 corresponds to a component temperature not exceeding a first temperature threshold, a derate level of 1 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding the first temperature threshold, a derate level of 2 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding a second temperature threshold greater than the first temperature threshold, a derate level of 3 corresponds to a component temperature exceeding a third temperature threshold greater than the second temperature threshold, etc.) In other examples, the derate level can be determined by any other suitable means (e.g., performance metrics determined by the brake performance determiner circuitry 312, etc.)”). Examiner notes wherein Salter teaches that one or more brakes are monitored to determine if they are derate (i.e. performance degradation) based on a comparison and determination of acquired temperature data (i.e. first input data) and acquired temperature model data (i.e. second input data) including temperature thresholds, as provided in the referenced sections of Salter herein. Examiner further notes wherein “brake dragging” would reasonably fall under the umbrella of “performance degradation” related to the one or more brakes. That said, Salter is silent specifically wherein the determined derate of the one or more brakes specifically includes and/or correlates to brake dragging.
Heath, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a brake monitoring system for a vehicle that is used to detect failure/malfunction in one or more brakes of said vehicle. Heath goes on to teach wherein a temperature sensor of one or more brakes collects temperature data and then compares the temperature data to pre-set temperature data to determine if one or more of the brakes is stuck and/or dragging. Heath further teaches wherein based on a detection that the one or more brakes are sticking/dragging, an alert/notification is provided to a driver of the vehicle (Figures 1-5; at least as in column 4, lines 60-65, column 5, lines 9-26 and column 8, lines 1-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Salter to include Heath’s brake analysis techniques to determine if one or more brakes are dragging, since Heath teaches wherein such brake analysis techniques enhances the performance of the brakes as well as contributes towards increasing the overall fuel efficiency of the vehicle, thereby providing a more robust vehicle braking system.
Regarding claim 20, in view of the above combination of Salter and Heath, Salter further teaches wherein the second input device comprises a temperature estimator configured to estimate the brake temperature based on secondary information, such as based on applied brake pressure (Figures 3, 5 & 11; at least as in paragraphs 0051-0056 and 0066-0067).
Regarding claim 23, in view of the above combination of Salter and Heath, Salter further teaches wherein the second input device is configured to provide a measure or an estimate of a brake torque applied by the brake, wherein the second input data comprises brake torque values translatable into estimated brake temperature values for the brake (Figures 3, 5 & 11; at least as in paragraphs 0044-0045 and 0051-0056).
Regarding claim 24, in view of the above combination of Salter and Heath, Salter further teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry (Figures 1, 9 & 10; at least as in paragraphs 0003-0004 & 0080-0083), the method of claim 13 (specifically as provided in claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 25, in view of the above combination of Salter and Heath, Salter further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (Figures 1, 9 & 10; at least as in paragraphs 0003-0004 & 0080-0083), which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 13 (specifically as provided in claim 13 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 10, 14-19 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner notes wherein the above 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) would also need to be overcome and the claims reevaluated for allowability, pending any potential claim amendments to the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following prior art references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention, and also reads on some of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 2023/0303051 A1, issued to Probst et al, which is directed towards a procedure for monitoring a wheel brake of a vehicle through collecting brake sensor data and comparing said data to one or more brake characteristic curves or maps in a model.
US 2020/0040956 A1, issued to Cremona et al, which is directed towards a method for determining a brake drag in a vehicle based on a comparison of a brake temperature value compared to a predetermined temperature threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights