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 . This office action is in response to an application filed on 6/18/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 6/18/2025 have been considered by the
Examiner and made of record in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to method for detecting damage to a wheel hub motor of a motor vehicle that drives a wheel (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-7 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 is directed to A motor vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 8 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed
to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (mathematical concepts)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Independent claim 1, and 8 recites:
capturing, by a control device of the motor vehicle, acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle by way of at least one acceleration sensor of the motor vehicle during travel; evaluating, by the control device of the motor vehicle, the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle; and detecting, by the control device of the motor vehicle, the damage to the wheel hub motor if the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle in the transverse direction represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel against an obstacle above a predetermined load threshold.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process”
because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process that can be done with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “evaluating…the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle; and detecting,”. In the context of this claim after obtaining acceleration values from the vehicle the process evaluates the values for damage detection which can be done via the human mind with aid of pen and paper. Another Example being – “detecting…the damage to the wheel hub motor if the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle in the transverse direction represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel against an obstacle above a predetermined load threshold.” In the context of this claim the method is detecting damage done by comparing the acceleration values to a setpoint and determining if that is out of the bounds of normal operating conditions and thus can be done with a human mind with the aid of pen and paper Essentially, this method is gathering information about the acceleration of the vehicle and using the values to access damage possibility of the vehicle. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in
the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract
idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial
exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows
(Where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to
represent the “abstract idea”):
capturing, by a control device of the motor vehicle, acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle by way of at least one acceleration sensor of the motor vehicle during travel; evaluating, by the control device of the motor vehicle, the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle; and detecting, by the control device of the motor vehicle, the damage to the wheel hub motor if the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle in the transverse direction represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel against an obstacle above a predetermined load threshold.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. “by the control device of the motor vehicle,”. These limitations are merely applying the judicial exception through the use of generic computer parts and the specification does not claim any of these components are a particular machine or an improvement to the function of an existing computer in it of themselves. Regarding the additional limitations of “capturing, by a control device of the motor vehicle, acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle by way of at least one acceleration sensor of the motor vehicle during travel;”. This limitations merely are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (control device) to perform the process. In particular, the extracting acceleration step from the vehicle based on various gathered data are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering vehicle motion data for use in the damage detection (mental process) step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The method is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the otherwise mental process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a control device to capture the vehicle acceleration values amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “…capturing…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the control device are nothing more than standard computer components implemented for this data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Claims 3 and 4 mentions “…wherein the at least one acceleration sensor includes an acceleration sensor of a vehicle dynamics control system and/or an airbag control unit of the motor vehicle …” which would fail under Step 2A Prong 2 where this limitation is an extra solution activity that just applies the mental process to a generic computer component that would not allow claim 2 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claim 5 mentions, “…a warning message to be output to a user …” which would fail under Step 2A prong 2 for being an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering as transmission and reception of data doesn’t not take out the claim of the 101 analysis –that would not allow claim 3 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claim 4 mentions, “…determining whether the acceleration of the lateral impact of the wheel against the obstacle exceeds the predetermined load threshold …” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for being an abstract idea – mental processes and mathematical formulation that would not allow claim 4 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claim 5 mention, “…the damage to the wheel hub motor is detected …” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for being an abstract idea – mental processes that would not allow claim 5 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claim 6 mentions, “…determining, by the control device, a size and/or a height and/or a geometry …” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for being an abstract idea – mental processes that would not allow claim 6 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claim 9 mentions, “…classifying the obstacle …” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for being an abstract idea – mental processes that would not allow claim 7 to be considered eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markus (DE102015203672A1) and in view of Sun (CN 202405954 U) and in further view of Klaus et al. (EP2098844A1)
Regarding Claim 1 Markus teaches A method for detecting damage of a motor vehicle that drives a wheel, (Pg. 1 – “The present invention relates to a means of transportation, an apparatus and a method for improved detection of any mechanical damage to the vehicle. In particular, the present invention relates to plausibility checking of such sensor data, which may indicate any vehicle damage that may exist.” 7 See Also Pg. 4 – “FIG. 1 shows a passenger car 10 as a means of transport, which has acceleration and wheel speed sensors 1, 2, 3, 4 which are connected with an electronic control unit 5 as an evaluation unit of a driving dynamics control system in terms of information technology. A data memory 6 within the electronic control unit 5 holds threshold values as references for the comparison according to the invention of the movement variable or the malfunction and detected user interactions.” (equates to A method for detecting damage to a wheel hub motor of a motor vehicle that drives a wheel, as the first quote shows the detection of any damage done to the entirety of the vehicle being monitored and the second quote showing the wheel speed sensors to det4ermine functionality of the wheel and thus the wheel hub motor. )) the method comprising: capturing, by a control device of the motor vehicle, acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle by way of at least one acceleration sensor of the motor vehicle during travel; (Pg. 2 – [0010]- “The movement variable can comprise, for example, an acceleration (e.g. in the vertical direction, Z direction). Such acceleration occurs, for example, when the means of transportation passes through a striking hole. In such a driving situation, chassis parts can be overloaded or damaged and prevent the driver from being able to safely use his vehicle further” & See Also Pg. 1 – [0007] – “The movement variable can be determined, for example, by means of an acceleration sensor and/or by means of a driving dynamics control system” (equates to the method comprising: capturing, by a control device of the motor vehicle, acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle by way of at least one acceleration sensor of the motor vehicle during travel as the first quote shows the transverse acceleration being measured in which the transverse direction may be the Z direction as for pot hole detection as shown, second quote shows the use of an acceleration sensor system. ) ) evaluating, by the control device of the motor vehicle, the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle; (Pg. 2 – [0010] – “The movement variable can comprise, for example, an acceleration (e.g. in the vertical direction, Z direction). Such acceleration occurs, for example, when the means of transportation passes through a striking hole. In such a driving situation, chassis parts can be overloaded or damaged and prevent the driver from being able to safely use his vehicle further. Corresponding other movement quantities are yaw, slip of the tires with respect to the roadway and a speed reduction without a corresponding braking intervention. The latter takes place when the means of transport collides with a slower or stationary surrounding object. The aforementioned movement variables can be determined simply and reliably by means of a sensor system in series use and can be used according to the invention as an input variable of the comparison.” & See Also Pg. 3 – [0015]- ‘The sensor for detecting a movement variable may preferably be assigned to a driving dynamics control system. In terms of their nature, driving dynamics control systems are best suited for detecting and remedying critical driving situations’(equates to evaluating, by the control device of the motor vehicle, the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle; as the quote shows the transverse acceleration being used for a comparison and thus an evaluation is taking place via a control device) ) and detecting, by the control device of the motor vehicle, the damage if the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle in the transverse direction represent an acceleration of the wheel against an obstacle above a predetermined load threshold. (Pg. 3 – [0014] – “According to a second aspect of the present invention, a device for improved detection of any mechanical damage to the vehicle is proposed. This comprises a sensor for detecting a movement quantity (e.g. an acceleration, yaw, slip, etc.) of the vehicle or of a vehicle part and alternatively or additionally a sensor for detecting an electrical or electronic malfunction on a vehicle part (electrical/electronic component). In addition, means for automatically detecting a user interaction are provided, which are configured to detect and report the user interaction in a close temporal relationship for detecting the movement variable or the malfunction, that is to say before, during or after the detection of the movement variable. In addition, an evaluation unit is provided which is configured to compare the movement variable or the malfunction and the detected user interaction with a predefined reference. Of course, an independent predefined reference can be provided for each of the aforementioned variables, which is stored, for example, in the form of a threshold value and/or a time characteristic.” (equates to and detecting, by the control device of the motor vehicle, the damage to the wheel hub motor if the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle in the transverse direction represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel against an obstacle above a predetermined load threshold. As the quote shows the detecting of damage to any part of the vehicle wherein the acceleration sensor is used and a corresponding threshold is met in which would indicate damage done to the vehicle for the user to potentially take an action upon. ))
Yet Markus fails to teach detecting damage to a wheel hub motor, the damage to the wheel hub motor, represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel
Sun teaches at detecting damage to a wheel hub motor (Pg. 2 – “Common wheel hub motor is when operation, and the user can't learn the running status that it is current, and these running statuses comprise operating temperature, rotor speed and the motor operating current etc. of motor internal. If motor produces potential safety hazard in running, can reflect through above mentioned these factors. If the user can't in time find potential safety hazard, just can't in time do corresponding adjustment perhaps to the maintenance of equipment, finally cause motor to damage, possibly cause the accident under the serious situation.” & See Also Pg. 2 – “Have the wheel hub motor of running status feedback, comprise a wheel hub motor main body and a wheel hub, it is characterized in that, also comprise a running state detecting device” (equates to detects damage to the wheel hub motor as the first quote shows the determination of damage to the motor being determined and the second showing an implementation of a running status feedback system of the wheel hub motor.)) detects damage to the wheel hub motor (Pg. 2 – “Common wheel hub motor is when operation, and the user can't learn the running status that it is current, and these running statuses comprise operating temperature, rotor speed and the motor operating current etc. of motor internal. If motor produces potential safety hazard in running, can reflect through above mentioned these factors. If the user can't in time find potential safety hazard, just can't in time do corresponding adjustment perhaps to the maintenance of equipment, finally cause motor to damage, possibly cause the accident under the serious situation.” & See Also Pg. 2 – “Have the wheel hub motor of running status feedback, comprise a wheel hub motor main body and a wheel hub, it is characterized in that, also comprise a running state detecting device” (equates to detects damage to the wheel hub motor as the first quote shows the determination of damage to the motor being determined and the second showing an implementation of a running status feedback system of the wheel hub motor.))
Yet both fail to teach represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel.
Klaus teaches represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel ((Pg. 2 – [0013] – “An advantageous embodiment of the method according to the invention provides for, for example, analyzing changes in the signal from a longitudinal acceleration sensor and/or a lateral acceleration sensor and/or a yaw rate sensor during slow parking, in order to detect whether the vehicle has experienced or experienced a strong deceleration as a result of a change in the driving resistance. This can be seen by transversing in the respective signals. Frequently, distance measuring systems and also safety systems such as electronic stability programs (ESP) and steering systems with steering angle sensors for steering angle detection are mounted in vehicles. In order to conclude that there is a curb contact as cost-effectively as possible, it is therefore provided according to the invention to use sensors or measured values of systems which are preferably already installed in a vehicle in order to reliably detect or plausibilize a curb contact. A method according to the invention therefore uses primarily, for example, data or signals available from an ESP system for longitudinal and lateral acceleration, as well as for the yaw rate, in order to initially infer a curb contact. A subsequent plausibility check is carried out by variables or data independent of these values” & See Also Pg. 4 – [0036] – “The progression of the torque 41 in the steering rod over a period of time including the time t is illustrated in FIG. 4 a ) and the progression of the steering angle 42 over the same period of time including the time t is illustrated in FIG. 4 b ). Here, too, both the torque 41 in the steering rod and the steering angle at the time t at which the contact takes place show a distinct oscillation.” (equates to represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel As the quotes show the detection of the lateral acceleration of the vehicle and the second quote shows the time difference within the scenario of the car contacting the curb and thus an acceleration duration is used to determine the curb contact. ) )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Markus to include represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel as these limitations allow for another grouping of driving scenario to be used to detect damage done to the vehicle as curb contact is included in this art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel as this allows for more than pothole detection that cause damage to be considered and instead allows for variety of parking scenario in which the wheel would be damaged to be recorded and tracked as well.
Regarding Claim 2 Markus-Sun-Klaus teaches (Markus discloses the following limitations:) The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one acceleration sensor includes an acceleration sensor of a vehicle dynamics control system and/or an airbag control unit of the motor vehicle. (Pg. 1 – “Modern vehicles are equipped with a plurality of sensors, some of which respond in the event of a crash that has occurred to protect a driver from the consequences of a severe crash. For example, acceleration sensors and pressure sensors for triggering airbags, pedestrian protection systems or so-called pop-up foods are known and used in series.” & See Also Pg. 4 – “1 shows a passenger car 10 as a means of transport, which has acceleration and wheel speed sensors 1, 2, 3, 4 which are connected with an electronic control unit 5 as an evaluation unit of a driving dynamics control system in terms of information technology”)
Regarding Claim 3 Markus-Sun-Klaus teaches (Markus discloses the following limitations:) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: causing, by the control device, a warning message to be output to a user of the motor vehicle, wherein the warning message indicates the damage to the wheel hub motor that is detected. (Pg.. 3 – “According to a second aspect of the present invention, a device for improved detection of any mechanical damage to the vehicle is proposed. This comprises a sensor for detecting a movement quantity (e.g. an acceleration, yaw, slip, etc.) of the vehicle or of a vehicle part and alternatively or additionally a sensor for detecting an electrical or electronic malfunction on a vehicle part (electrical/electronic component). In addition, means for automatically detecting a user interaction are provided, which are configured to detect and report the user interaction in a close temporal relationship for detecting the movement variable or the malfunction, that is to say before, during or after the detection of the movement variable. In addition, an evaluation unit is provided which is configured to compare the movement variable or the malfunction and the detected user interaction with a predefined reference. Of course, an independent predefined reference can be provided for each of the aforementioned variables, which is stored, for example, in the form of a threshold value and/or a time characteristic. From the result of the comparison, under predefined conditions, any mechanical damage to the vehicle is detected, in response to which optionally provided output means (e.g. a fault memory, a wireless transceiver unit, a signaling unit for informing the user) can be addressed in order to assist the user or other persons in examining/eliminating the mechanical damage to the vehicle” (equates to causing, by the control device, a warning message to be output to a user of the motor vehicle, wherein the warning message indicates the damage to the wheel hub motor that is detected. As the quote shows the reporting of the malfunction to the vehicle being done to the user. ))
Regarding Claim 4 Markus-Sun-Klaus teaches The method according to claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet Markus fails to teach further comprising: determining whether the acceleration of the lateral impact of the wheel against the obstacle exceeds the predetermined load threshold based on an acceleration direction, an acceleration magnitude and/or an acceleration duration.
Klaus teaches comprising: determining whether the acceleration of the lateral impact of the wheel against the obstacle exceeds the predetermined load threshold based on an acceleration direction, an acceleration magnitude and/or an acceleration duration. (Pg. 2 – [0013] – “An advantageous embodiment of the method according to the invention provides for, for example, analyzing changes in the signal from a longitudinal acceleration sensor and/or a lateral acceleration sensor and/or a yaw rate sensor during slow parking, in order to detect whether the vehicle has experienced or experienced a strong deceleration as a result of a change in the driving resistance. This can be seen by transversing in the respective signals. Frequently, distance measuring systems and also safety systems such as electronic stability programs (ESP) and steering systems with steering angle sensors for steering angle detection are mounted in vehicles. In order to conclude that there is a curb contact as cost-effectively as possible, it is therefore provided according to the invention to use sensors or measured values of systems which are preferably already installed in a vehicle in order to reliably detect or plausibilize a curb contact. A method according to the invention therefore uses primarily, for example, data or signals available from an ESP system for longitudinal and lateral acceleration, as well as for the yaw rate, in order to initially infer a curb contact. A subsequent plausibility check is carried out by variables or data independent of these values” & See Also Pg. 4 – [0036] – “The progression of the torque 41 in the steering rod over a period of time including the time t is illustrated in FIG. 4 a ) and the progression of the steering angle 42 over the same period of time including the time t is illustrated in FIG. 4 b ). Here, too, both the torque 41 in the steering rod and the steering angle at the time t at which the contact takes place show a distinct oscillation.” (equates to comprising: determining whether the acceleration of the lateral impact of the wheel against the obstacle exceeds the predetermined load threshold based on an acceleration direction, an acceleration magnitude and/or an acceleration duration. As the quotes show the detection of the lateral acceleration of the vehicle and the second quote shows the time difference within the scenario of the car contacting the curb and thus an acceleration duration is used to determine the curb contact. ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Markus to include determining whether the acceleration of the lateral impact of the wheel against the obstacle exceeds the predetermined load threshold based on an acceleration direction, an acceleration magnitude and/or an acceleration duration as these limitations allow for another grouping of driving scenario to be used to detect damage done to the vehicle as curb contact is included in this art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include determining whether the acceleration of the lateral impact of the wheel against the obstacle exceeds the predetermined load threshold based on an acceleration direction, an acceleration magnitude and/or an acceleration duration as this allows for more than pothole detection that cause damage to be considered and instead allows for variety of parking scenario in which the wheel would be damaged to be recorded and tracked as well.
Regarding Claim 8 Markus teaches A motor vehicle comprising:; at least one acceleration sensor that, in operation, captures acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle during travel; (Pg. 2 – [0010]- “The movement variable can comprise, for example, an acceleration (e.g. in the vertical direction, Z direction). Such acceleration occurs, for example, when the means of transportation passes through a striking hole. In such a driving situation, chassis parts can be overloaded or damaged and prevent the driver from being able to safely use his vehicle further” & See Also Pg. 1 – [0007] – “The movement variable can be determined, for example, by means of an acceleration sensor and/or by means of a driving dynamics control system” (equates to at least one acceleration sensor that, in operation, captures acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle during travel; as the first quote shows the transverse acceleration being measured in which the transverse direction may be the Z direction as for pot hole detection as shown, second quote shows the use of an acceleration sensor system. ) ) and at least one control device that, in operation: evaluates the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle captured by the at least one acceleration sensor; (Pg. 2 – [0010] – “The movement variable can comprise, for example, an acceleration (e.g. in the vertical direction, Z direction). Such acceleration occurs, for example, when the means of transportation passes through a striking hole. In such a driving situation, chassis parts can be overloaded or damaged and prevent the driver from being able to safely use his vehicle further. Corresponding other movement quantities are yaw, slip of the tires with respect to the roadway and a speed reduction without a corresponding braking intervention. The latter takes place when the means of transport collides with a slower or stationary surrounding object. The aforementioned movement variables can be determined simply and reliably by means of a sensor system in series use and can be used according to the invention as an input variable of the comparison.” & See Also Pg. 3 – [0015]- ‘The sensor for detecting a movement variable may preferably be assigned to a driving dynamics control system. In terms of their nature, driving dynamics control systems are best suited for detecting and remedying critical driving situations’(equates to and at least one control device that, in operation: evaluates the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle at least in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle captured by the at least one acceleration sensor; as the quote shows the transverse acceleration being used for a comparison and thus an evaluation is taking place via a control device) ) and detects damage if the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle in the transverse direction represent an acceleration of the wheel against an obstacle above a predetermined load threshold. (Pg. 3 – [0014] – “According to a second aspect of the present invention, a device for improved detection of any mechanical damage to the vehicle is proposed. This comprises a sensor for detecting a movement quantity (e.g. an acceleration, yaw, slip, etc.) of the vehicle or of a vehicle part and alternatively or additionally a sensor for detecting an electrical or electronic malfunction on a vehicle part (electrical/electronic component). In addition, means for automatically detecting a user interaction are provided, which are configured to detect and report the user interaction in a close temporal relationship for detecting the movement variable or the malfunction, that is to say before, during or after the detection of the movement variable. In addition, an evaluation unit is provided which is configured to compare the movement variable or the malfunction and the detected user interaction with a predefined reference. Of course, an independent predefined reference can be provided for each of the aforementioned variables, which is stored, for example, in the form of a threshold value and/or a time characteristic.” (equates to and detects damage if the acceleration values acting on the motor vehicle in the transverse direction represent an acceleration of the wheel against an obstacle above a predetermined load threshold. As the quote shows the detecting of damage to any part of the vehicle wherein the acceleration sensor is used and a corresponding threshold is met in which would indicate damage done to the vehicle for the user to potentially take an action upon. ))
Yet Markus fails to teach at least one wheel hub motor that, in operation, drives a wheel of the motor vehicle, detects damage to the wheel hub motor, represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel
Sun teaches at least one wheel hub motor that, in operation, drives a wheel of the motor vehicle (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The utility model relates to the technical field of motors, in particular to a hub motor. The hub motor with the running state feedback function comprises a hub motor body, a hub and a running state detection device. The running state detection device comprises a current sensor, a rotation speed sensor, a temperature sensor, a signal acquisition module and a display module, wherein the current sensor, the rotation speed sensor and the temperature sensor are respectively connected with the signal acquisition module, and the signal acquisition module is connected with the display module. By the above technical scheme, running states of the hub motor can be observed by users at any time, faults and potential hazards can be conveniently eliminated and detected in time, and potential loss is reduced. The sensors used in the hub motor are widely-used universal parts, so that the hub motor has the advantages of fastness and convenience in use and maintenance.” ) detects damage to the wheel hub motor (Pg. 2 – “Common wheel hub motor is when operation, and the user can't learn the running status that it is current, and these running statuses comprise operating temperature, rotor speed and the motor operating current etc. of motor internal. If motor produces potential safety hazard in running, can reflect through above mentioned these factors. If the user can't in time find potential safety hazard, just can't in time do corresponding adjustment perhaps to the maintenance of equipment, finally cause motor to damage, possibly cause the accident under the serious situation.” & See Also Pg. 2 – “Have the wheel hub motor of running status feedback, comprise a wheel hub motor main body and a wheel hub, it is characterized in that, also comprise a running state detecting device” (equates to detects damage to the wheel hub motor as the first quote shows the determination of damage to the motor being determined and the second showing an implementation of a running status feedback system of the wheel hub motor.))
Yet both fail to teach represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel
Klaus teaches represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel ((Pg. 2 – [0013] – “An advantageous embodiment of the method according to the invention provides for, for example, analyzing changes in the signal from a longitudinal acceleration sensor and/or a lateral acceleration sensor and/or a yaw rate sensor during slow parking, in order to detect whether the vehicle has experienced or experienced a strong deceleration as a result of a change in the driving resistance. This can be seen by transversing in the respective signals. Frequently, distance measuring systems and also safety systems such as electronic stability programs (ESP) and steering systems with steering angle sensors for steering angle detection are mounted in vehicles. In order to conclude that there is a curb contact as cost-effectively as possible, it is therefore provided according to the invention to use sensors or measured values of systems which are preferably already installed in a vehicle in order to reliably detect or plausibilize a curb contact. A method according to the invention therefore uses primarily, for example, data or signals available from an ESP system for longitudinal and lateral acceleration, as well as for the yaw rate, in order to initially infer a curb contact. A subsequent plausibility check is carried out by variables or data independent of these values” & See Also Pg. 4 – [0036] – “The progression of the torque 41 in the steering rod over a period of time including the time t is illustrated in FIG. 4 a ) and the progression of the steering angle 42 over the same period of time including the time t is illustrated in FIG. 4 b ). Here, too, both the torque 41 in the steering rod and the steering angle at the time t at which the contact takes place show a distinct oscillation.” (equates to represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel As the quotes show the detection of the lateral acceleration of the vehicle and the second quote shows the time difference within the scenario of the car contacting the curb and thus an acceleration duration is used to determine the curb contact. ) )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Markus to include represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel as these limitations allow for another grouping of driving scenario to be used to detect damage done to the vehicle as curb contact is included in this art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include represent an acceleration of a lateral impact of the wheel as this allows for more than pothole detection that cause damage to be considered and instead allows for variety of parking scenario in which the wheel would be damaged to be recorded and tracked as well.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markus- Sun- Klaus as applied above and in view of POPKEN et al. (DE102014006547A1)
Regarding Claim 5 Markus-Sun-Klaus teaches (Markus discloses the following limitations:) The method according to claim 1, wherein, in addition to the at least one acceleration sensor, (Pg. 1 – [0007] - “The movement variable can be determined, for example, by means of an acceleration sensor and/or by means of a driving dynamics control system”) at least one ultrasonic sensor of the motor vehicle and/or at least one camera of the motor vehicle and/or at least one radar and/or lidar sensor of the motor vehicle is used (Pg. 2 – [0009] – “Alternatively or additionally, an assessment of an exterior of the means of transportation can be detected using an ultrasonic sensor system, using a radar and/or lidar and/or laser sensor or the like, provided that the user leaves the vehicle after the movement variable or the electronic malfunction has been detected and is revolving around the vehicle for the purpose of assessing his vehicle.” )
Yet Markus fails to teach by way of which the obstacle in a vicinity of the wheel is captured, and the damage to the wheel hub motor is detected if, in addition to the acceleration values indicating the lateral impact of the wheel against the obstacle, the obstacle is also captured by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor or the at least one camera or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor.\
Klaus teaches by way of which the obstacle in a vicinity of the wheel is captured, (Pg. 4 – [0037] – “Furthermore, an additional plausibility check can be provided on the basis of engine control data. If, for example, in a vehicle with automatic transmission, no vehicle movement occurs in a drive stage and actuation of the accelerator pedal despite the selector lever position, even though the same accelerator pedal position and the same selector lever position resulted in a vehicle movement shortly beforehand, a curb contact can additionally be concluded. In a manual vehicle, a comparison of the accelerator pedal position to the engine speed allows a similar conclusion. However, both preferably serve exclusively for an additional plausibility check” (equates to by way of which the obstacle in a vicinity of the wheel is captured, as the curb is detected.)) and the damage to the wheel hub motor is detected if, in addition to the acceleration values indicating the lateral impact of the wheel against the obstacle, (Pg. 2 – [0013] – “An advantageous embodiment of the method according to the invention provides for, for example, analyzing changes in the signal from a longitudinal acceleration sensor and/or a lateral acceleration sensor and/or a yaw rate sensor during slow parking, in order to detect whether the vehicle has experienced or experienced a strong deceleration as a result of a change in the driving resistance. This can be seen by transversing in the respective signals. Frequently, distance measuring systems and also safety systems such as electronic stability programs (ESP) and steering systems with steering angle sensors for steering angle detection are mounted in vehicles. In order to conclude that there is a curb contact as cost-effectively as possible, it is therefore provided according to the invention to use sensors or measured values of systems which are preferably already installed in a vehicle in order to reliably detect or plausibilize a curb contact. A method according to the invention therefore uses primarily, for example, data or signals available from an ESP system for longitudinal and lateral acceleration, as well as for the yaw rate, in order to initially infer a curb contact. A subsequent plausibility check is carried out by variables or data independent of these values” (equates to and the damage to the wheel hub motor is detected if, in addition to the acceleration values indicating the lateral impact of the wheel against the obstacle, as the quote shows the curb contact causing damage is determined via the lateral acceleration of the vehicle being measured.))
Yet Both fail to teach the obstacle is also captured by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor or the at least one camera or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor.
Popken teaches the obstacle is also captured by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor or the at least one camera or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor. (Pg. 3 – [0023] – “The method described in FIG. The motor vehicle 1 shown in a plan view in FIG. 1 comprises a camera arrangement 2 having a front camera 3, a rear camera 4 and cameras 5, 6 attached to external mirrors. The sensor data supplied by the camera arrangement 2 in the form of image data are evaluated in an evaluation unit. Objects, in particular obstacles, are detected by this image data evaluation. An example of such an obstacle is a curb or a milling edge of a roadway undergoing construction action.” ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Markus-Klaus to include obstacle is also captured by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor or the at least one camera or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor as this gives another means of imaging to be utilized to determine the object in the way of the vehicle ensuring more information than just acceleration values are used to determine the present of an external body.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include obstacle is also captured by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor or the at least one camera or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor as this gives a second means of object detection ensuring that if the first sensor has failed another means of detection is available for utilization by the method being claimed.
Regarding Claim 6 Markus- Sun- Klaus-Popken teaches The method according to claim 5, as previously mapped above.
Yet Both Markus-Klaus fail to teach further comprising: determining, by the control device, a size and/or a height and/or a geometry of the obstacle by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor and/or the at least one camera and/or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor.
Popken teaches further comprising: determining, by the control device, a size and/or a height and/or a geometry of the obstacle by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor and/or the at least one camera and/or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor. (Pg. 3 – [0024] – “FIG. 2 is a plan view showing the motor vehicle 1 during a parking operation. The image evaluation captured a curb 9, which separates a roadway 10 from a sidewalk 11. The curb 9 has substantially the same height as the sidewalk 11, in contrast to which the roadway 10 is located twelve centimeters deeper in the exemplary embodiment shown. The environment detection carried out by means of the camera arrangement 2, the evaluation of the image data and the detection of objects and obstacles are carried out continuously. In the FIG. In the situation shown in FIG. 2, the driver steers the motor vehicle 1 in such a way that the right wheels 12, 13 are already located on the elevated sidewalk 11. The left wheels 14, 15, on the other hand, are located on the roadway 10. Figure . The recognized curb 9 is therefore highlighted in FIG. 2” (equates to further comprising: determining, by the control device, a size and/or a height and/or a geometry of the obstacle by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor and/or the at least one camera and/or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor. As the height of the curb is being determined via the image evaluation unit in which uses data from the camera installed within the vehicle )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Markus-Klaus to include further comprising: determining, by the control device, a size and/or a height and/or a geometry of the obstacle by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor and/or the at least one camera and/or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor as this allows for an accurate understanding of the environment to be understood by the control device and thus alert if further danger is imminent based on a detailed understanding of the object.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include further comprising: determining, by the control device, a size and/or a height and/or a geometry of the obstacle by way of the at least one ultrasonic sensor and/or the at least one camera and/or the at least one radar and/or lidar sensor as this allows for more information of the object to be taken into account to get a better understanding of the environment the vehicle is residing within.
Regarding Claim 7 Markus-Sun-Klaus-Popken teaches The method according to claim 6, as previously mapped above.
Yet Markus-Klaus fail to teach further comprising: classifying the obstacle based on the size and/or the height and/or the geometry of the obstacle with regard to a damage potential for the wheel hub motor into a dangerous category, a potentially dangerous category, or a non-dangerous category.
Popken discloses further comprising: classifying the obstacle based on the size and/or the height and/or the geometry of the obstacle with regard to a damage potential for the wheel hub motor into a dangerous category, a potentially dangerous category, or a non-dangerous category. (Pg. 3 – [0025] – “A tracking algorithm is implemented in the evaluation unit 8, which is designed to track a detected object, in particular a curbstone, while the vehicle 1 is moving. This object tracking also takes place when the object is located below the motor vehicle 1. Geometry data of the motor vehicle 1 and data which take into account the position and the instantaneous position of the wheels dependent on the steering angle are stored in the evaluation unit 8. On the basis of these data, the criticality of the object, in particular of the curb 9, is determined and the warning is possibly output.” (equates to further comprising: classifying the obstacle based on the size and/or the height and/or the geometry of the obstacle with regard to a damage potential for the wheel hub motor into a dangerous category, a potentially dangerous category, or a non-dangerous category. As the quote shows the camera being able to identify the curb within the environment and based on the vehicle motion and the relative position and geometry of the curb indicate a warning signal to the driver to ensure the vehicle is aware that a dangerous classification of the object has been made and is within a vicinity of the driver. )) It would have been advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Markus-Klaus to include further comprising: classifying the obstacle based on the size and/or the height and/or the geometry of the obstacle with regard to a damage potential for the wheel hub motor into a dangerous category, a potentially dangerous category, or a non-dangerous category as this allows a better understanding of the environment to be accessed and give the driver warning information based on the detected environment.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include further comprising: classifying the obstacle based on the size and/or the height and/or the geometry of the obstacle with regard to a damage potential for the wheel hub motor into a dangerous category, a potentially dangerous category, or a non-dangerous category as this allows for a broader understanding of the environment to be attained by the control device and ensure that vehicle and the owner are aware of the potential risks within the area of driving.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN117734450A - The present invention belongs to the technical field of automobile intelligent control, relates to multi-axis vehicle control technology, and specifically relates to a torque reconstruction and distribution method for multi-axis special vehicles based on hub motor fault estimation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/R.A.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/2/26
Prosecution Insights