DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
3. Applicant’s Drawings submitted June 17, 2025 are acceptable.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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:
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chinese publication 113085762 issued to UNITED AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS CO., LTD (UAE).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 18, UAE discloses, a brake signal, e.g. [0047], both transmission and engine controllers, e.g. [0035-0039], the controllers inherently possessing one or more processors and memory devices, the controllers storing instructions that, perform operations, the transmission controller detecting whether a gear is successfully and engaged and sending a bit to an engine controller that performs operations that would include instructions that activates an automatic cycle working mode (perform operations), inherently requiring memory storing instructions executed by the controllers; paras [0035-0039], and, inherently possessed, a non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing circuit, e.g. braking signal, cause
the one or more processors to perform operations by the transmission controller, braking controller, and engine controller, the transmission controller detecting whether a gear is successfully and engaged and sending a bit to an engine controller that activates an automatic cycle working mode, receiving an indication of a transmission of a vehicle being in a continuously single setting, e.g. detecting whether a gear engaging flag bit which is in a gear engaging state is sent by the transmission controller of a vehicle is received, the gear engaging state indicating that the transmission controller detects that the gear is successfully engaged; continuously single setting, e.g. [0076], receiving an indication of a brake event of the vehicle via a braking signal to the transmission controller, e.g. [0045], determining a first energy value regarding the vehicle based on the transmission being in the continuously single setting and the indication of the brake event calculating/determining a wheel end required torque, e.g. first energy value, an automatic braking signal indicating a brake event, and sending to the transmission controller in the gear engaging state successfully engaged, e.g. [0080, 0086-0090], receiving an indication of a change in operation, e.g. vehicle speed braking signal, of at least one of the transmissions and the brake event sent by the braking controller corresponding to a specific working condition moment, e.g. [0119], determining a second energy value regarding the vehicle based on the indication of the change in operation of the at least one of the transmission and the brake event, e.g. calculating a brake demand torque - second energy value - required for reducing the actual speed to a target vehicle speed at the moment corresponding to the specific working condition, e.g. [0091-0092], based on the first and second energy values, determining a value regarding the vehicle, e.g. based on the gear engaging flag bit, the brake demand torque, e.g. second energy value, and the wheel end required torque, e.g. first energy value), in combination, as a value regarding the vehicle, e.g. [0090-0091], and controlling operation of a component of the vehicle based on the determined value, e.g. controlling a speed change of the gearbox, e.g. operation of a component, based on the gear engaging flag bit, the brake demand torque and the wheel end required torque, e.g. [0121, 0129].
Regarding claim 2, UAE discloses the determined value is an estimated mass of the vehicle, e.g. [0088].
Regarding claims 6 and 15, UAE discloses the determined value is an estimated mass of the vehicle, and wherein the determined value is determined without the use of a load sensor, e.g. calculated mass on the rotating hub of the vehicle – without the use of a load sensor, e.g. [0088].
Regarding claims 7 and 16, UAE discloses the controlling the operation of the component includes controlling the transmission or torque of a power source of the vehicle - controlling shifting of the transmission, e.g. [0089].
Regarding claims 8 and 17, UAE discloses the determined value is based on a summation of a plurality of first energy values and a summation of a plurality of second energy values of multiple samples collected since a reset condition was
satisfied - based on the gear engaging flag bit, the brake demand torque (second energy value - at a plurality of working condition moments (reset condition) and the wheel end required torque, e.g. first energy value, as a summation of first and second energy values, e.g. [0090-0091, 0102].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 nonobviousness.
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.
7. Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UAE, cited above, as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, and 15-18 above, and further in view of Patel’s publication titled “Study of Heavy Commercial Vehicle Crash Reconstruction with Comparative Analysis of Passenger Vehicles.”
UAE does not explicitly disclose an amount of energy supplied minus energy lost, and wherein the second energy value is indicating a work done per ton of the vehicle during movement of the vehicle.
Patel discloses, e.g. page 47, a second energy value showing a work done per ton of the vehicle during skidding movement of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 19, to have provided UAE a second energy value showing work done per ton of a vehicle, in view of Patel, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as to modify UAE to include this features for the vehicle of UAE, in view of Patel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the motivation for doing such is to provide an efficient and safe operation of a vehicle when encountering various conditions, e.g. weight/mass, speed, as the second energy value is indicative of a work done per ton of the vehicle during movement of the vehicle of Patel, for the purpose determining how much energy is dissipated while skidding, e.g. Patel; pages 45, 47.
Regarding the claim language reciting a relationship between an amount of energy supplied and an amount of energy lost appears to comprise a common basic knowledge mathematical manipulation. To view such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as to modify UAE to include this energy feature for the vehicle of UAE, as modified by Patel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the motivation for doing such is to provide an efficient and safe operation of a vehicle when encountering various conditions, e.g. variance in vehicle speeds/terrain.
Regarding claim 4, 13 and 20, modified UAE discloses at least one of a power
supplied by a power source, a vehicle velocity and a change in rotational speed of the power source during movement of the vehicle, e.g. [0085], and wherein the second energy value is based on at least one of a change in vehicle velocity,
Regarding claims 5 and 14, UAE discloses a distance travelled and a change in altitude during movement of the vehicle corresponding to the specific working condition, e.g. [0092].
8. Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UAE, cited above, as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, and 15-18, in view of Patel, and further in view of Chunkui, CN 105438177.
Neither UAE or Patel explicitly disclose filtering the first and second energy values based on a conservation of energy constraint
Chunkui teaches, e.g. Abstract, filtering the first and second energy values based on a conservation of energy constraint, e.g. [0101, 0447].
To have provided UAE, as modified by Patel and Chunkui, a first/second energy value based on a conservation of energy restraint, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as to modify UAE to an expectation of success, as the motivation for doing such is to provide an efficient and safe operation of a vehicle when encountering various conditions, e.g. judging whether the power transmitting condition of the vehicle is abnormal.
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UAE, cited above, as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, and 15-18 above, and further in view of Guensler, US 2011/0295486.
UAE fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reset condition is at least one of an engine shutdown time being greater than a first-time threshold, an engine idling time being longer than a second time threshold and the vehicle not being in motion for a time period exceeding a third time threshold.
Guensler teaches, e.g. Abstract, wherein the reset condition is at least one of an engine shutdown time being greater than a first time threshold, an engine idling time being longer than a second time threshold, and the vehicle not being in motion for a time
period exceeding a third time threshold (an allowable idle time threshold for at least one roadway element, wherein when the characteristic related to engine idling falls outside the parameter related to allowable idle time threshold for at least one roadway or geometric element, the vehicle displays a warning that the shut-off system will shut off the engine of the vehicle in a pre-set time period (reset condition), e.g. [0065].
To have provided UAE, as modified by Guensler, with the engine idling time being longer than a second time threshold of Guensler, for the purpose of
automatically shutting off an engine when the idle threshold is exceeded would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as to modify UAE to an expectation of success, as the motivation for doing such is to provide an efficient and safe operation of a vehicle when encountering various conditions’
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UAE in view of Guensler, US 2011/0295486 and further in view of Pettinger et al., US 2021/0080967.
UAE fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reset condition is a difference of the value regarding the vehicle at an instance before and at an instance after the at least one of the engine shutdown time being greater than the first time threshold, the engine idling time being longer than the second time threshold, and the vehicle not being in motion for the time period exceeding the third time threshold being greater
than a threshold value.
Guensler teaches wherein the reset condition is at least one of an engine shutdown time being greater than a first time threshold, an engine idling time being longer than a second time threshold, and the vehicle not being in motion for a time period exceeding a third time threshold, e.g. [0065].
Pettinger teaches wherein the reset condition is a difference of the value regarding the vehicle at an instance before and at an instance after the engine shutdown time (a time difference between a first time and a second time, the second time after a system shutdown between the first time and the second time, e.g. [0095, 0500].
To have provided UAE, as modified by Guensler, with the engine idling time being longer than a second time threshold, for the purpose of
automatically shutting off an engine when the idle threshold is exceeded, in view of Pettinger, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as to modify UAE and Guensler, to an expectation of success, as the motivation for doing such is to provide an efficient and safe operation of a vehicle when encountering various operating conditions, e.g. navigating a vehicle to a second navigation goal different than a first navigation goal based on data, e.g. Pettinger, [0006].
11. Pertinent references of interest are noted on the attached PTO-892.
12. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted June 17, 2025 has been reviewed. Note the attached IDS.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY whose telephone number is
571-272-6789. The examiner can generally be reached on Monday thru Friday from about 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
571-272-6789
Prosecution Insights