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 CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 5/06/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
SPECIFICATION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
[0036]: “an engine control module (ECM), which measures measure” – such constitutes a grammatical typo; Examiner suggests amending to: “an engine control module (ECM), which measures
[0060]: “vehicle 14” – such constitutes a reference numeral error. Elsewhere, the specification refers to the vehicle with numeral 12 and the tire with numeral 14. Examiner suggests amending to: “vehicle [[14]] 12”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claim 1, regarding the limitation “the warning module including a hydroplaning detection logic that receives the expected slip … and generating a hydroplaning detection warning and a warning confidence level,” it is unclear whether the warning module or the hydroplaning detection logic performs the “generating” step. Examiner suggests rewriting this limitation to clarify which element performs the generating step.
As to claim 20, the limitation “the precheck module includes include” contains a grammatical typo; Examiner suggests amending to: “the precheck module includes
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a warning module … receiving data … determining a confidence level … communicating the warning and the warning confidence level” and “hydroplaning detection logic that receives … and generating” in claim 1 (with dependent claims 2-20),
“assessment module receives data … communicates a notification” in claim 6 (with dependent claims 7-10),
“prediction module receives data … determines if hydroplaning is likely” in claim 11 (with dependent claims 12-16),
“the assistance module detects activation” in claim 17,
“rough road detection module receiving … compares … communicates” in claim 18,
“low friction review module determining … receiving interventions … receiving additional data, determining … if a low road friction situation has occurred … communicating a decision” in claim 19,
“a speed detection module receiving … communicates” and “a vehicle check module receiving … communicates” in claim 20.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: processor 32 – See ¶¶ 6, 37, 60-62, 66-67 and FIG. 3
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claim(s) 1.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claim 1 is provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. A hydroplaning detection system for a vehicle, the vehicle being supported by at least one tire and including a communication system, the hydroplaning detection system comprising:
a processor in electronic communication with the communication system;
a warning module in electronic communication with the processor;
the warning module receiving data from vehicle-based sensors that are in electronic communication with the communication system and generating an expected slip, a grip utilization, a drag force, and a calculated slip;
the warning module receiving data from a tire sensor unit that is in electronic communication with the communication system;
the warning module determining a confidence level by comparing the generated drag force to an expected drag;
the warning module including a hydroplaning detection logic that receives the expected slip, the grip utilization, the drag force, the calculated slip, and the confidence level and generating a hydroplaning detection warning and a warning confidence level; and
the warning module communicating the warning and the warning confidence level to at least one of a vehicle control system and an operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitation pertaining to generating vehicle parameters, determining a confidence level and generating a hydroplaning detection warning and associated warning confidence level are processes which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing evaluations over obtained data to perform judgments. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components—i.e., a communication system, a processor, a warning module—that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering via generic computer components
Receiving data from vehicle-based sensors
Receiving data from a tire sensor unit
Receiving the expected slip, the grip utilization, the drag force, the calculated slip, and the confidence level
Insignificant post-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity:
Communicating the warning and the warning confidence level to at least one of a vehicle control system and an operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle
Here, the BRI of the claim only requires outputting a warning and a warning confidence level to a driver; such is merely insignificant post-solution activity as it is a conventional activity of presenting information/recommendations to a driver. That is, the BRI of the claim does not necessarily actuate structure via vehicle control. Further, the other embodiment in which the warning and the warning confidence level are communicated to a vehicle control system for action by the vehicle control system is also insufficient to render the claim as patent eligible because the BRI of that limitation encompasses merely sending recommendations to the vehicle control system to perform vehicle control – again, this embodiment does not necessarily actuate structure via vehicle control.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to:
Additional mental steps
Determining expected drag;
Receiving data from the tire sensor unit
Identifying prior hydroplaning characteristic data
Determination of a wear state of a tire
Determining if hydroplaning is likely
Generating a safe speed notification
Detect activation of a brake on rear tires from a review of the data from the vehicle-based sensors
Compare drag force and calculated slip to threshold values
Compare a variance of the signals to ap redetermined threshold
Determining longitudinal and lateral coefficients of friction
Determining if a low road friction situation has occurred
Receiving a vehicle speed signal
Receiving status signals from vehicle-based sensors
Insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data)
Obtaining tire pressure, tire type and a wear state of a tire
Obtaining road weather information and/or vehicle-to-vehicle status information
Communicating a notification
Receiving data from the tire sensor unit and from additional data sources
Communicate recommendations for partial hydroplaning actions
Receiving signals from the vehicle-based sensors
Communicates a decision to the processor to disable the warning module
Receiving interventions
Receiving additional data
Claims 1-20 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under § 101.
Patent-eligibility suggestion
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite a positive form of a vehicle control which necessarily actuates structure, such as by performing braking, steering, speed control, or the like – support appears to be present in at least Specification, ¶¶ 68 and 71. An amendment which follows the foregoing suggestion may render the claim as patent eligible pending further consideration.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blandina et al. (US20240294172A1; “Blandina”) in view of Koenig et al. (DE102020208784A1; “Koenig '784”), in view of Sekizawa et al. (US20190077408A1; “Sekizawa”), in view of Yokoshima et al. (JPH1068740A; “Yokoshima”) and in view of Koenig et al. (DE102020204833A1; “Koenig '833”)
As to independent claim 1, Blandina discloses a hydroplaning detection system for a vehicle, the vehicle being supported by at least one tire (tire - Abstract) and including a communication system (CAN network - ¶¶ 20, 47), the hydroplaning detection system comprising:
a processor in electronic communication with the communication system (“power train module [] configured to process the complex of input data 2” - ¶ 20 and FIG. 2.);
the warning module receiving data from vehicle-based sensors that are in electronic communication with the communication system and generating a grip utilization, a drag force, and a calculated slip (“[T]he power train module is configured to process the complex of input data 2” - ¶ 20. “hydrodynamic drag value FD,Faxle (HydroRes)” can be determined via sensor data including “acceleration aXCAN” - ¶ 48. Output data includes at least “longitudinal grip” and “slip” - ¶ 85.);
the warning module including a hydroplaning detection logic that receives the grip utilization, the drag force, the calculated slip and generates a hydroplaning detection warning and a warning confidence level (See ¶ 183 which discusses levels 0-2 associated with drag and possibility of aquaplaning condition. See also ¶ 190 which discusses levels 0-2 associated with grip and possibility of aquaplaning condition. See also ¶ 195 which discusses levels 0-1 associated with slip and possibility of aquaplaning condition. Finally, “If checks a) and b) give a positive result, it is possible to pre-warn the vehicle driver about the possibility of aquaplaning, and it is moreover possible to bring the aquaplaning system (if present) to pre-trigger or pre-alert conditions.” ¶ 202, see also ¶ 199 and 203-208.); and
the warning module communicating the warning to at least one of a vehicle control system and an operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle (“If checks a) and b) give a positive result, it is possible to pre-warn the vehicle driver about the possibility of aquaplaning, and it is moreover possible to bring the aquaplaning system (if present) to pre-trigger or pre-alert conditions.” ¶ 202, see also ¶ 199 and 203-208.).
Blandina fails to explicitly disclose:
the warning module determining a confidence level by comparing the generated drag force to an expected drag, and
the hydroplaning detection logic receives the expected slip.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: determining a confidence level by comparing a generated parameter to an expected parameter (“The method further comprises determining a reliability parameter of the determined hazard parameter, wherein the reliability parameter correlates with a probability of a deviation or a probable extent of a deviation between the determined hazard parameter and an actual aquaplaning probability.” ¶ 9; see also ¶ 36.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: determining a confidence level by comparing a generated parameter to an expected parameter, as taught by Koenig '784, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.)
Continuing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the entire claim limitation of determining a confidence level by comparing the generated drag force to an expected drag in view of Blandina and Koenig '784. Blandina establishes that drag is a relevant hydroplaning parameter as it reflects hydrodynamic water resistance against a tire. (See at least ¶ 48.) Hence, a skilled artisan approaching the combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 would have recognized with a reasonable expectation of success that drag would serve as a predictably useful “hazard parameter” through which a confidence level of hydroplaning is determined because drag directly indicates whether hydroplaning detection conditions are reliable.
The combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 fails to explicitly disclose: the warning module receiving data from a tire sensor unit that is in electronic communication with the communication system.
Nevertheless, Sekizawa teaches: receiving data from a tire sensor unit that is in electronic communication with a communication system (“In the hydroplaning determination device 100, vibration data applied to a tire 3 is acquired by the tire mount sensor 1, and the vibration data is transmitted to the receiver 21. Then, in the receiver 21, the road surface condition is determined based on the received vibration data or various kinds of information acquired from the engine ECU 22 and the brake ECU 23, and a hydroplaning determination is performed to determine whether a hydroplaning phenomenon has occurred.” ¶ 21.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 to include the feature of: receiving data from a tire sensor unit that is in electronic communication with a communication system, as taught by Sekizawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “provide a hydroplaning determination device capable of determining occurrence of a hydroplaning phenomenon in a vehicle.” (Sekizawa, ¶ 6.)
The combination of Blandina, Koenig '784 and Sekizawa fails to explicitly disclose: generating an expected slip, and the warning module including a hydroplaning detection logic that receives the expected slip.
Nevertheless, Yokoshima teaches: generating an expected slip (“[T]he reference wheel speed calculation means 5 calculates the theoretical speeds of each wheel 3A to 3D as reference wheel speeds ωA' to ωD' based on the aforementioned reference vehicle speed V'.” ¶ 18. “Once the reference wheel speeds ωA′ to ωD′ for each wheel 3A to 3D are calculated in this manner, the front wheel slip ratio calculation means 6 and the rear wheel slip ratio calculation means 7 calculate the slip ratio (slip rate) Sf for the front wheels and the slip ratio Sr for the rear wheels based on these reference wheel speeds ωA′ to ωD′.” ¶ 19. “The determination means 10 then determines whether or not the vehicle is hydroplaning based on the front-to-rear wheel slip ratio difference Sf-Sr and the vehicle's longitudinal acceleration G detected by the front-to-rear acceleration sensor 9.” ¶ 23.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784 and Sekizawa to include the feature of: generating an expected slip, as taught by Yokoshima, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to provide a hydroplaning detection device that can accurately detect the hydroplaning state of a vehicle.” (Yokoshima, ¶ 6.)
The combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa and Yokoshima fails to explicitly disclose: the warning module communicating the warning confidence level to at least one of a vehicle control system and an operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Koenig '833 teaches: communicating a warning confidence level to at least an operator of the vehicle for action by the operator of the vehicle (“The result, which represents a current aquaplaning risk, can be displayed to a driver … so that if the aquaplaning risk is too high, he can reduce his speed and thus also the aquaplaning risk.” ¶ 12.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa and Yokoshima to include the feature of: communicating a warning confidence level to at least an operator of the vehicle for action by the operator of the vehicle, as taught by Koenig '833, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for reducing hydroplaning risk and enhancing safety to a driver. (See Koenig '833, ¶ 12.)
As to claim 2, Blandina fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the expected drag is determined from a tire pressure indicated by the tire sensor unit, a tire type from a tire identification from the tire sensor unit, and a wear state of the tire.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: obtaining a tire pressure indicated by the tire sensor unit, a tire type from a tire identification from the tire sensor unit, and a wear state of the tire (“[W]hen determining the hazard parameter, a currently used tire type and/or a current tire pressure and/or a current tire tread depth is taken into account.” ¶ 7.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: obtaining a tire pressure indicated by the tire sensor unit, a tire type from a tire identification from the tire sensor unit, and a wear state of the tire, as taught by Koenig '784, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.) Indeed, a skilled artisan would have recognized that these parameters would predictably further aid in Blandina’s determining of drag because they provide relevant information pertaining to conditions of where a tire meets a surface, thereby providing information pertinent to determining hydroplaning conditions including drag.
As to claim 3, the combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the expected drag is determined from at least one of: road weather information indicated by at least one of a road condition and an amount of moisture on a road; and vehicle-to-vehicle status information, including activation of at least one of an anti-lock braking system and wiper blades on other vehicles.
Nevertheless, Sekizawa teaches: obtaining road weather information indicated by at least one of a road condition and an amount of moisture on a road (“[T]he communication center 200 also collects weather information and the like, corrects the road surface data and the like based on the weather information, and updates to more reliable road surface data and the like. Specifically, the communication center 200 acquires information concerning precipitation amount, snow accumulation amount, frozen road surface as weather information, and updates the wet road surface, the snow cover road surface and the frozen road surface to corresponding road surface data and the like.” ¶ 49.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 to include the feature of: obtaining road weather information indicated by at least one of a road condition and an amount of moisture on a road, as taught by Sekizawa, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “provide a hydroplaning determination device capable of determining occurrence of a hydroplaning phenomenon in a vehicle.” (Sekizawa, ¶ 6.) Indeed, a skilled artisan would have recognized that these parameters would predictably further aid in Blandina’s determining of drag because they provide relevant information pertaining to conditions of where a tire meets a surface, thereby providing information pertinent to determining hydroplaning conditions including drag.
As to claim 4, Blandina fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the confidence level determination includes a probability distribution analysis.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: wherein the confidence level determination includes a probability distribution analysis (“Examples of such a reliability parameter could be a variance or a standard deviation of the hazard parameter.” ¶ 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: wherein the confidence level determination includes a probability distribution analysis, as taught by Koenig '784, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.)
As to claim 5, Blandina discloses: wherein the warning indicates a full hydroplaning situation or a partial hydroplaning situation (Levels 0-2 are provided indicating no possibility of aquaplaning, possibility occurrence of aquaplaning, and certain aquaplaning – see ¶ 183. Continuing, “If checks a) and b) give a positive result, it is possible to pre-warn the vehicle driver about the possibility of aquaplaning, and it is moreover possible to bring the aquaplaning system (if present) to pre-trigger or pre-alert conditions.” ¶ 202.).
As to claim 6, the combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 fails to explicitly disclose: an assessment module in electronic communication with the processor, wherein: the assessment module receives data from the tire sensor unit, and if the data from the tire sensor unit is outside a recommended range, the assessment module communicates a notification to at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Sekizawa teaches:
an assessment module receives data from the tire sensor unit (“In the hydroplaning determination device 100, vibration data applied to a tire 3 is acquired by the tire mount sensor 1, and the vibration data is transmitted to the receiver 21. Then, in the receiver 21, the road surface condition is determined based on the received vibration data or various kinds of information acquired from the engine ECU 22 and the brake ECU 23, and a hydroplaning determination is performed to determine whether a hydroplaning phenomenon has occurred.” ¶ 21.), and
if the data from the tire sensor unit is outside a recommended range, the assessment module communicates a notification to at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle (“[T]he occurrence of the hydroplaning phenomenon is determined by comparing at least one of the first peak value and the second peak value included in the vibration data sent from the tire mount sensor 1 with the determination threshold Th.” ¶ 57. “As a process when the hydroplaning phenomenon occurs, the fact is notified to the notification unit 25, and the control signal is outputted to the engine ECU 22 and the brake ECU 23 as necessary.” ¶ 59.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 to include the features of: an assessment module receives data from the tire sensor unit; and if the data from the tire sensor unit is outside a recommended range, the assessment module communicates a notification to at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle, as taught by Sekizawa, because these features are useful to “provide a hydroplaning determination device capable of determining occurrence of a hydroplaning phenomenon in a vehicle.” (Sekizawa, ¶ 6.)
As to claim 7, Blandina fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes a pressure of the tire.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes a pressure of the tire (“[W]hen determining the hazard parameter, a currently used tire type and/or a current tire pressure and/or a current tire tread depth is taken into account.” ¶ 7.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes a pressure of the tire, as taught by Koenig '784, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.)
As to claim 9, Blandina fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes tire identification data, and prior hydroplaning characteristic data for tires of a same type as the tire supporting the vehicle is identified from the tire identification data.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: wherein data from a tire sensor unit includes tire identification data, and prior hydroplaning characteristic data for tires of a same type as the tire supporting the vehicle is identified from the tire identification data (“[D]etermining the hazard parameter involves comparing the vehicle's speed with a predetermined characteristic curve that describes a hydroplaning speed dependent on the wetness parameter.” ¶ 5. “[W]hen determining the hazard parameter, a currently used tire type and/or a current tire pressure and/or a current tire tread depth is taken into account.” Emphasis added; ¶ 7. “To determine such a characteristic curve, in particular, initial calculations can be made for a multitude of combinations of different influences such as... For example, different tire models, different tire tread depths and different road surfaces are used to determine hydroplaning speeds and to create individual characteristic maps for calculating the hazard parameter. From all the characteristic maps, an average value is calculated for each support point (combination of vehicle speed and wetness parameters), and from this the characteristic map for the expected aquaplaning risk is created.” ¶ 12. “An adaptation of the characteristic map stored in the vehicle with regard to the reliability parameter can be achieved, for example, by creating an individual characteristic map for the tire type used or the determined tread depth, etc.” ¶ 16.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: wherein data from a tire sensor unit includes tire identification data, and prior hydroplaning characteristic data for tires of a same type as the tire supporting the vehicle is identified from the tire identification data, as taught by Koenig '784, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.)
As to claim 10, Blandina fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of a wear state of the tire.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of a wear state of the tire (“[W]hen determining the hazard parameter, a currently used tire type and/or a current tire pressure and/or a current tire tread depth is taken into account.” ¶ 7.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of a wear state of the tire, as taught by Koenig '784, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blandina in view of Koenig '784, in view of Sekizawa, in view of Yokoshima and in view of Koenig '833 as applied to claim 6 — further in view of Decoster (US20210389191A1; “Decoster”).
As to claim 8, the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima and Koenig '833 fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of tire load.
Nevertheless, Decoster teaches: wherein data from a tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of tire load (“A method for estimating the load of a tire supporting a vehicle includes providing the tire, in which the tire includes a pair of sidewalls extending to a circumferential tread, and the tread includes a plurality of tread blocks. A length of the tire footprint is indicated with a first time interval, and a full rotation of the tire is indicated with a second time interval. The first time interval may be indicated by peaks of an amplitude of a tire-based magnetic sensor signal, and the second time interval may be indicated by peaks of the amplitude of the tire-based magnetic sensor signal or by a linear speed of the vehicle. The load on the tire is determined from a ratio of the first time interval to the second time interval at an inflation pressure of the tire.” Abstract.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima and Koenig '833 to include the feature of: wherein data from a tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of tire load, as taught by Decoster, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for detection of hydroplaning or low road grip situations. (See Decoster, ¶ 5.)
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blandina in view of Koenig '784, in view of Sekizawa, in view of Yokoshima and in view of Koenig '833 as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Just (US20230373514A1; “Just”)
As to claim 11, Blandina discloses: the prediction module determines if hydroplaning is likely from additional data sources relative to predetermined threshold values (Comparison of a lift component parameter relative “to a threshold force (lift) value” may be utilized in determining hydroplaning – see ¶ 49; see also ¶ 53. Situation (Levels 0-2 are provided indicating no possibility of aquaplaning, possibility occurrence of aquaplaning, and certain aquaplaning – see ¶ 183.).
The combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 fails to explicitly disclose: the prediction module determines if hydroplaning is likely from an assessment of the data from the tire sensor unit.
Nevertheless, Sekizawa teaches: determining if hydroplaning is likely from an assessment of the data from the tire sensor unit (“[T]he occurrence of the hydroplaning phenomenon is determined by comparing at least one of the first peak value and the second peak value included in the vibration data sent from the tire mount sensor 1 with the determination threshold Th.” ¶ 57.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 to include the feature of: determining if hydroplaning is likely from an assessment of the data from the tire sensor unit, as taught by Sekizawa, because this feature is useful to “provide a hydroplaning determination device capable of determining occurrence of a hydroplaning phenomenon in a vehicle.” (Sekizawa, ¶ 6.)
The combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima and Koenig '833 fails to explicitly disclose: when the prediction module determines that hydroplaning is likely, the prediction module generates a safe speed notification to at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Just teaches: upon determining that hydroplaning is likely, generate a safe speed notification to at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle (“Based on the hydroplaning risk determined in block 608, operating instructions for the vehicle may be adjusted in block 610. Adjustments may include, for example, changing an operating speed of the vehicle (e.g., slowing down based on determining that the speed is within a threshold percentage of the hydroplaning speed or over the hydroplaning speed).” ¶ 61.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima and Koenig '833 to include the feature of: upon determining that hydroplaning is likely, generate a safe speed notification to at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle, as taught by Just, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “aid in a driver's operation of a vehicle and/or aid in the operation of an autonomous vehicle,” especially in the context of hydroplaning. (Just, ¶ 4; see also ¶ 61.)
As to claim 12, Blandina fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes a pressure of the tire.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes a pressure of the tire (“[W]hen determining the hazard parameter, a currently used tire type and/or a current tire pressure and/or a current tire tread depth is taken into account.” ¶ 7.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes a pressure of the tire, as taught by Koenig '784, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.)
As to claim 14, Blandina fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes tire identification data, and prior hydroplaning characteristic data for tires of a same type as the tire supporting the vehicle is identified from the tire identification data.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: wherein data from a tire sensor unit includes tire identification data, and prior hydroplaning characteristic data for tires of a same type as the tire supporting the vehicle is identified from the tire identification data (“[D]etermining the hazard parameter involves comparing the vehicle's speed with a predetermined characteristic curve that describes a hydroplaning speed dependent on the wetness parameter.” ¶ 5. “[W]hen determining the hazard parameter, a currently used tire type and/or a current tire pressure and/or a current tire tread depth is taken into account.” Emphasis added; ¶ 7. “To determine such a characteristic curve, in particular, initial calculations can be made for a multitude of combinations of different influences such as... For example, different tire models, different tire tread depths and different road surfaces are used to determine hydroplaning speeds and to create individual characteristic maps for calculating the hazard parameter. From all the characteristic maps, an average value is calculated for each support point (combination of vehicle speed and wetness parameters), and from this the characteristic map for the expected aquaplaning risk is created.” ¶ 12. “An adaptation of the characteristic map stored in the vehicle with regard to the reliability parameter can be achieved, for example, by creating an individual characteristic map for the tire type used or the determined tread depth, etc.” ¶ 16.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: wherein data from a tire sensor unit includes tire identification data, and prior hydroplaning characteristic data for tires of a same type as the tire supporting the vehicle is identified from the tire identification data, as taught by Koenig '784, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.)
As to claim 15, Blandina fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of a wear state of the tire.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of a wear state of the tire (“[W]hen determining the hazard parameter, a currently used tire type and/or a current tire pressure and/or a current tire tread depth is taken into account.” ¶ 7.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of a wear state of the tire, as taught by Koenig '784, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.)
As to claim 16, the combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the expected drag is determined from at least one of: road weather information indicated by at least one of a road condition and an amount of moisture on a road; and vehicle-to-vehicle status information, including activation of at least one of an anti-lock braking system and wiper blades on other vehicles.
Nevertheless, Sekizawa teaches: obtaining road weather information indicated by at least one of a road condition and an amount of moisture on a road (“[T]he communication center 200 also collects weather information and the like, corrects the road surface data and the like based on the weather information, and updates to more reliable road surface data and the like. Specifically, the communication center 200 acquires information concerning precipitation amount, snow accumulation amount, frozen road surface as weather information, and updates the wet road surface, the snow cover road surface and the frozen road surface to corresponding road surface data and the like.” ¶ 49.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina and Koenig '784 to include the feature of: obtaining road weather information indicated by at least one of a road condition and an amount of moisture on a road, as taught by Sekizawa, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “provide a hydroplaning determination device capable of determining occurrence of a hydroplaning phenomenon in a vehicle.” (Sekizawa, ¶ 6.) Indeed, a skilled artisan would have recognized that these parameters would predictably further aid in Blandina’s determining of drag because they provide relevant information pertaining to conditions of where a tire meets a surface, thereby providing information pertinent to determining hydroplaning conditions including drag.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blandina in view of Koenig '784, in view of Sekizawa, in view of Yokoshima, in view of Koenig '833 and in view of Just as applied to claim 11 — further in view of Decoster.
As to claim 13, the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima, Koenig '833 and Just fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the data from the tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of tire load.
Nevertheless, Decoster teaches: wherein data from a tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of tire load (“A method for estimating the load of a tire supporting a vehicle includes providing the tire, in which the tire includes a pair of sidewalls extending to a circumferential tread, and the tread includes a plurality of tread blocks. A length of the tire footprint is indicated with a first time interval, and a full rotation of the tire is indicated with a second time interval. The first time interval may be indicated by peaks of an amplitude of a tire-based magnetic sensor signal, and the second time interval may be indicated by peaks of the amplitude of the tire-based magnetic sensor signal or by a linear speed of the vehicle. The load on the tire is determined from a ratio of the first time interval to the second time interval at an inflation pressure of the tire.” Abstract.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima, Koenig '833 and Just to include the feature of: wherein data from a tire sensor unit includes data for a determination of tire load, as taught by Decoster, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for detection of hydroplaning or low road grip situations. (See Decoster, ¶ 5.)
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blandina in view of Koenig '784, in view of Sekizawa, in view of Yokoshima and in view of Koenig '833 as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Wakao et al. (US20140163770A1; “Wakao”) and in view of Kim (KR19990011526A; “Kim”).
As to claim 18, the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima and Koenig '833 fails to explicitly disclose: a precheck module in electronic communication with the processor, wherein:
the precheck module includes a rough road detection module receiving signals from the vehicle-based sensors;
the signals include at least one of a vertical chassis acceleration and a wheel speed;
the rough road detection module compares a variance of the signals to a predetermined threshold; and
when the variance of the signals exceeds the predetermined threshold, the road detection module communicates a decision to the processor to disable the warning module.
Nevertheless, Wakao teaches: a rough road detection module receiving signals from the vehicle-based sensors; the signals include at least one of a vertical chassis acceleration and a wheel speed; the rough road detection module compares a variance of the signals to a predetermined threshold; and determining that the variance of the signals exceeds the predetermined threshold (“The invention provides a method and apparatus capable of accurately estimating a road surface condition under a traveling vehicle using unsprung acceleration and wheel speed data. The unsprung fore-aft acceleration (Gx) is detected by an acceleration sensor (11) attached to a knuckle (31) which is an unsprung component of a vehicle. At the same time, the wheel speed (Vw) is detected and the variation (ΔVw) in wheel speed is calculated. Then the fluctuation range (σ(ΔVw)) of the variation in wheel speed and the fluctuation range (σ(Gx)) of the unsprung fore-aft acceleration are calculated. And whether the road surface is a rough road surface with some bumpiness or a flat (smooth) road surface is estimated from a relationship between the fluctuation range (σ(ΔVw)) of the variation in wheel speed and the fluctuation range (σ(Gx)) of the unsprung fore-aft acceleration.” Abstract. See also ¶¶ 125-128.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima and Koenig '833 with the feature of: a rough road detection module receiving signals from the vehicle-based sensors; the signals include at least one of a vertical chassis acceleration and a wheel speed; the rough road detection module compares a variance of the signals to a predetermined threshold; and determining that the variance of the signals exceeds the predetermined threshold, as taught by Wakao, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to provide a method and apparatus for accurately estimating a road surface condition under a traveling vehicle using unsprung fore-aft acceleration and wheel speed data.” (Wakao, ¶ 16.)
The combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima, Koenig '833 and Wakao fails to explicitly disclose: when the variance of the signals exceeds the predetermined threshold, the road detection module communicates a decision to the processor to disable the warning module.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: when an irregular road has been detected, disable a warning module (“[T]he microcomputer 20 regards the received ultrasonic waves as reflection signals caused by irregular road surfaces and suppresses the alarm.” Page 6.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima, Koenig '833 and Wakao with the feature of: when an irregular road has been detected, disable a warning module, as taught by Kim, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for reducing false positives of a warning module due to an irregular road. Indeed, a skilled artisan would have recognized that it would have been obvious to implement Kim’s teaching at the end of Wakao’s processing as Wakao is directed towards determining an irregular road surface.
As to claim 19, Blandina discloses: wherein the precheck module includes a low friction review module, the low friction review module:
determining a longitudinal coefficient of friction and a lateral coefficient of friction (longitudinal and transverse (lateral) grip coefficients may be determined – see ¶ 117.);
receiving interventions from the vehicle-mounted sensors (“[T]he power train module is configured to process the complex of input data 2” - ¶ 20. “With the typical performances of the sensors on board, it is possible to divide the ground types into high/medium/low grip/friction.” ¶ 174.);
determining from the longitudinal coefficient of friction, the lateral coefficient of friction, and the interventions if a low road friction situation has occurred (“From the analysis of the difference between the friction coefficients of the front axle and of the rear axle it is possible to infer the possible presence of aquaplaning conditions, because this phenomenon essentially concerns the front wheels (in other situations of low grip, such as driving on icy ground, the front and rear friction coefficients should be similar or identical).” ¶ 110. See also ¶¶ 205-208.); and
when a low road friction situation as occurred, disable modules pertaining to hydroplaning (Upon determining low grip grounds (low road friction situation), systems related to anti-aquaplaning are not activated – see ¶¶ 208, 210.).
Blandina fails to explicitly disclose:
receiving additional data, the additional data including at least one of a road condition, an amount of moisture on the road, and an ambient temperature; and
determining from the additional data if a low road friction situation has occurred.
Nevertheless, Koenig '784 teaches: receiving additional data, the additional data including at least one of a road condition, an amount of moisture on the road, and an ambient temperature; and determining from the additional data if a low road friction situation has occurred (“The inventive method for assessing the aquaplaning risk of a vehicle comprises determining a wetness parameter of a road surface located in front of the vehicle in the direction of travel, determining a speed of the vehicle, and determining a hazard parameter that characterizes the probability of a loss of adhesion between at least one tire of the vehicle and the road surface, based on the wetness parameter and the speed. This takes into account the understanding that the main factors influencing the risk of aquaplaning are speed and water level on the road. The moisture parameter can be determined, for example, using an ultrasonic sensor.” ¶ 4.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blandina to include the feature of: receiving additional data, the additional data including at least one of a road condition, an amount of moisture on the road, and an ambient temperature; and determining from the additional data if a low road friction situation has occurred, as taught by Koenig '784, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately assessing a hydroplaning risk. (See Koenig '784, ¶¶ 4-9.)
The combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima, Koenig '833 and Wakao fails to explicitly disclose: when a low road friction situation has occurred, communicating a decision to the processor to disable the warning module.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches: when an irregular road has been detected, disable a warning module (“[T]he microcomputer 20 regards the received ultrasonic waves as reflection signals caused by irregular road surfaces and suppresses the alarm.” Page 6.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima, Koenig '833 and Wakao with the feature of: when an irregular road has been detected, disable a warning module, as taught by Kim, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for reducing false positives of a warning module due to an irregular road, such as one wherein a low road friction situation has occurred.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blandina in view of Koenig '784, in view of Sekizawa, in view of Yokoshima, in view of Koenig '833, in view of Wakao and in view of Kim as applied to claim 18 — further in view of Brearley (US4233599A; “Brearley”).
As to claim 20, the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima, Koenig '833, Wakao and Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the precheck module includes include at least one of: a speed detection module receiving a vehicle speed signal from the vehicle-based sensors, and when the vehicle speed is below a predetermined threshold, the speed detection module communicates a decision to the processor to disable the warning module; and a vehicle check module receiving status signals from vehicle-based sensors including at least one of a windshield wiper status and a trailer status, and when the status signals are negative, the vehicle check module communicates a decision to the processor to disable the warning module.
Nevertheless, Brearley teaches: a speed detection module receiving a vehicle speed signal from the vehicle-based sensors, and when the vehicle speed is below a predetermined threshold, the speed detection module communicates a decision to the processor to disable the warning module (“[I]f the sensor senses wheel speeds below a predetermined level, generation of a warning signal is inhibited.” – Claim 7.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Blandina, Koenig '784, Sekizawa, Yokoshima, Koenig '833, Wakao and Kim with the feature of: a speed detection module receiving a vehicle speed signal from the vehicle-based sensors, and when the vehicle speed is below a predetermined threshold, the speed detection module communicates a decision to the processor to disable the warning module, as taught by Brearley, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to detect irregularities resulting from sensor malfunction rather than true speed variations.” (Brearley, Col. 1, ll. 33-36.)
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims; and (2) the 101 rejection is resolved.
The following prior art is made of record:
Raste et al. (US20180178769A1; “Raste”)
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter.
Blandina discloses:
comparing drag force to threshold values (“The logic output corresponds to block 201 (possibility of aquaplaning) or 202 (proximity to aquaplaning), if the additional drag component is equal to or higher than a value which would give rise to a lift sufficient to exceed the threshold force value, causing the tires to detach from the ground.”); and
determining a partial hydroplaning situation (“[T]he method according to the invention enables solving this computational problem by determining a plurality (preferably three, see blocks 24A, 24B, 24C) of levels or degrees of proximity to an aquaplaning condition.” ¶ 51.).
Yokoshima disclose: comparing calculated slip to threshold values to determine hydroplaning (“[T]he reference wheel speed calculation means 5 calculates the theoretical speeds of each wheel 3A to 3D as reference wheel speeds ωA' to ωD' based on the aforementioned reference vehicle speed V'.” ¶ 18. “Once the reference wheel speeds ωA′ to ωD′ for each wheel 3A to 3D are calculated in this manner, the front wheel slip ratio calculation means 6 and the rear wheel slip ratio calculation means 7 calculate the slip ratio (slip rate) Sf for the front wheels and the slip ratio Sr for the rear wheels based on these reference wheel speeds ωA′ to ωD′.” ¶ 19. “The determination means 10 then determines whether or not the vehicle is hydroplaning based on the front-to-rear wheel slip ratio difference Sf-Sr and the vehicle's longitudinal acceleration G detected by the front-to-rear acceleration sensor 9.” ¶ 23.).
Raste discloses:
when the hydroplaning detection warning is for a full hydroplaning situation, the assistance module detects activation of a brake on rear tires from a review of the data from the vehicle-based sensors (“In the event of aquaplaning being identified, an intervention for a correction of the direction of travel (change in direction), in order to make control of the direction of the vehicle possible. Accordingly, the intervention is performed through the setting of a brake pressure at a rear-wheel brake, wherein the brake pressure is set in a manner dependent on a driver steering demand.” ¶ 8.); and
identifying full hydroplaning when calculated slip is above a threshold value (“Aquaplaning can also considered to be identified if one front wheel exhibits a high level of brake slip and the other wheel exhibits a high level of drive slip. This is identified if positive slip above a predefined threshold value is identified at one front wheel, and negative slip below a predefined threshold value is identified at the other front wheel.” ¶ 21.).
However, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose at least: when the drag force and the calculated slip are below the threshold values, the assistance module communicates recommendations for partial hydroplaning actions to at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle for action by the at least one of the vehicle control system and the operator of the vehicle.
Summarizing, the prior art considers that drag force and calculated slip can be compared to threshold values to determine a full hydroplaning situation; the cited prior art also considers determining a partial hydroplaning situation.
However, the prior art neither discloses nor renders obvious the claimed control flow of being in a full hydroplaning situation, detecting activation of a brake on rear tires, determining partial hydroplaning upon drag and slip falling below a threshold value and then finally recommending actions for performing partial hydroplaning thereupon.
Accordingly, claim 17 distinguishes from the prior art.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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 S. 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 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights