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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 ends with a comma instead of period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 has the grammatical problem “measured the brake actions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 recites the limitation "the estimated brake actions" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-13 recites the limitation "the measured brake actions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is further not understood because of the phrase “as compared to previously estimated brake actions on a selected route”. This phrase negates or conflicts recited limitations in parent claim 1. Maybe the applicant intended to recite in claim 12 something like “in addition to” instead of “as compared to”.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by MacNeille et al (US2016/0280160).
A computer-implemented (104) method for estimating brake wear emissions of a vehicle (0005 “a computer-implemented method”), the method comprising:
obtaining, by a controller (fig. 1A), a departure location (0019 “current vehicle 102 location and heading”) and a destination location of the vehicle (0004 “route request specifying a destination location”, 0031 “GPS module 146, to retrieve current location coordinates of the vehicle 102”);
accessing, by the controller, a navigational system for selecting a candidate route (0013 “navigation, turn-by-turn directions”, 0014 “the computing platform 104…execute instructions of vehicle applications 110 to provide features such as navigation”) between the departure location and the destination location (0071 “request a route from one location from another, such as from a current vehicle 102 location to a point of interest location”, claim 7 “route request specifying a destination location”);
accessing, by the controller, a database for obtaining vehicle parameters and a pre- defined data set of brake wear parameters (0012 “monitor brake and tire wear particles”, fig. 1B “Particulate Signatures” & “Particulate Data”, 0051 to 0052);
determining, by the controller, brake actions (0053 “anti-lock brake activation, ambient temperature, vehicle accelerations, brake activation, brake torque, brake pressure, traction control activation”) of the vehicle based on the selected candidate route (0054 “provide for routing of vehicles 102 to avoid areas of high tire or brake wear”) and the vehicle parameters (0050 “temperature”, “corrosion” etc.); and
determining, by the controller, brake wear emissions (0026 “particulate sensors 174…particulate data 178 distributions of detected particle quantities and sizes may be used as a fingerprint or particulate signature 180 for sources of particle emission.”) based on the estimated brake actions (0051 “various brake conditions to estimate brake wear. This brake wear estimation may accordingly be used”) and the pre-defined data set of brake wear parameters (fig. 1A box 180 “particulate signatures”).
Claim 2 MacNeille et al discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the pre-defined data set of brake wear parameters include basic brake wear emission parameters including characteristic particle emissions (0012 “air in tire well areas to monitor brake and tire wear particles”, 0026 “ particulate data 178 distributions of detected particle quantities and sizes may be used as a fingerprint or particulate signature 180 for sources of particle emission”).
Claim 3 MacNeille discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the basic brake wear emission parameters include at least one of a particle size, a distribution of the particle size, or a flow direction of the particles (0002, 0025 “concentration distribution (by number and/or mass) of particles… particles having an aerodynamic diameter greater than…particles being measured“).
Claim 10 MacNeille discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the brake actions is based at least on at least one of slopes, traffic lights, or traffic information, on the selected candidate route (“data may further be used, in an example, to provide for routing of vehicles 102 to avoid areas of high tire or brake wear”).
Claim 14 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by MacNeille et al (US2016/0280160).
A non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by a processor (0014), the computer readable medium comprising:
program instructions that obtain a departure location and a destination location of a vehicle (Abstract 3rd sentence, 0004 “destination location for a vehicle”);
program instructions that access a navigational system for selecting a candidate route between the departure location and the destination location (0014 “vehicle applications 110 to provide features such as navigation”, fig. 4 at 408, 410 & 412);
program instructions that access a database for obtaining vehicle parameters and a pre-defined data set of brake wear parameters (0027 “particulate signatures 180 may be defined…brake wear”, 0051 “particulate signatures 180 indicative of various brake conditions to estimate brake wear”);
program instructions that determine brake actions (0050 2nd sentence) of the vehicle based on the selected candidate route (0054 sentence 3, fig. 4 at 408, 410 & 412) and the vehicle parameters (0053); and
program instructions that determine brake wear emissions (0026 “particulate signature 180 for sources of particle emission”) based on the estimated brake actions (0051) and the pre-defined data set of brake wear parameters (0069 “particulate data 178 to particulate signatures 180. The particulate signatures 180 may include…distribution of particle sizes that may be used to identify a type of emission or lack of emission”).
Claim 15-16 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by MacNeille et al (US2016/0280160).
A computer-implemented apparatus (fig. 1A “Vehicle Computing System”) for estimating brake wear emissions of a vehicle (0051), the apparatus comprising:
a processor (106, 164) and a memory (108, 166), the processor configured to execute a computer program containing computer-readable instructions (0014 “computer-readable storage medium 112. The computer-readable medium 112 (also referred to as a processor-readable medium or storage)”) configured to:
obtain a departure location and a destination location of the vehicle (Abstract 3rd sentence, 0004 “destination location for a vehicle”);
access a navigational system for selecting a candidate route between the departure location and the destination location (0014 “vehicle applications 110 to provide features such as navigation”, fig. 4 at 408, 410 & 412);
access a database for obtaining vehicle parameters and a pre-defined data set of brake wear parameters (0027 “particulate signatures 180 may be defined…brake wear”, 0051 “particulate signatures 180 indicative of various brake conditions to estimate brake wear”);
determine brake actions (0050 2nd sentence) of the vehicle based on the selected candidate route (0054 sentence 3, fig. 4 at 408, 410 & 412) and the vehicle parameters (0053); and
determine brake wear emissions (0026 “particulate signature 180 for sources of particle emission”) based on the estimated brake actions and the pre-defined data set of brake wear parameters (0069 “particulate data 178 to particulate signatures 180. The particulate signatures 180 may include…distribution of particle sizes that may be used to identify a type of emission or lack of emission”).
Claim 16 MacNeille discloses the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the pre-defined data set of brake wear parameters include basic brake wear emission parameters including characteristic particle emissions (0012 “air in tire well areas to monitor brake and tire wear particles”, 0026 “ particulate data 178 distributions of detected particle quantities and sizes may be used as a fingerprint or particulate signature 180 for sources of particle emission”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 4 (as best understood) & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeille et al (US2016/0280160) in view of CN103810398A.
MacNeille does not disclose that the pre-defined data set of brake wear parameters include at least one of a brake type or a brake design.
CN103810398A discloses a data set of brake wear parameters (0022 & 0024 “wear particle emission factor”) include at least one of a brake type (0022 & 0024 “i is a vehicle type”) or a brake design.
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to utilize a brake type as taught by CN103810398A with the brake wear parameters of MacNeille. A motivation for doing this would be to increase factors in the calculation of brake wear to enable a more accurate prediction and measurement. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale B; simple substitution of one known element (brake type) for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 5-6 (as best understood) & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeille et al (US2016/0280160) in view of Ohazulike (2019/0084548).
MacNeille does not disclose that the vehicle parameters include a weight of the vehicle that is determined by at least one of a seat detection sensor.
Ohazulike discloses a method for determining vehicle brake wear with parameters that include a weight of the vehicle that is determined by at least one of a seat detection sensor (0079).
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to utilize the method for determining vehicle brake wear with parameters that include a weight of the vehicle that is determined by at least one of a seat detection sensor as taught by Ohazulike with the brake wear measuring system of MacNeille. A motivation for doing this would be to increase factors in the calculation of brake wear to enable a more accurate prediction and measurement. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale B; simple substitution of one known element (vehicle weight determined in a well-known way) for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 7 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeille et al (US2016/0280160) in view of Barale et al (US20250061755).
MacNeille does not disclose that the vehicle parameters include a vehicle type.
Barale discloses a method for determining vehicle brake particulate emissions that include a vehicle type (0050).
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to utilize the parameter of the vehicle type as taught by Barale et al with the brake wear measuring system of MacNeille. A motivation for doing this would be to increase the variety of factors in the calculation of brake wear to enable a more accurate prediction and measurement. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale B; simple substitution of one known element (vehicle weight determined in a well-known way) for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 8-9 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeille et al (US2016/0280160) in view of Hjelte Ulmehag et al (US 20250206275).
MacNeille does not disclose that the vehicle parameters comprise a state of charge of a battery of the vehicle, wherein determining the brake wear emissions includes determining a battery recuperation during the brake actions.
Hjelte Ulmehag discloses (0110-0114) that the vehicle parameters comprise a state of charge of a battery (“a status of a battery of the vehicle 1, e.g., SoC”) of the vehicle, wherein determining the brake wear emissions (operational and/or wear status of any component of the brake arrangement 50) includes determining a battery recuperation (“regenerative brakes”) during the brake actions.
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to utilize vehicle parameters comprising a state of charge of a battery of the vehicle, wherein determining the brake wear emissions includes determining a battery recuperation during the brake actions as taught by Hjelte Ulmehag with the brake wear measuring system of MacNeille. A motivation for doing this would be to measuring of regenerative brakes with the SOC of the battery. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 10 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeille et al (US2016/0280160) in view of CN103810398A.
MacNeille does not disclose that determining the brake actions is based at least on at least one of slopes, traffic lights, or traffic information, on the selected candidate route.
CN103810398A discloses (0033, 0043 “traffic flow” & “road surface abrasion particle emission factor of the brake wear particle emission”) determining the brake actions is based at least on at least one of slopes, traffic lights, or traffic information, on the selected candidate route.
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to use traffic information as taught by CN103810398A in determining braking actions of MacNeille. A motivation for doing this would be to increase factors in the calculation of brake actions to enable a more accurate prediction and measurement. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale B; simple substitution of one known element (brake type) for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 12-13 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeille et al (US2016/0280160).
MacNeille does not disclose use of artificial intelligence.
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to use the ubiquitous artificial intelligence to program brake actions of MacNeille. The motivation for this is also well known and would be to use a faster programing to accomplish tasks. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights