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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on May 10, 2024. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10202304447.1, filed on May 12, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 9, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “having “a” first wheel side and a second wheel side” is missing the a to introduce the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 discloses 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 discloses 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:
“electric auxiliary drive system” in claims 1, 13 and 15. A review of the specification shows that it is at least one auxiliary battery as an auxiliary energy storage device and a first electric motor coupled to the auxiliary battery for applying the first torque to the first wheel side and a second electric motor coupled to the auxiliary battery for applying the second torque to the second wheel side in [0042].
“longitudinal force measuring device” in claim 1. A review of the specification shows that it is a sensor for determining the longitudinal force between the towing vehicle and the vehicle trailer for controlling the auxiliary drive system such that the train remains continuously under tension while maintaining the minimum tractive force in [0020] and could be adapted as a force sensor ([0027]) or displacement sensor ([0028]).
“control unit” in claims 1-6 and 9-11. A review of the specification shows that it comprises a plurality of control devices for separate electric motors that drive the electric motors separately on the basis of the longitudinal force signals in [0042].
“detection unit” in claims 9 and 10. A review of the specification shows that it comprises a yaw angle sensor in [0047].
“analysis unit” in claims 9 and 10. A review of the specification shows that it is for analyzing the environmental signals as environmental data in [0038].
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, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 14 and 15 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 7 discloses the limitation “the same charging capacity or a larger charging capacity.” It is unclear which energy storage device would have a larger capacity or if it is a combined capacity.
Note: For the purpose of this examination, it will be interpreted that the auxiliary energy storage device could be larger than the vehicle energy storage device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yang et al., US2023/0365209A1 (Hereinafter, “Yang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses a vehicle trailer for a towing vehicle, the vehicle
trailer comprising; a first wheel and at least one second wheel; at least one electric auxiliary drive system that is coupled to the first wheel and the at least one second wheel, at least one electric auxiliary drive system configured for exerting a first torque on the first wheel and a second torque on the at least one second wheel, wherein the at least one auxiliary drive system is adapted as an electric auxiliary drive system capable of recuperation with at least one auxiliary energy storage device; See at least [0077], “As shown by reference to FIG. 1, an autonomous electric-powered (AEP) trailer system 100 for assistive driving transport with a tow entity ( e.g., a tow vehicle) and, in some circumstances, while detached from a tow entity, autonomous transport or movement may include a chassis 110 of an AEP trailer system 100, a plurality of wheels 120 (motorized/ unmotorized), a steerable axle/caster wheel 130, one or more electric motors 140 powered by a battery subsystem 145, sensor suite 150, an autonomous trailer control subsystem 160, a coupler (e.g., tow vehicle hitch receiver) 170, and a trailer-tow vehicle communication interface or subsystem 180.” Also in [0080], “the plurality of wheels 120 may be powered by and/or include the one or more motors 140 and may include a braking system. The braking system, as generally referred to herein, may implement any suitable technique for slowing or stopping the AEP trailer system 100 including, but not limited to, hydraulic braking systems, electric braking systems, regenerative braking systems, disk-based brake systems, drum-based brake systems, or the like.” See also [0019], “In some embodiments, the AEP trailer comprises a first distinct wheel and a second distinct wheel, the first distinct wheel is controlled by a first distinct electric motor of the AEP trailer, the second distinct wheel is controlled by a second distinct electric motor…”
a longitudinal force measuring device is provided that is adapted to measure a longitudinal force signal as the longitudinal force exerted by the towing vehicle on the vehicle trailer by means of a connection and wherein; a control unit is provided that is adapted to adjust the first torque to the first wheel and the second torque to the at least second wheel on the basis of the electric auxiliary drive system and as a function of the longitudinal force, while also maintaining a predefined minimum tractive force. See at least [0112], “to identify the load forces currently acting on the AEP trailer, the AEP trailer ( or a system in communication with the AEP trailer) may function to measure one or more load forces acting on a tethering nexus or a point of connection between the AEP trailer and a tow vehicle. In such implementation, sourcing the control-informative driving data may include interfacing with and/or measuring forces acting on a strain gauge load cell mounted on a tongue of the AEP trailer ("AEP trailer tongue"), as generally illustrated in FIG. 3A. In some embodiments, the strain gauge load cell may function to produce an output voltage corresponding to the current strain/stress being exerted on the strain gauge load cell, which in turn, may be read/obtained by the AEP trailer to determine whether the associated tow vehicle is accelerating, decelerating, or maintaining a steady state and, preferably, determine a magnitude of acceleration or deceleration and/or velocity of the tow vehicle.” Further, in [0024], “operating, via one or more electric motors, each wheel of the AEP trailer at a target propulsion based on the plurality of towing-assistance instructions, wherein the operating of the each wheel enables the AEP trailer to autonomously assist the towing entity during the towing event.” See at least [0123-0125], “[0123] In some embodiments of method 200, sourcing the control-informative driving data may include sourcing (or collecting) sensor data sensed via sensors of the AEP trailer… current speed/velocity of the AEP trailer, acceleration rate of the AEP trailer … the AEP trailer may source one or more of the above-described control-informative driving data via the trailer communication interface 180 described in system 100 … S220, which includes deriving towing-informative control inputs, may function to compute or derive input for one or more towing control algorithms autonomously governing
the AEP trailer based on the control-informative driving data sourced in S210 .”Regarding Claim 2, Yang discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
characterized in that wherein the control unit is adapted to determine a deviation amplitude and/or the change gradient in relation to the longitudinal force; See at least [0135], “the target acceleration or deceleration value produced by the assistive towing algorithm or formula may be influenced by an amount of towing assistance requested by the driver. For instance, in a non-limiting example if the driver of the tow vehicle is requesting complete (e.g., 100%) towing assistance, the sensor data fusion system may function to compute an assistive acceleration or deceleration value that matches the current acceleration or deceleration of the tow vehicle. Conversely, in another non-limiting example, if the driver of the tow vehicle is requesting partial towing assistance (e.g., 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, or 50% towing assistance), the sensor data fusion system may function to compute an assistive acceleration or deceleration value according to the partial amount of towing assistance requested by the driver (e.g., an acceleration or deceleration value that is 10%, 20%, 30, 40%, or 50% less than the current acceleration or deceleration of the tow vehicle).”
wherein the control unit is adapted to adjust the first torque to the first wheel and the second torque to the at least second wheel as a function of the deviation amplitude and/or the change gradient and the previously defined minimum tractive force. See at least [0181], “In such an embodiment and in response to the motor control algorithm receiving the primary motor control instructions as input, the motor control algorithm may function to drive one or more electric motors of the AEP trailer according to the provided primary motor control instructions ( e.g., according to the target drive voltage indicated by the primary motor control instructions). It shall be noted that, as described in system 100, the one or more electric motors of the AEP trailer may operate (e.g., turn) one or more wheels of the AEP trailer, and thus, driving the electric motors of the AEP trailer may adjust ( or maintain) operating characteristics of the wheels of the AEP trailer (e.g., rotation speed).”
Regarding Claim 3, Yang discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 2:
characterized in that wherein the control unit is adapted to adjust the first torque on the first wheel and the second torque on the at least second wheel as a function of a drawbar force such that the drawbar force remains constant. See at least [0178], “It shall be noted that, like S210-230, in some
embodiments, the operations/processes described within S240 (including the execution of autonomous driving operations) may be performed by the AEP trailer. Furthermore, it shall also be noted that, in some embodiments, executing the autonomous driving operations may be an iterative and/or continuous process, which as illustrated in FIG. 5 may include one or more feedback loops or systems that continuously assist in executing the autonomous driving operations. Accordingly, in such embodiments, one or more steps of method 200 (e.g., S210-250) may be performed continuously
or in a repeating sequential ( or non-sequential) manner to support the execution of autonomous driving operations.”
Regarding Claim 4, Yang discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 2:
wherein-the control unit is adapted to receive adjustment signals, wherein the control unit is adapted to adjust the first torque on the first wheel and the second torque on the at least second wheel as a function of the received adjustment signal such that an increase or reduction of the drawbar force is achieved. See at least [0181], “In such an embodiment and in response to the motor control algorithm receiving the primary motor control instructions as input, the motor control algorithm may function to drive one or more electric motors of the AEP trailer according to the provided primary motor control instructions ( e.g., according to the target drive voltage indicated by the primary motor control instructions). It shall be noted that, as described in system 100, the one or more electric motors of the AEP trailer may operate (e.g., tum) one or more wheels of the AEP trailer, and thus, driving the electric motors of the AEP trailer may adjust ( or maintain) operating characteristics of the wheels of the AEP trailer (e.g., rotation speed).”
Regarding Claim 5, Yang discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 4:
comprising: an environmental sensor configured for recording environmental signals; and an analysis unit configured for analyzing the environmental signals as environmental data, wherein the control unit is adapted to adjust - as a function of the environmental data - the first torque on the first wheel and the second torque on the at least second wheel and depending based on the drawbar force such that an increase or reduction of the drawbar force is achieved. See at least [0123], “In some embodiments of method 200, sourcing the control-informative driving data may include sourcing (or
collecting) sensor data sensed via sensors of the AEP trailer. In such embodiments, the sensor data sourced via the sensors of the AEP trailer may include, but may not be limited to, rotational speed data for each ( or at least one) wheel of the AEP trailer, current speed/velocity of the AEP trailer, acceleration rate of the AEP trailer, steering angle of the AEP trailer, orientation of the AEP trailer, environmental
forces acting on the AEP trailer ( e.g., wind) potentially causing sway, and/or the like.” Further, in [0134], “In some embodiments, the sensor data fusion system may function to produce an inference relating to an amount of assistive acceleration or deceleration to generate via the AEP trailer (e.g., the amount to accelerate or decelerate the AEP trailer such that the tow vehicle requires less ( or no additional) power or braking effort when towing the AEP trailer-as compared to towing the AEP trailer in a passive, non-assistive mode).“
Regarding Claim 6, Yang discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 5:
wherein the control unit is adapted to achieve the increase or reduction of the drawbar force as a function of a characteristic curve. See at least [0167], “In yet another example embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the primary motor and braking control instructions may be generated based on a pre-mapped torque vs. speed curve that at least informs a baseline amount of torque to send to the motors of the AEP trailer. In some embodiments, this determined baseline amount of may additionally be augmented based on current acceleration or braking characteristics of the tow vehicle, as will be described below.”
Regarding Claim 7, Yang discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the auxiliary battery has energy storage device includes at least one auxiliary battery as an energy storage device and a first electric motor coupled to the at least one auxiliary battery for applying the first torque to the first wheel and a second electric motor coupled to the at least one auxiliary battery energy storage device for applying the second torque to the second wheel. See at least [0086], “In one or more embodiments, the one or more electric motors 140 may be powered by energy outputs of the battery subsystem 145 to generate the torque outputs for operating one or more mechanisms (e.g., wheels, jack, etc.) of the AEP trailer system 100.” Further, in [0087], “As mentioned above, the one or more motors 140, in varying embodiments, may be arranged along the chassis 110 and/or the plurality of wheels 120 in any suitable manner for achieving a steering and driving of the AEP trailer system 100. In one implementation, the one or more motors 140 may be arranged along an axle shared between pairs of wheels. In another implementation, the one or more motors 140 may be arranged on distinct, independent axles that uniquely power each respective wheel of the plurality of wheels 120.”
Regarding Claim 8, Yang discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 7:
comprising: a plurality of wheels having first wheel side and a second wheel side and wherein the at least one auxiliary battery has energy storage device includes at least one auxiliary battery as an energy storage device and a first electric motor coupled to the at least one auxiliary battery for applying the first torque to the first wheel side and a second electric motor coupled to the at least one auxiliary battery for applying the second torque to the second wheel side. See at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019] “In some embodiments, the AEP trailer comprises a first distinct wheel and a second distinct wheel… generating a motor control instruction defining a first operating voltage for the first distinct electric motor … a second operating voltage for the second distinct electric motor based on the amount of propulsion or braking needed from the second distinct wheel.”
Regarding Claim 9, Yang discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 7:
comprising: a detection unit configured for detecting a yaw torque is provided, wherein the control unit is adapted to generate an additional torque on a corresponding required wheel side and/or an additional braking torque on the opposite wheel side by the first electric motor and/or the at least second electric motor, thus exerting an opposing yaw torque. See at least [0156], “In some embodiments, the generated trailer sway avoidance control instructions may function to stabilize the AEP trailer (if the AEP trailer is currently swaying) and/or function to prevent the possibility of the AEP trailer swaying in the future. Furthermore, in some embodiments, the trailer sway-avoidance control instructions may comprise a distinct target rotational speed for each (or at least one) wheel of the AEP trailer, a distinct target braking torque signal for each ( or at least one) wheel of the AEP trailer, a distinct target motor torque signal for each ( or at least one) motor of the AEP trailer, and/or the like. Also in [0157], “It shall be noted that, in some embodiments, the trailer sway-avoidance control instructions may include instructions for applying different ( or the same) propulsion or braking amounts to different wheels of the AEP trailer. In other words, in some embodiments, the trailer sway-avoidance control instructions may indicate different braking torque or motor torque targets for each wheel of the AEP trailer to allow the AEP trailer to modulate each wheel of the AEP trailer in an independent, disproportionate, and/or asymmetric manner-which may be advantageous in quickly and efficiently stabilizing the AEP trailer.” Also see at least [0091], “In a preferred embodiment, the sensor suite 150 or
onboard sensors ( e.g., computer vision system, LIDAR, RADAR, ultrasonic sensors, pressure sensors, wheel speed sensors, encoders, IMU, GPS, cameras, etc.) are in operable communication with the autonomous trailer control subsystem 160.” Note: yaw angle is commonly found using an IMU on the vehicle and an IMU on the trailer.
Regarding Claim 10, Yang discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 9:
characterized in that wherein the detection unit is adapted as a yaw angle sensor. See at least [0121], “In some embodiments, the sensor data that the AEP trailer receives or obtains from the associated tow vehicle may include, but may not be limited to, sensor data sensed via an inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the tow vehicle, sensor data sensed via an antilock braking system (ABS) of the tow vehicle, behavior-informative vehicle sensor data ( e.g., steering angle data, acceleration data, accelerator pedal position data, brake pressure data), and/ or the like. It shall be noted that, in some embodiments, the AEP trailer may additionally, or alternatively, receive data from other sensors or systems of the tow vehicle, such as future movement trajectory data, navigation path data, path planning data, vehicle location data, and/or the like from a global positioning system (GPS) of the tow vehicle.” Also, in [0123] In some embodiments of method 200, sourcing the control-informative driving data may include sourcing (or collecting) sensor data sensed via sensors of the AEP trailer. In such embodiments, the sensor data sourced via the sensors of the AEP trailer may include, but may not be limited to, rotational speed data for each ( or at least one) wheel of the AEP trailer, current speed/velocity of the AEP trailer, acceleration rate of the AEP trailer, steering angle of the AEP trailer, orientation of the AEP trailer, environmental forces acting on the AEP trailer ( e.g., wind) potentially causing sway, and/or the like.”
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.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ghannam et al., US2024/0270082A1 (Hereinafter, “Ghannam”).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang does not explicitly disclose energy transfer. However, Ghannam teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
comprising: an electrical connection to the towing vehicle is present, wherein the control unit is adapted to use a supply signal generated by the towing vehicle to accomplish a transfer of energy from the auxiliary energy storage device to the towing vehicle by means of the electrical connection. In at least [0083], “The system processor 240 may be further configured to cause transfer of stored power from the trailer batteries 230 to the vehicle batteries 220, based on user request ( e.g., via the user device 208 or the vehicle 202 HMI). In other aspects, the system processor 240 may cause automatic transfer of stored power from the trailer batteries 230 to the vehicle batteries 220 when the system processor 240 determines that the vehicle batteries 220 SoC may be lower than a power transfer threshold (that may be prestored in the system memory 242).”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yang’s device with the charge optimization limitations disclosed in Ghannam with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve vehicle power when towing a trailer, see [0018].
Regarding Claim 12, Yang does not explicitly disclose recharging the auxiliary battery. However, Ghannam teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the at least one auxiliary energy storage device can be recharged independently of the towing vehicle. See at least [0081], “In an exemplary aspect, the system processor 240 may determine that the second predefined condition may be met when the obtained road information indicates that the vehicle 202 and the trailer 204 may be travelling on a downgraded road, as shown in FIG. 6. Specifically, FIG. 6 depicts a snapshot of the vehicle 202 and the trailer 204 travelling on a downgraded road 605 in accordance with the present disclosure. In some aspects, if the trailer 204 has presence of regenerative braking mode, the trailer 204 may harvest kinetic energy while travelling on the road 605 and store harvested power in the trailer batteries 230.”
Regarding Claim 13, Yang does not explicitly disclose vehicle specific information. However, Ghannam teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
A vehicle train comprising an electric auxiliary drive system; and a towing vehicle to which the vehicle trailer is coupled; wherein the towing vehicle is adapted with a vehicle electric motor and wherein the vehicle electric motor comprises a vehicle energy storage device and the auxiliary drive system comprises an electrical auxiliary energy storage device. See at least Fig.1,2 and [0022-0024], “The vehicle 105 may take the form of any passenger or commercial vehicle such as, for example, a car, an
off-road vehicle, a work vehicle, a crossover vehicle, a van, a minivan, a taxi, a bus, a truck, etc. … Hereinafter, the description describes an aspect where the vehicle 105 is a BEV.” Further, in [0023], “The trailer 110 may be a cargo trailer that may be used to transport goods, or may be a Recreational Vehicle (RV). In some aspects, the trailer 110 may be an electric trailer having one or more trailer batteries (shown as trailer batteries 230 in FIG. 2). The trailer 110 may operate (e.g., move on a road network) when the vehicle 105 "pulls" the trailer 110 from the vehicle rear portion, or by drawing power from vehicle batteries (shown as vehicle batteries 220 in FIG. 2). The trailer 110 may also operate by drawing power from the trailer batteries. Stated another way, the trailer 110 may move by using the "pull" from the vehicle Similarly, if the trailer 110 has two wheels, the trailer 110 may include two independent trailer wheel drive motors and two independent trailer wheel steering actuators. The trailer wheel drive motors and the trailer wheel steering actuators may operate by using power drawn from the trailer batteries.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yang’s device with the charge optimization limitations disclosed in Ghannam with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve vehicle power when towing a trailer, see [0018].
Regarding Claim 14, Yang in view of does not explicitly teach vehicle storage device capacity. However, Ghannam teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 13:
characterized in that wherein the vehicle energy storage device and the at least one auxiliary energy storage device have the same charging capacity or a larger charging capacity. See at least [0027], “The electric towing system 120 may control operation of the trailer wheel drive motors and/or the trailer wheel steering actuators to optimize vehicle 105 power consumption. Specifically, the electric towing system 120 may cause the trailer 110 to operate by using its own trailer batteries ( as opposed to drawing power from the vehicle batteries, or moving by using the mechanical "pull" from the vehicle
105) when one or more predefined conditions are met. In particular, the vehicle trailer can have a significantly larger battery capacity than is required for the vehicle trailer's power requirement. In the presence of a high capacity electrical connection between the vehicle trailer and the towing vehicle, at least a variable part of the energy requirement from the auxiliary energy storage device of the vehicle trailer can be provided when the vehicle battery falls below a certain charge state.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yang’s device with the charge optimization limitations disclosed in Ghannam with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve vehicle power when towing a trailer, see [0018].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Ghannam, in further view of Higuchi et al., WO2022196513A1 (Hereinafter “Higuchi”).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang in view of Ghannam does not explicitly teach multiple storage and drive systems. However, Higuchi teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 13:
characterized in that comprising a plurality of auxiliary drive systems with a plurality of electrical auxiliary energy storage devices are provided, and wherein the vehicle energy storage devices and each of the plurality of auxiliary energy storage devices have the same charging capacity or a larger charging capacity. See at least [0006], “According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided a drive system for driving an electric vehicle, the drive system including: a front wheel drive system including a first motor; a rear wheel drive system including a second motor different from the first motor; a first secondary battery; a second secondary battery having a battery capacity smaller than that of the first secondary battery; and a connection control device that connects the first secondary battery and a drive system having a larger regenerative electric power of a motor out of the front wheel drive system and the rear wheel drive system during deceleration of the electric vehicle, and connects the first secondary battery and a drive system having a larger drive power of a motor out of the front wheel drive system and the rear wheel drive system when the electric vehicle is accelerated.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yang/Ghannam’s device with the multiple storage and drive limitations disclosed in Higuchi with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to manage multiple power sources and drives to optimize driving efficiency , see Higuchi [0002].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 20180093655 A1 VEHICLE ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND RELATED METHODS
US Publication US 20210291667 A1 Caravan With Traction/Thrust Limitation
US Publication US 20240025269 A1 VEHICLE SYSTEM AND LONGITUDINAL VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD
US Publication US 20240262211 A1 DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING AN ELECTRIC DRIVE OF A TRAILER VEHICLE, SYSTEM THEREWITH AND METHOD THEREFOR
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM 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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669