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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“local computing unit configured, at a vehicle, to…” in claim 1-2, 6 and 11, and their dependents 3-5, and 7-10.
“receive sync data regularly from a main computing unit” in claim 1-2, and their dependents 3-11.
“receive a heartbeat signal through remote pilot control unit” in claim 1-2, and 5 and their dependents 3-4, and 6-11.
“an arrangement configured to control the vehicle…” in claim 1-2 and their dependents 3-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the limitation “an arrangement configured to control the vehicle…” in paragraph [0042] the specification discloses: “an arrangement that is adapted to physically manipulate existing components of the vehicle such as by actuating a brake pedal, moving a steering wheel, or the like…”. The examiner is using this description for the following rejections unless otherwise specified by the claims.
Regarding the limitations “local computing unit configured, at a vehicle, to…”, “receive sync data regularly from a main computing unit”, and “receive a heartbeat signal through remote pilot control unit” see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 11 and their dependents 3-4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to the claim the limitations “local computing unit configured, at a vehicle, to…”, “receive sync data regularly from a main computing unit”, and “receive a heartbeat signal through remote pilot control unit” in claims 1-16, and 18-21, and therefore, does not comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 11 and their dependents 3-4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim the limitations “local computing unit configured, at a vehicle, to…”, “receive sync data regularly from a main computing unit”, and “receive a heartbeat signal through remote pilot control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, these units are being interpreted as a processor.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterkamp et al. (US 11656617 B1) in view of Hurley (US 20230415716 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Osterkamp teaches:
a remotely piloted vehicle, the system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
473
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a local computing unit configured, at a vehicle, to:
(Osterkamp – Fig. 1, see above, element 110)
PNG
media_image2.png
703
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receive sync data regularly from a main computing unit;
(Osterkamp – Fig. 6, see above, element 600)
a communication network from a remote pilot control unit;
(Osterkamp – Fig. 1, see above, element 101)
issue a braking command; and
an arrangement configured to control the vehicle based on the braking command received from the local computing unit.
(Osterkamp – It states at [4:1-5] “when an operator presses brake pedal controller 185, a braking command is sent to computing system 182, then to remote piloting interface 120. Remote piloting interface 120 then instructs braking control system 204 to actuate the brakes on vehicle 100.”)
Osterkamp teaches a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command. However, Osterkamp does not teach receive a heartbeat signal through a communication network and determine network failure if the heartbeat signal is not received for more than a threshold period of time.
Hurley teaches:
A redundant braking system for a vehicle, the system comprising:
(Hurley – Paragraph [0006] states “ In one embodiment, a braking control system for a tractor-trailer is provided comprising a primary brake controller in a tractor configured to communicate with a trailer brake controller in a trailer via a first communication channel, and a redundant brake controller in the tractor”)
receive a heartbeat signal through a communication network
determine network failure if the heartbeat signal is not received for more than a threshold period of time; and
(Hurley – Paragraph [0024] states “For example, in one embodiment, the primary brake controller 110 communicates a “heartbeat” signal to the redundant brake controller 120 via the third communication channel 200. If the redundant brake controller 120 does not receive the heartbeat signal when expected (or within a threshold amount of time), it can determine that there is a problem and that it needs to take over.”)
Osterkamp and Hurley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems, including braking systems, controlled through a network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Osterkamp with Hurley. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with a heartbeat signal to determine if the network has an issue because if the system that is controlled remotely can no longer receive instructions through the connection then it could fail and no longer be safe. Having a redundant braking system allows for a safer system.
Regarding claim 2,
Osterkamp teaches:
a remotely piloted vehicle, the system comprising:
(Osterkamp – Fig. 1, see above)
a local computing unit configured, at a vehicle, to:
(Osterkamp – Fig. 1, see above, element 110)
receive sync data regularly from a main computing unit;
(Osterkamp – Fig. 6, see above, element 600)
a communication network from a remote pilot control unit;
(Osterkamp – Fig. 1, see above, element 101)
issue a braking command; and
an electromechanical arrangement configured to actuate a brake pedal of the vehicle based on the braking command received from the local computing unit.
(Osterkamp – It states at [3:62-4:5] “Remote control system 180 may also include a steering controller 184, a brake pedal controller 185, an acceleration pedal controller 186 and a lighting/blinker controller 189. The outputs of these control components may be fed into computing system 182 and then sent to vehicle 100 over network 101. Thus, for example, when an operator presses brake pedal controller 185, a braking command is sent to computing system 182, then to remote piloting interface 120. Remote piloting interface 120 then instructs braking control system 204 to actuate the brakes on vehicle 100.”)
Osterkamp teaches a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command. However, Osterkamp does not teach receive a heartbeat signal through a communication network and determine network failure if the heartbeat signal is not received for more than a threshold period of time.
Hurley teaches:
A redundant braking system for a vehicle, the system comprising:
(Hurley – Paragraph [0006] states “ In one embodiment, a braking control system for a tractor-trailer is provided comprising a primary brake controller in a tractor configured to communicate with a trailer brake controller in a trailer via a first communication channel, and a redundant brake controller in the tractor”)
receive a heartbeat signal through a communication network
determine network failure if the heartbeat signal is not received for more than a threshold period of time; and
(Hurley – Paragraph [0024] states “For example, in one embodiment, the primary brake controller 110 communicates a “heartbeat” signal to the redundant brake controller 120 via the third communication channel 200. If the redundant brake controller 120 does not receive the heartbeat signal when expected (or within a threshold amount of time), it can determine that there is a problem and that it needs to take over.”)
Osterkamp and Hurley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems, including braking systems, controlled through a network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Osterkamp with Hurley. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with a heartbeat signal to determine if the network has an issue because if the system that is controlled remotely can no longer receive instructions through the connection then it could fail and no longer be safe. Having a redundant braking system allows for a safer system.
Regarding claim 5,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 2.
Osterkamp further teaches:
wherein the sync data comprises any or combination of environmental data collected from onboard sensors of the vehicle and instructions received from the remote pilot control unit.
(Osterkamp – Fig. 6, see above, element 602)
Regarding claim 6,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 2.
Osterkamp further teaches:
wherein the local computing unit is configured to generate a steering command to steer the vehicle for safe maneuvering.
(Osterkamp – At [7:10-18] it states “This allows the remote control system 180 to receive real-time driving information and respond with new driving commands (for example, new steering commands and new acceleration commands) that are then implemented by onboard system 600.”)
Regarding claim 7,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 6.
Osterkamp further teaches:
wherein the steering command is sent to an onboard vehicle control unit that controls and steers the vehicle for safe maneuvering.
(Osterkamp – At [7:10-18] it states “This allows the remote control system 180 to receive real-time driving information and respond with new driving commands (for example, new steering commands and new acceleration commands) that are then implemented by onboard system 600.”)
Regarding claim 12, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
2 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
5 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterkamp et al. (US 11656617 B1) in view of Hurley (US 20230415716 A1) further in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 20210291768 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 2.
Osterkamp and Hurley do not teach the limitations of claim 3.
Balasubramanian teaches:
wherein the braking command comprises any combination of brake time indicator, brake power indicator, or a safety decision matrix.
(Balasubramanian – Paragraph [0009] states “The active safety system is designed to prevent or reduce the severity of a vehicle crash by using radar (all-weather), laser (LIDAR), camera (employing image recognition), or a combination thereof, to detect an imminent crash. In response to detecting an imminent crash, the active safety system provides crash avoidance features, such as operator warnings (visual, audible, tactile) and active safety measures, such as automatic emergency braking and/or automatic emergency steering to help avoid or mitigate the crash.” Paragraph [0089] further states “The weighted crash mode decision algorithm 390 includes an active safety confidence threshold matrix 392 that implements threshold confidence values for various combinations of crash mode classifications indicated by the active safety crash mode classification flag 366 and the passive safety crash mode classification flag 164”)
Osterkamp, Hurley and Balasubramanian are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems, including braking 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 have modified Osterkamp and Hurley with Balasubramanian. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with a safety decision matrix because it allows for more precise determination of the safety of the system and allows for more safety for the users of the system.
Regarding claim 13, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
3 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 14 ,16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterkamp et al. (US 11656617 B1) in view of Hurley (US 20230415716 A1) further in view of Ye et al. (US 20220185299 A1).
Regarding claim 4,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 2.
However, Osterkamp and Hurley do not teach the limitations of claim 4.
Ye teaches:
wherein the braking command is issued based on analysis of the sync data received immediately prior to the network failure.
(Ye – Paragraph [0130] states “S230 can additionally include, detecting that communication with the computing system is lost, and, in response controlling the system in a fallback operation mode by transmitting instructions (e.g., set of waypoints, etc.) associated with the 2.sup.nd set of outputs (e.g., fallback plan) to the communication network, which functions to provide the control system with a trajectory and/or positions (e.g., waypoints) and/or control commands configured to operate the vehicle safely (e.g., to pull over, to continue driving if the vehicle cannot pull over, to finish an action and then pull over and/or stop, to safely operate until the computing system is operational, to reach a safe state/navigational edge, etc.) in an event of an emergency (e.g., computing system failure).” Note: The examiner interprets the command to stop or pull over as braking the vehicle in order to stop it.)
Osterkamp, Hurley and Ye are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems, including braking 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 have modified Osterkamp and Hurley with Ye. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with using the data from the last transmission because that data would be the most up to date data available and therefore necessary for any emergency maneuvers for the safety of the users of the system.
Regarding claim 8,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 6.
However, Osterkamp and Hurley do not teach the limitations of claim 8.
Ye teaches:
wherein the steering command is generated based on analysis of the sync data received immediately prior to the network failure.
(Ye – Paragraph [0130] states “S230 can additionally include, detecting that communication with the computing system is lost, and, in response controlling the system in a fallback operation mode by transmitting instructions (e.g., set of waypoints, etc.) associated with the 2.sup.nd set of outputs (e.g., fallback plan) to the communication network, which functions to provide the control system with a trajectory and/or positions (e.g., waypoints) and/or control commands configured to operate the vehicle safely (e.g., to pull over, to continue driving if the vehicle cannot pull over, to finish an action and then pull over and/or stop, to safely operate until the computing system is operational, to reach a safe state/navigational edge, etc.) in an event of an emergency (e.g., computing system failure).” Note: The examiner interprets the command to pull over as steering the vehicle in order to move over to pull the vehicle over.)
Osterkamp, Hurley and Ye are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems, including braking 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 have modified Osterkamp and Hurley with Ye. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with using the data from the last transmission because that data would be the most up to date data available and therefore necessary for any emergency maneuvers for the safety of the users of the system.
Regarding claim 14, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
4 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 16,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 12.
However, Osterkamp and Hurley do not teach the limitations of claim 16.
Ye teaches:
further comprises steps of generating, at the local computing unit, a steering command to steer the vehicle for safe parking.
(Ye – Paragraph [0130] states “S230 can additionally include, detecting that communication with the computing system is lost, and, in response controlling the system in a fallback operation mode by transmitting instructions (e.g., set of waypoints, etc.) associated with the 2.sup.nd set of outputs (e.g., fallback plan) to the communication network, which functions to provide the control system with a trajectory and/or positions (e.g., waypoints) and/or control commands configured to operate the vehicle safely (e.g., to pull over, to continue driving if the vehicle cannot pull over, to finish an action and then pull over and/or stop, to safely operate until the computing system is operational, to reach a safe state/navigational edge, etc.) in an event of an emergency (e.g., computing system failure).” Note: The examiner interprets the command to pull over as steering the vehicle in order to move over to pull the vehicle over.)
Osterkamp, Hurley and Ye are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems, including braking 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 have modified Osterkamp and Hurley with Ye. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with using the data from the last transmission because that data would be the most up to date data available and therefore necessary for any emergency maneuvers for the safety of the users of the system.
Regarding claim 18, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
8 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterkamp et al. (US 11656617 B1) in view of Hurley (US 20230415716 A1) further in view of Rust et al. (US 20160334790 A1) and further in view of Woodford et al. (US 20190310663 A1).
Regarding claim 9,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 2.
However, Osterkamp and Hurley do not teach the limitations of claim 9.
Rust teaches:
wherein the electromechanical arrangement comprises a solenoid, an air compressor, a pressure tank, a pneumatic cylinder, and a link rod attached with the brake pedal, activates the pneumatic cylinder based on the braking command received from the first computer to causes the link rod to actuate the brake pedal.
(Rust – Paragraph [0044] states “The brake actuator 121 functions to actuate brakes of the car based on input from the central computer 150. In the first implementation of a preferred embodiment, the brake actuator 121 preferably includes an electric motor coupled to a brake pedal of the car. To actuate brakes of the car, the electric motor moves the brake pedal (e.g., just as a person attempting to apply brakes would).” Paragraph [0048] further states “The master cylinder assembly is preferably actuated on one end by some means (e.g., the brake pedal, a command from the central computer 150, etc.); upon actuation, a piston moves along a bore of the master cylinder assembly, in the process moving one or more pistons at one or more slave cylinder ends by pushing against brake fluid contained within the master cylinder assembly… The brake fluid is preferably an incompressible fluid (e.g., glycol-ether based fluids, mineral oil, silicone, etc.) but can alternatively be compressible (e.g., air) or any other suitable brake fluid.” Paragraph [0050] further states “air brake boosters (which leverage air compressors to drive the brake pistons against the brake fluid)”
Osterkamp, Hurley and Rust are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems, including braking 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 have modified Osterkamp and Hurley with Rust. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with using an air compressor, a pressure tank, a pneumatic cylinder, and a link rod attached with the brake pedal to brake based on a braking command because these elements in braking systems are known braking systems that are trusted and therefore safe for the users of the system.
Rust teaches a braking system that uses compressed air to push the brake pedal based on a braking command. However, Rust does not teach a smart solenoid.
Woodford teaches:
wherein the arrangement comprises a smart solenoid, an air compressor, a pressure tank, a pneumatic cylinder, wherein the smart solenoid activates the pneumatic cylinder
(Woodford – Paragraph [0020] states “An air compressor 202 supplies compressed air to the internal air manifold 104 through the air regulator 106 associated with the present electronic control device 102.” Paragraph [0025] further states “In some instance, the electronic control device 102 is connected to one or more smart control valves or smart pneumatic valves 210, or smart solenoid valve 210, to automatically control the flow through the supply lines such as the steam supply from the boiler 200”)
Osterkamp, Hurley, Rust and Woodford are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using air pressure, pneumatic cylinders and smart functions to control a system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Osterkamp, Hurley and Rust with Woodford. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with using a smart solenoid to control an air compressor, a pressure tank, and a pneumatic cylinder because these elements would allow for the system to be more efficient in actuating the brake automatically. This allows for the safety system to work on its own based on command creation rather than needing physical driver input based on determinations made by the system.
Regarding claim 19, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
9 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterkamp et al. (US 11656617 B1) in view of Hurley (US 20230415716 A1) further in view of Rust et al. (US 20160334790 A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 2.
However, Osterkamp and Hurley do not teach the limitations of claim 10.
Rust teaches:
wherein the electromechanical arrangement comprises an electric actuator configured to receive the braking command and actuate the brake pedal based on the braking command.
(Rust – Paragraph [0044] states “The brake actuator 121 functions to actuate brakes of the car based on input from the central computer 150. In the first implementation of a preferred embodiment, the brake actuator 121 preferably includes an electric motor coupled to a brake pedal of the car. To actuate brakes of the car, the electric motor moves the brake pedal (e.g., just as a person attempting to apply brakes would).”)
Osterkamp, Hurley and Rust are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems, including braking 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 have modified Osterkamp and Hurley with Rust. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with using an electric actuator because electric actuators are known braking systems that are trusted and therefore safe for the users of the system.
Regarding claim 11,
Osterkamp and Hurley teach the limitations of claim 2.
However, Osterkamp and Hurley do not teach the limitations of claim 11.
SAKURAZAWA teaches:
wherein the electromechanical arrangement comprises a pressure supply unit configured to control a hydraulic cylinder to actuate the brake pedal based on the braking command received from the local computing unit.
(Rust – Paragraph [0050] states “In this implementation, the brake actuator 121 preferably includes an electric brakeline actuator (e.g., a brake booster) that increases the pressure of brake fluid to result in actuation of the brake pistons with a greater force (and thus, more efficient braking). Suitable brakeline actuators may include vacuum-actuated brake boosters… hydraulic-actuated brake boosters…”)
Osterkamp, Hurley and Rust are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems, including braking 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 have modified Osterkamp and Hurley with Rust. It would have been obvious to combine a remotely piloted vehicle system that includes an onboard system and a remote pilot system that communicate through a network and issue a braking command with using an electric actuator because electric actuators are known braking systems that are trusted and therefore safe for the users of the system.
Regarding claim 20, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
10 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 21, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
11 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-TUES 11-5.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668