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 Status
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) (A) constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims and 19 are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim .
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) (A) constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Claims 17-18 are rejected for similar reasons as Claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification . There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
Claim 6 is rejected because it depends on claim 5 which does not have adequate written description
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 6, 15, and 16 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, "carrying out a subsequent operation using the current friction value, wherein the subsequent operation includes providing a warning signal, placing a stability control system in a preventive control mode; re-determining a trajectory of the vehicle, providing a speed reduction request, determining a degree of freedom of movement limit, wherein at least one of the following applies: i) limiting a degree of freedom of movement of the vehicle; and, ii) validating a friction value sensor, wherein the subsequent operation is only carried out if the current friction value falls below a friction value limit," it's unclear because it the claim language suggests carrying out a subsequent operation, "singular," but lists multiple operations. Further, it's not clear how the last two operations apply or what operation they are a part of. For the purposes of examination it's assumed that the list is of alternative options and thus one is selected if the friction value falls below a limit.
Claim 15 recites the limitation, "wherein the test load characteristic is or includes an axle load on a test axle of the vehicle on which the at least one test wheel is arranged, a wheel load of the at least one test wheel, a mass distribution of the vehicle, a total mass of the vehicle, a partial mass of a vehicle part on which the at least one test wheel is arranged, and at least one of the following: applies: i) a center of gravity position of the vehicle; and, ii) a center of gravity position of a vehicle part," however, it's not clear if all characteristics must be present in the test load characteristic since it would appear redundant and it's not clear how all characteristics could be applied simultaneously. Further, the Specification appears to imply only individual test load characteristics are used in individual tests (see at least ¶¶24, 47, 48). Further, it's not clear how "i) a center of gravity position of the vehicle; and, ii) a center of gravity position of a vehicle part" is applied as they are attributes which are not mutually exclusive. For the purposes of examination it is assumed that the test load characteristic is or includes one of the listed characteristics and not all of them.
Claim 16 recites an apparatus in the form of a, “driver assistance system” which performs a method. However, there is no structure associated with the driver assistance system and therefore it’s not clear how the method is performed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Straub et al. (US 12,420,755 B2) hereinafter Straub.
Claim 1:
Straub discloses a method [Fig. 2] for approximating a friction value [Ff] between wheels [17, 18] of a vehicle [10] and a road surface, the method comprising: carrying out at least one test acceleration of the vehicle by acting on at least one test wheel [col. 2, lines 21-49; applying a torque would cause an acceleration]; determining a wheel slip of the at least one test wheel for at least one period of the at least one test acceleration [s120; col. 6, lines 13-14]; determining a test manipulated variable provided during the at least one period in order to act on the at least one test wheel [applied torque or braking]; determining a test load characteristic present on the at least one test wheel during the at least one period [s110; col. 6, lines 7-12]; and, determining a reference friction value for the at least one test acceleration on a basis of the determined test load characteristic, the determined test manipulated variable and the determined wheel slip of the at least one test wheel [s130; col. 4, line 64 - col 5. line 3; col. 6, lines 15-16].
Claim 4:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Straub also discloses wherein the at least one test wheel is a wheel of a rear axle of the vehicle [Fig. 1, the test axle 12 are both rear axles of the truck 10; further at least one (implies both) could be lifted see col. 4. lines 42-44].
Claim 5:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Straub also discloses further comprising: determining an operating wheel slip of the at least one test wheel in an operating driving situation; determining a current load characteristic of the vehicle in the operating driving situation; determining a manipulated variable provided in the operating driving situation to act on the at least one test wheel; determining a current friction value of the operating driving situation by selecting a corresponding reference friction value; wherein the reference friction value corresponds to the current friction value when the determined load characteristic lies within a load tolerance around the test load characteristic, the operating wheel slip lies within a slip tolerance around the wheel slip and the manipulated variable lies within a manipulated variable tolerance around the test manipulated variable [col. 2, lines 21-49; the lifted state of the axle would naturally bring load to zero which would be an exact value and thus within any kind of tolerance].
Claim 6:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Straub also discloses further comprising, carrying out a subsequent operation using the current friction value, wherein the subsequent operation includes providing a warning signal, placing a stability control system in a preventive control mode; re-determining a trajectory of the vehicle, providing a speed reduction request, determining a degree of freedom of movement limit, wherein at least one of the following applies: i) limiting a degree of freedom of movement of the vehicle; and, ii) validating a friction value sensor, wherein the subsequent operation is only carried out if the current friction value falls below a friction value limit [col. 3, lines 21-31].
Claim 7:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Straub also discloses wherein: the at least one test acceleration is a test braking of the vehicle; the test manipulated variable is a brake pressure provided at a brake actuator associated with the at least one test wheel [braking torque]; and, wherein the reference wheel is excluded from the test braking, so that no brake pressure is provided at the brake actuator associated with the reference wheel during the at least one period [col. 2, lines 21-49; slip caused by braking; reference wheel is lifted per col. 2, lines 33-41].
Claim 9:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Straub also discloses wherein the test braking is a normal braking performed in a normal driving mode of the vehicle to fulfill a driving task [col. 2, lines 21-41; no restrictions placed on when the braking can occur and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would determine it could be performed during a normal driving mode].
Claim 14:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Straub also discloses wherein the at least one test acceleration is a positive acceleration of the vehicle, the test manipulated variable is a driving torque provided at the test wheel, and wherein no driving torque is provided at the reference wheel in the at least one period [col. 2, lines 42-49; applying a torque would cause an acceleration while lifting other second axle].
Claim 15:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Straub also discloses wherein the test load characteristic is or includes an axle load on a test axle of the vehicle on which the at least one test wheel is arranged, a wheel load of the at least one test wheel, a mass distribution of the vehicle, a total mass of the vehicle, a partial mass of a vehicle part on which the at least one test wheel is arranged, and at least one of the following: applies: i) a center of gravity position of the vehicle; and, ii) a center of gravity position of a vehicle part.
Claim 16:
Straub discloses A driver assistance system configured to perform the following method [Fig. 2] for approximating a friction value [Ff] between wheels [17, 18] of a vehicle [10] and a road surface, the method comprising: carrying out at least one test acceleration of the vehicle by acting on at least one test wheel [col. 2, lines 21-49; applying a torque would cause an acceleration]; determining a wheel slip of the at least one test wheel for at least one period of the at least one test acceleration [s120; col. 6, lines 13-14]; determining a test manipulated variable provided during the at least one period in order to act on the at least one test wheel [applied torque or braking]; determining a test load characteristic present on the at least one test wheel during the at least one period [s110; col. 6, lines 7-12]; and, determining a reference friction value for the at least one test acceleration on a basis of the determined test load characteristic, the determined test manipulated variable and the determined wheel slip of the at least one test wheel [s130; col. 4, line 64 - col 5. line 3; col. 6, lines 15-16].
Claim 17:
Straub discloses A vehicle [10] comprising at least two axles [11, 12], a brake system, a steering system, a drive motor [implied with the vehicle 10] and a driver assistance system configured to perform the following method [Fig. 2] for approximating a friction value [Ff] between wheels [17, 18] of a vehicle [10] and a road surface, the method including: carrying out at least one test acceleration of the vehicle by acting on at least one test wheel [col. 2, lines 21-49; applying a torque would cause an acceleration]; determining a wheel slip of the at least one test wheel for at least one period of the at least one test acceleration [s120; col. 6, lines 13-14]; determining a test manipulated variable provided during the at least one period in order to act on the at least one test wheel [applied torque or braking]; determining a test load characteristic present on the at least one test wheel during the at least one period [s110; col. 6, lines 7-12]; and, determining a reference friction value for the at least one test acceleration on a basis of the determined test load characteristic, the determined test manipulated variable and the determined wheel slip of the at least one test wheel [s130; col. 4, line 64 - col 5. line 3; col. 6, lines 15-16].
Claim 18:
Straub discloses A computer program product comprising program code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium [col. 3, line 62-col. 4, line 2; claim 11]; said program code being configured, when executed by a processor to carry out a method for approximating a friction value [Ff] between wheels [17, 18] of a vehicle [10] and a road surface, the method comprising: carrying out at least one test acceleration of the vehicle by acting on at least one test wheel [col. 2, lines 21-49; applying a torque would cause an acceleration]; determining a wheel slip of the at least one test wheel for at least one period of the at least one test acceleration [s120; col. 6, lines 13-14]; determining a test manipulated variable provided during the at least one period in order to act on the at least one test wheel [applied torque or braking]; determining a test load characteristic present on the at least one test wheel during the at least one period [s110; col. 6, lines 7-12]; and, determining a reference friction value for the at least one test acceleration on a basis of the determined test load characteristic, the determined test manipulated variable and the determined wheel slip of the at least one test wheel [s130; col. 4, line 64 - col 5. line 3; col. 6, lines 15-16].
Claim 19:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Straub also discloses wherein the at least one test wheel is a wheel of an auxiliary axle of the vehicle [Fig. 1, the test axle 12 are both rear axles of the truck 10; further at least one (implies both) could be lifted see col. 4. lines 42-44].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straub as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Burckhardt et al. (US 5,653,517) hereinafter Burckhardt.
Claim 2:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Straub doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the determining of the wheel slip of the at least one test wheel for at least a period of the at least one test acceleration includes: determining a test speed of the at least one test wheel; determining a reference speed of a reference wheel; determining the wheel slip on a basis of the determined test speed and the determined reference speed, wherein at least one of the following applies: i) the reference wheel is a wheel rolling freely in the period; and, ii) the reference speed is determined on the basis of a vehicle speed of the vehicle, and a wheel circumference of the reference wheel.
However, Burckhardt does disclose wherein the determining of the wheel slip of the at least one test wheel for at least a period of the at least one test acceleration includes: determining a test speed of the at least one test wheel; determining a reference speed of a reference wheel; determining the wheel slip on a basis of the determined test speed and the determined reference speed, wherein at least one of the following applies: i) the reference wheel is a wheel rolling freely in the period; and, ii) the reference speed is determined on the basis of a vehicle speed of the vehicle, and a wheel circumference of the reference wheel. [col. 3, lines 5-46]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the friction value determination of Straub with the single test wheel brake of Burckhardt to maintain vehicle stability while performing the test.
Claim 3:
Straub and Burckhardt, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Straub doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one test wheel and the reference wheel are associated with different axles of the vehicle.
However, Burckhardt does disclose wherein the at least one test wheel and the reference wheel are associated with different axles of the vehicle. [col. 3, lines 5-17 states, "at least the unbraked vehicle wheels roll freely and thereby very precise information can be obtained on the vehicle speed" which implies other wheels may be used]
Claim 11:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Straub doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein only the at least one test wheel is braked in the at least one period.
However, Burckhardt does disclose wherein only the at least one test wheel is braked in the at least one period. [col. 3, lines 5-46]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the friction value determination of Straub with the single test wheel brake of Burckhardt to maintain vehicle stability while performing the test.
Claim 12:
Straub and Burckhardt, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Straub doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the test braking is a demand braking initiated to determine the reference friction value, which is initiated without an associated deceleration requirement of the vehicle, wherein the demand braking is initiated when the vehicle is traveling straight ahead.
However, Burckhardt does disclose wherein the test braking is a demand braking initiated to determine the reference friction value, which is initiated without an associated deceleration requirement of the vehicle, wherein the demand braking is initiated when the vehicle is traveling straight ahead. [col. 3, lines 5-46]
Claim 13:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Straub doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the test braking is a moderate braking in a range of greater than at least one of 0 m/s^2 to 2 m/s^2 and 1 m/s^2 to 2 m/s^2.
However, Burckhardt does disclose wherein the test braking is a moderate braking in a range of greater than at least one of 0 m/s^2 to 2 m/s^2 and 1 m/s^2 to 2 m/s^2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the friction value determination of Straub with the single test wheel brake of Burckhardt to maintain vehicle stability while performing the test.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straub as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Henderson et al. (US 12,269,453 B2) hereinafter Henderson.
Claim 8:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Straub doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein during the at least one period only the reference wheel is excluded from the test braking.
Henderson does disclose wherein during the at least one period only the reference wheel is excluded from the test braking. [col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 3]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the friction value determination of Straub with the single free rolling wheel method of Henderson to improve the quality of data by comparing the results to other configurations.
Claim 10:
Straub, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Straub doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising a braking force redistribution wherein further braked wheels of the vehicle compensate for the lack of deceleration of the reference wheel excluded from the test braking.
Henderson does disclose further comprising a braking force redistribution wherein further braked wheels of the vehicle compensate for the lack of deceleration of the reference wheel excluded from the test braking. [col. 2, lines 20-34]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the friction value determination of Straub with the reduced force braking of Henderson to reduce tire slippage thus improve control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hurson (US 2002/0124629 A1) discloses a system that continuously monitors the road surface friction using a separate test wheel.
Zheng et al. (US 2022/0212677 A1) discloses a vehicle which detects and mitigates slippery conditions.
Rath (US 4,779,447) hereinafter Rath discloses a means of determining the coefficient of friction between a wheel and a roadway using a braked wheel and a non-braked wheel of the same vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights