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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-24 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 17-20 are currently amended.
Claims 4, 9, 10, 14, have been cancelled.
Claims 21-24 are newly added claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 3, 5-7, 18, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leone et al. (US 20190047528 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Leone, in view of Robertson et al. (US 20050127747 A1), herein after will be referred to as Robertson.
Regarding Claim 1, Leone teaches a method of determining a trailer axle count and axle location for a trailer relative to a vehicle, the method comprising (The axle profile that determines the trailer axle count and location; see at least Leone, Para [0012], Para [0013]):
receiving a plurality of vehicle operating characteristics from at least one sensor on the vehicle, wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of a ride height sensor, a wheel speed sensor, or an inertial measurement unit located on the vehicle (Vehicle speed sensors as wheel speed sensors and accelerometers (IMUs) for measuring acceleration of the vehicle in any direction; see at least Leone, Para [0014-0016]);
determining if the vehicle encountered a bump on a roadway is based on determining an amplitude of a rate of change of at least one of the plurality of vehicle operating characteristics (Bump encounters are identified by signal amplitudes from the accelerometers, measuring acceleration (the rate of change of velocity), that exceeds a threshold magnitude; see at least Leone, Para [0012]);
determining if at least one trailer axle encountered the bump (The detection of a trailer axle traversing the bump; see at least Leone, Para [0030]); and
analyzing a relative time difference between when the vehicle encountered the bump and when the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump to determine a trailer axle count and estimate a location of the at least one trailer axle relative to the vehicle (Using the time difference between axle events and vehicle speed to calculate distance (estimate of location); see at least Leone, Para [0019]).
Leone does not explicitly teach adjusting a trailer brake gain applied to the trailer with a trailer brake gain modifier based on the trailer axle count and the location of the at least one trailer axle.
However, Robertson discloses an electric trailer brake controller where the braking output power is adjusted via maximum power setting corresponding to the trailer configuration. Robertson teaches a system that specifies the maximum power applied to the actuation of the trailer brakes where the output current value accounts for the number of axles on the towed vehicle ([0063]). Robertson further teaches that the adjustment of the maximum power setting allows the driver to match the load being carried by the vehicle ([0171]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because Robertson defines the maximum power settings to act as a multiplier (modifier) for the output power of the trailer brakes and links the required current/power range to the number of axles and load of the trailer. Furthermore, the location of the axle determines the trailer’s wheelbase and dictates how the load is distributed on the trailer necessitating the consideration of the physical location of the axles to prevent and/or react to sway.
Leone and Robertson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle trailer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leone to incorporate the teachings of adjusting the trailer brake power settings to match the load and axle count as taught by Robertson based on the motivation to improve the safety and precision of the braking system by replacing the manual input of load and axle count of Robertson with the automated sensor based calculations of axle count and axle location of Leone. By feeding Leone’s detected axle count and location into Robert’s controller, the system can dynamically optimize the brake gain to account for specific yaw inertia and stability associated with the specific wheelbase of the trailer, rather than relying on a manual input setting prone to operator error.
Regarding Claim 3, Leone remains as applied above in Claim 1. Leone further teaches confirming a presence of the trailer coupled to the vehicle when the location of the at least one trailer axle relative to the vehicle is estimated (Method directly results in a determination (a confirmation) that a trailer is connected; see at least Leone, Para [0012]).
Regarding Claim 5, Leone remains as applied above in Claim 1. Leone further teaches at least one sensor is located on the vehicle (Leone explicitly teaches that the accelerometers and speed sensors are components in and located on the vehicle itself; see at least Leone, Para [0014])
and determining if the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump is based on determining an amplitude of a rate of change of the at least one of the plurality of vehicle operating characteristics within a time frame after the vehicle encountered the bump (Leone explicitly teaches looking for a third peak (trailer axle) that exceeds a magnitude threshold within a time frame; see at least Leone, Para [0030]).
Regarding Claim 6, Leone and Robertson remains as applied above in Claim 5. Leone further teaches determining a status of the trailer by determining if the amplitude of the rate of change of the at least one of the plurality of vehicle operating characteristics is (Leone explicitly discloses accelerometers located on the vehicle that measure acceleration, a rate of change of velocity, determining bump encounters by identifying if the signal amplitude exceeds a threshold within a specific time window after the initial bump; see at least Leone, Para [0014] [0012] [0030]).
Regarding Claim 7, Leone and Robertson remains as applied above in Claim 1. Leone further teaches
receiving a second plurality of vehicle operating characteristics from the at least one sensor on the vehicle; determining if the vehicle encountered a second bump on the roadway based on at least one of the second plurality of vehicle operating characteristics; determining if at least one trailer axle encountered the bump (The method explicitly teaches a loop that continuously monitors for new bumps after the first detected bump; see at least Leone, FIG. 4, Para [0029]) analyzing a relative time difference between when the vehicle encountered the bump and when the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump to determine a second trailer axle count and estimate a second location of the at least one trailer axle relative to the vehicle (The method analyzes a relative time difference (threshold period of time) with the trailer detector to determine an axle profile (count and location); see at least Leone, FIG. 4, Para [0030], [0031]); and
determining a change in operating status of the trailer if a difference between the second location of the at least one trailer axle and the location of the at least one trailer axle exceeds a predetermined threshold (Determines a change in operating status depending if the detected bumps match the axle profile by increasing and decreasing the confidence level and applying a threshold to the confidence level; [0021-0022] [0031-0032]).
Regarding Claim 18, Leone teaches a vehicle assembly comprising:
a vehicle body; a front axle supported by a front pair of wheels and a rear axle supported by a rear pair of wheels (A vehicle assembly which inherently includes a body, front and rear axle both support by pairs of wheels; see at least Leone, FIG. 1, Para [0014]);
at least one sensor configured to measure movement of at least one of the front axle, the rear axle, or the vehicle body (Vehicle includes accelerometers and speed sensors that measure the vehicle’s movement and acceleration; see at least Leone, Para [0014]);
a controller in electrical communication with the at least one sensor (Controller coupled to the sensors via ESC unit; see at least Leone, FIG. 3, Para [0024], [0025]), the controller configured to:
receive a plurality of vehicle operating characteristics from at least one sensor on the vehicle (Vehicle speed sensors used for a plurality of vehicle operating characteristics; see at least Leone, Para [0015]);
determine if the vehicle encountered a bump on a roadway based on at least one of the plurality of vehicle operating characteristics (The accelerometer satisfying a threshold to determine the vehicle is traversing a bump; see at least Leone, Para [0018]);
determine if at least one trailer axle encountered the bump (The detection of a trailer axle traversing the bump; see at least Leone, Para [0030]); and
analyze a relative time difference between when the vehicle encountered the bump and when the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump to estimate at least one of a trailer axle count or a location of the at least one trailer axle relative to the vehicle (Using the time difference between axle events and vehicle speed to calculate distance (estimate of location); see at least Leone, Para [0019]).
Leone does not explicitly teach adjusting a trailer brake gain applied to the trailer with a trailer brake gain modifier based on the trailer axle count and the location of the at least one trailer axle.
However, Robertson discloses an electric trailer brake controller where the braking output power is adjusted via maximum power setting corresponding to the trailer configuration. Robertson teaches a system that specifies the maximum power applied to the actuation of the trailer brakes where the output current value accounts for the number of axles on the towed vehicle ([0063]). Robertson further teaches that the adjustment of the maximum power setting allows the driver to match the load being carried by the vehicle ([0171]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because Robertson defines the maximum power settings to act as a multiplier (modifier) for the output power of the trailer brakes and links the required current/power range to the number of axles and load of the trailer. Furthermore, the location of the axle determines the trailer’s wheelbase and dictates how the load is distributed on the trailer necessitating the consideration of the physical location of the axles to prevent and/or react to sway. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leone to incorporate the teachings of adjusting the trailer brake power settings to match the load and axle count as taught by Robertson based on the motivation to improve the safety and precision of the braking system by replacing the manual input of load and axle count of Robertson with the automated sensor based calculations of axle count and axle location of Leone. By feeding Leone’s detected axle count and location into Robert’s controller, the system can dynamically optimize the brake gain to account for specific yaw inertia and stability associated with the specific wheelbase of the trailer, rather than relying on a manual input setting prone to operator error.
Regarding Claim 19, Leone and Robertson remains as applied above in Claim 18. Leone further teaches at least one sensor is located on the vehicle and determining if the vehicle encountered the bump is based on determining an amplitude of a rate of change of the at least one of the plurality of vehicle operating characteristics (The system explicitly teaches using accelerometer (measures the rate of change) sensors to detect signal peaks that exceed a threshold value; see at least Leone, Para [0015], [0016], [0018]); and wherein determining if the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump is based on determining an amplitude of a rate of change of the at least one the vehicle operating characteristic within a time frame after the vehicle encountered the bump (Leone explicitly teaches looking for a third peak (trailer axle) that exceeds a magnitude threshold within a time frame; see at least Leone, FIGS. 2A and 2B, Para [0030]).
Regarding Claim 24, Leone and Robertson remains as applied above in Claim 1. Leone further teaches the at least one sensor includes the wheel speed sensor (The vehicle contains wheel speed sensors to measure the rotation of the wheels; [0015]).
Claim 2, 8, 11-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leone in view of Robertson, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Or et al. (US 20230236216 A1), herein after will be referred to as Or.
Regarding 2, Leone and Robertson remain as applied above in Claim 1. Leone further teaches, a velocity of the vehicle being greater than a predetermined velocity (Leone’s calculation depends on a non-zero speed (predetermined velocity) to calculate distance (time multiplied by velocity) to generate the axle profile; see at least Leone, Para [0019]).
Leone and Robertson does not explicitly teach determining an enabling excitation of the vehicle when the vehicle encountered the bump, wherein determining the enabling excitation includes identifying at least one of a steering angle of the vehicle being within a predetermined range.
However, Or, in the same field of endeavor teaches that the sensors must remain collinear to ensure an accurate measurement and reduce errors associated with geometrical factors and determines understeer or oversteer (see at least Or, Para [0054], [0055]). The teachings of Or accounting for errors and ensuring the vehicle is not traveling in a lateral motion for accurate measurements is equivalent to the enabling excitation ensuring the vehicle and trailer are not moving laterally.
Leone, Robertson, and Or are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle dynamic sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Leone to incorporate the teachings of Or to determine the stability of the vehicle via threshold comparison based on the motivation that Leon’s method of calculating the axle location assumes a stable straight-line motion and Or teaches factors that include skid or oversteering that introduces errors providing the benefit of improved accuracy and reliability of the system.
Regarding Claim 8, Leone and Robertson remains as applied above in Claim 1. Leone further teaches if the estimated wheelbase length determined by the speed integral is within a predetermined range of a predetermined wheelbase length for the vehicle, then the vehicle has encountered the bump (Verifying that a bump has been encountered by checking a second signal (rear wheel) occurring within a threshold period (predetermined range) based on the speed and distance between the forward and rear axles (predetermined wheelbase); [0029]).
Leone and Robertson does not explicitly teach determining if the vehicle encountered the bump includes determining an estimated wheelbase length for the vehicle integrating a speed of the vehicle beginning when one of a pair of front wheels encountered the bump until one of a pair of rear wheels encountered the bump
However, Or teaches the formula of calculating velocity from a known wheelbase from the front and rear sensor unit of the vehicle divided by a time difference (see at least Or, Para [0048]). Furthermore, Or teaches that the calculation of the velocity is based on the equations of motion, e.g., dividing the wheelbase by the time difference and provides an equation for the estimation ([0050] [0063]-0065]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because Or teaches solving the equation of motion (Distance = Velocity x Time) using the time difference between the front and rear sensors for bumps and integrating the speed over the time interval between the front and rear wheel yields the distance traveled (the wheelbase). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Leone and Robertson to incorporate the teachings of calculating the wheelbase/velocity relationship over the time difference as taught by Or based on the motivation to improve the precision of detecting and verifying the encounter of a bump against the known predetermined wheelbase to ensure that the signals correspond to the axles and not random road noise. This provides the benefit of reducing the amount of false positive bump detections in the system.
Regarding Claim 11, Leone, Robertson, and Or remains as applied above in Claim 8. Leone further teaches determining if at least one trailer axle encountered the bump (Detecting the trailer axle by identifying a third axle signal after the vehicle’s two axles; see at least Leone, Para [0030]) is based on the at least one (The method explicitly uses yaw and longitudinal sensors signals against a threshold; see at least Leone, Para [0012])
after the one of the pair of rear wheels encountered the bump and integrating the speed of the vehicle beginning when the one of the pair of rear wheels encountered the bump until the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump (Calculating the distance by applying the speed to the time difference between a second axle, equivalent to a rear axle, and a third axle, equivalent to the trailer axle; [0019-0020]).
Regarding Claim 12, Leone, Robertson, and Or remains as applied above in Claim 11. Leone further teaches determining if the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump includes identifying a reduction in oscillation amplitude of at least one of the longitudinal jerk, the yaw acceleration, or pitch acceleration (The system detects the signal’s amplitude reduces in oscillation when the signal stays below the threshold; see at least Leone, FIGS. 2A and 2B, Para [0023]).
Regarding Claim 13, Leone teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying programmed instructions which, when executed by a processor, are operable for performing a method comprising (The memory is a computer-readable medium that stores the software instructions for performing the method; see at least Leone, Para [0026]):
receiving a plurality of vehicle operating characteristics from at least one sensor on the vehicle (Vehicle speed sensors used for a plurality of vehicle operating characteristics; see at least Leone, Para [0015]);
determining if at least one trailer axle encountered the bump (The detection of a trailer axle traversing the bump; see at least Leone, Para [0030]); and
analyzing a relative time difference between when the vehicle encountered the bump and when the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump to estimate at least one of a trailer axle count or a location of the at least one trailer axle relative to the vehicle (Using the time difference between axle events and vehicle speed to calculate distance (estimate of location); see at least Leone, Para [0019]).
Leone does not explicitly teach adjusting a trailer brake gain applied to the trailer with a trailer brake gain modifier based on the trailer axle count and the location of the at least one trailer axle.
However, Robertson discloses an electric trailer brake controller where the braking output power is adjusted via maximum power setting corresponding to the trailer configuration. Robertson teaches a system that specifies the maximum power applied to the actuation of the trailer brakes where the output current value accounts for the number of axles on the towed vehicle ([0063]). Robertson further teaches that the adjustment of the maximum power setting allows the driver to match the load being carried by the vehicle ([0171]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because Robertson defines the maximum power settings to act as a multiplier (modifier) for the output power of the trailer brakes and links the required current/power range to the number of axles and load of the trailer. Furthermore, the location of the axle determines the trailer’s wheelbase and dictates how the load is distributed on the trailer necessitating the consideration of the physical location of the axles to prevent and/or react to sway. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leone to incorporate the teachings of adjusting the trailer brake power settings to match the load and axle count as taught by Robertson based on the motivation to improve the safety and precision of the braking system by replacing the manual input of load and axle count of Robertson with the automated sensor based calculations of axle count and axle location of Leone. By feeding Leone’s detected axle count and location into Robert’s controller, the system can dynamically optimize the brake gain to account for specific yaw inertia and stability associated with the specific wheelbase of the trailer, rather than relying on a manual input setting prone to operator error.
Leone and Robertson does not explicitly teach determining if the vehicle encountered a bump on a roadway during an enabling excitation based on at least one of the plurality of vehicle operating characteristics, wherein the enabling excitation includes identifying a steering angle of the vehicle being within a predetermined range.
However, Or, in the same field of endeavor teaches that the sensors must remain collinear to ensure an accurate measurement and reduce errors associated with geometrical factors and determines understeer or oversteer (see at least Or, Para [0054], [0055]). The teachings of Or accounting for errors and ensuring the vehicle is not traveling in a lateral motion for accurate measurements is equivalent to the enabling excitation ensuring the vehicle and trailer are not moving laterally. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leone and Robertson to incorporate the teachings of Or to determine the stability of the vehicle via threshold comparison based on the motivation that Or accounts for skid or oversteering that introduces errors providing the benefit of improved accuracy and reliability of the system.
Regarding Claim 15, Leone, Robertson, and Or remains as applied above in claim 13 . Leone further teaches determining if the vehicle encountered the bump is based on determining an amplitude of a rate of change of the at least one the plurality of vehicle operating characteristics (The instructions explicitly teaches using the accelerometer (measuring rate of change) signal is used to detect signal peaks that exceed a threshold value; see at least Leone, Para [0015], [0016], [0018])
and determining if the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump is based on determining an amplitude of a rate of change of the at least one the vehicle operating characteristic within a time frame after the vehicle encountered the bump (Leone explicitly teaches looking for a third peak (trailer axle) that exceeds a magnitude threshold within a time frame; see at least Leone, Para [0030]).
Regarding Claim 16, Leone, Robertson, and Or remains as applied above in Claim 13. Leone and Robertson does not explicitly teach determining if the vehicle encountered the bump includes determining an estimated wheelbase length for the vehicle based on a velocity of the vehicle and a relative time difference between when a front wheel of the vehicle encountered the bump and when a rear wheel of the vehicle encountered the bump.
However, Or teaches the formula of calculating velocity from a known wheelbase divided by a time difference between the front and rear sensors during an encountered irregularity (see at least Or, Para [0048]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of determining an estimated wheelbase length based on a velocity and relative time difference because Or teaches solving the equation of motion (Distance = Velocity x Time) using the time difference between the front and rear sensors for bumps and integrating the speed over the time interval between the front and rear wheel yields the distance traveled (the wheelbase). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Leone and Robertson to incorporate the teachings of calculating velocity through a known wheelbase divided by a time difference as taught by Or based on the motivation to solve for the wheelbase with given velocity providing the benefit of calculating for an estimated wheelbase length improving the detection and reliability of the system.
Regarding Claim 17, Leone, Robertson, and Or remains as applied above in Claim 16. Leone further teaches determining if at least one trailer axle encountered the bump (Detecting the trailer axle by identifying a third axle signal after the vehicle’s two axles; see at least Leone, Para [0030]) is based on the at least one (The instructions explicitly uses yaw and longitudinal sensors; see at least Leone, Para [0012]); and
wherein determining if the at least one trailer axle encountered the bump includes identifying a reduction in oscillation amplitude of at least one of the longitudinal acceleration, the yaw acceleration, or pitch acceleration (The system detects the signal’s amplitude reduces in oscillation when the signal stays below the threshold; see at least Leone, FIGS. 2A and 2B, Para [0023]).
Regarding 20, Leone, Robertson, and Or remains as applied above in Claim 18. Leone further teaches determining if at least one trailer axle encountered the bump (Detecting the trailer axle by identifying a third axle signal after the vehicle’s two axles; see at least Leone, Para [0030]) is based on the at least one (The instructions explicitly uses yaw and longitudinal sensors; see at least Leone, Para [0012]).
Leone and Robertson does not explicitly teach determining if the vehicle encountered the bump includes determining an estimated wheelbase length for the vehicle based on a velocity of the vehicle and a relative time difference between when a front wheel of the vehicle encountered the bump and when a rear wheel of the vehicle encountered the bump.
However, Or teaches the formula of calculating velocity from a known wheelbase divided by a time difference between the front and rear sensors during an encountered irregularity (see at least Or, Para [0048]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of determining an estimated wheelbase length based on a velocity and relative time difference because Or teaches solving the equation of motion (Distance = Velocity x Time) using the time difference between the front and rear sensors for bumps and integrating the speed over the time interval between the front and rear wheel yields the distance traveled (the wheelbase). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Leone and Robertson to incorporate the teachings of calculating velocity through a known wheelbase divided by a time difference as taught by Or based on the motivation to solve for the wheelbase with given velocity providing the benefit of calculating for an estimated wheelbase length improving the detection and reliability of the system.
Claim 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leone in view of Robertson, as applied in claim 1 and 18, and in further view of DiGioacchino et al. (US 20210139008 A1), herein after will be referred to as DiGioacchino.
Regarding Claim 21, Leone and Robertson remains as applied above in claim 1. Leone and Robertson does not explicitly teach determining the enabling excitation includes identifying a steering angle of the vehicle being within a predetermined range, a velocity of the vehicle being greater than a predetermined velocity, and a difference in wheel speed between laterally spaced wheels on the vehicle is less than a predetermined value.
However, DiGioacchino discloses an automated trailer brake gain determination process that requires specific vehicle operating conditions to be met prior to the automated trailer brake gain execution. DiGioacchino teaches a condition of driving the towing configuration on a straight path at a recommended speed and can be evaluated by the steering angle information ([0040-0041]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of determining the enabling excitation including identifying a steering angle of the vehicle being within a predetermine range and a velocity of the vehicle being greater than a predetermined velocity because the vehicle needs to meet the condition of a straight path within the steering angle information and a velocity greater than 30-32 kmh as a predetermined velocity. DiGioacchino further teaches utilizing wheel speed sensors to obtain wheel rotation information to determine wheel lock-up and validating the straight path condition ([0038] [0041]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a difference in wheel speed between laterally spaced wheels on the vehicle is less than a predetermined value because determining a straight path using wheel rotation information necessitates identifying the difference in speed between laterally spaced wheels being less than a predetermined value of zero turning/yaw of the vehicle. If the difference were above a threshold value, the system would detect a turn (not a straight path) and would not meet the condition.
Leone, Robertson, and DiGioacchino are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle towing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leone and Robertson to incorporate the teachings of requiring specific enabling conditions as taught by DiGioacchino based on the motivation that the steering angle, velocity, and wheel rotation are factors that can introduce errors into the calculations and estimates of the system and checking for specific enabling conditions allows the system to be in a state to provide precise and accurate calculations.
Regarding Claim 23, Leone and Robertson remains as applied above in claim 18. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to: determine an enabling excitation of the vehicle when the vehicle encountered the bump, wherein determining the enabling excitation includes identifying a steering angle of the vehicle being within a predetermined range, a velocity of the vehicle being greater than a predetermined velocity, and a difference in wheel speed between laterally spaced wheels on the vehicle is less than a predetermined value.
However, DiGioacchino discloses an automated trailer brake gain determination process that requires specific vehicle operating conditions to be met prior to the automated trailer brake gain execution. DiGioacchino teaches a condition of driving the towing configuration on a straight path at a recommended speed and can be evaluated by the steering angle information ([0040-0041]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of determining the enabling excitation including identifying a steering angle of the vehicle being within a predetermine range and a velocity of the vehicle being greater than a predetermined velocity because the vehicle needs to meet the condition of a straight path within the steering angle information and a velocity greater than 30-32 kmh as a predetermined velocity. DiGioacchino further teaches utilizing wheel speed sensors to obtain wheel rotation information to determine wheel lock-up and validating the straight path condition ([0038] [0041]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a difference in wheel speed between laterally spaced wheels on the vehicle is less than a predetermined value because determining a straight path using wheel rotation information necessitates identifying the difference in speed between laterally spaced wheels being less than a predetermined value of zero turning/yaw of the vehicle. If the difference were above a threshold value, the system would detect a turn (not a straight path) and would not meet the condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leone, Robertson, and Or to incorporate the teachings of requiring specific enabling conditions as taught by DiGioacchino based on the motivation that the steering angle, velocity, and wheel rotation are factors that can introduce errors into the calculations and estimates of the system and checking for specific enabling conditions allows the system to be in a state to provide precise and accurate calculations.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leone in view of Robertson, and in view of Or, as applied in claim 13, and in further view of DiGioacchino.
Regarding Claim 22, Leone, Robertson, and Or remains as applied above in claim 13. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach determining the enabling excitation includes identifying a steering angle of the vehicle being within a predetermined range, a velocity of the vehicle being greater than a predetermined velocity, and a difference in wheel speed between laterally spaced wheels on the vehicle is less than a predetermined value.
However, DiGioacchino discloses an automated trailer brake gain determination process that requires specific vehicle operating conditions to be met prior to the automated trailer brake gain execution. DiGioacchino teaches a condition of driving the towing configuration on a straight path at a recommended speed and can be evaluated by the steering angle information ([0040-0041]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of determining the enabling excitation including identifying a steering angle of the vehicle being within a predetermine range and a velocity of the vehicle being greater than a predetermined velocity because the vehicle needs to meet the condition of a straight path within the steering angle information and a velocity greater than 30-32 kmh as a predetermined velocity. DiGioacchino further teaches utilizing wheel speed sensors to obtain wheel rotation information to determine wheel lock-up and validating the straight path condition ([0038] [0041]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a difference in wheel speed between laterally spaced wheels on the vehicle is less than a predetermined value because determining a straight path using wheel rotation information necessitates identifying the difference in speed between laterally spaced wheels being less than a predetermined value of zero turning/yaw of the vehicle. If the difference were above a threshold value, the system would detect a turn (not a straight path) and would not meet the condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leone, Robertson, and Or to incorporate the teachings of requiring specific enabling conditions as taught by DiGioacchino based on the motivation that the steering angle, velocity, and wheel rotation are factors that can introduce errors into the calculations and estimates of the system and checking for specific enabling conditions allows the system to be in a state to provide precise and accurate calculations.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Miller (US 20200269852 A1)
Wang (US 11474224 B2)
Lee (US 6806809 B2)
Brinkman (US 12269472 B2)
Joshi (US 12050100 B2)
Saini (US 11560026 B2)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 13 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9 and 10, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 13, and 18-19 under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. The Examiner agrees that Leone does not explicitly disclose adjusting a trailer brake gain based on the trailer axle count and the location of the at least one trailer axle. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made based on the combination of Leone et al. (US 20190047528 A1) in view of Robertson et al. (US 20050127747 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 18, and in further view of Or et al. (US 20230236216 A1), as applied in claim 13. Robertson discloses a trailer brake controller that adjust a brake gain based on the load and number of axles of the trailer ([0063] [0171]). Accordingly, the claims remain rejected based on a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663