DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action regarding application number 18/729,321, filed July 16, 2024, is in response the applicants arguments and amendments filed April 28, 2026. Claims 2-5 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 13, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1 and 6-16 are currently pending and are addressed below.
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 Arguments
The applicants arguments and amendments to the application have overcome some of the objections and rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final action mailed December 1, 2025. Claims 2-5 have been cancelled and therefore all associated objections and rejections are withdrawn. Applicants amendments the drawings have been deemed sufficient to overcome the previous objections, therefore the objections are withdrawn. Applicants amendments to claims 1 and 15 have been deemed sufficient to overcome the previous 35 USC 101 rejections through the inclusion of “and coordinate the at least one MSD based on the capability message” therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
However applicants amendments have not been deemed sufficient to overcome th previous rejections under 35 USC 102 therefore the rejections are maintained with changes to reflect amendments. Additionally the applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive for the reasons seen below.
The examiner would like to note that the independent claims have been amended to include a series of secondary objectives prefaced by “at least one of” language, therefore any prior art reference only needs to teach one of the listed secondary objective functions.
On pages 9-11 the applicant argues “Chen does not disclose "secondary objectives" as defined in the application, see e.g. [0006]. Chen consistently describes vehicle motion control and control of a plurality of systems, see e.g. [0014] and [0049]. The application does not control the secondary objective function as such, but generates an improvement in the secondary objective function value. Chen's disclosure of optimizing for "control effort" and "wheel instability" is not the same as the application's concept of improving a "secondary objective function value." This is a misinterpretation because the two documents are discussing different types of objectives operating on different time scales and for different purposes. For example, the application states that "Energy efficiency, component wear, component failure probability and passenger comfort are becoming increasingly important performance metrics II The goal is to perform MSD coordination with "these metrics in mind." [0005]. [0008] states that the secondary objective function may comprise energy efficiency, component wear, passenger comfort, probability of MSD failure, or the like." These objectives are extrinsic to the immediate task of vehicle motion control. For example, minimizing brake pad wear is a long-term goal measured over thousands of miles, not a parameter for ensuring stability during a single braking event. Chen's discussion of optimization is, on the other hand, strictly limited to the quality and robustness of the immediate vehicle maneuver. The objectives are intrinsic to the mathematical problem of motion control. The examiner cites Chen's module 220, which "minimizes a difference between desired and actual vehicle forces and moment, minimizes a control effort, and minimizes an occurrence of wheel instability such as excessive brake or traction slip. "Minimizes a difference between desired and actual vehicle forces" is the primary objective of any control system, i.e. accuracy. It is not a secondary objective as defined in the application. Furthermore, "minimizes a control effort" is a term of art in control systems engineering. It refers to using the least amount of actuator movement or energy to achieve the desired control output. It is about the efficiency of the control action itself, not the overall fuel economy of the vehicle. For example, it prevents actuators from oscillating or overworking to track a setpoint. This is about the quality of the immediate control signal, not long-term energy savings. Lastly, "Minimizes an occurrence of wheel instability" is fundamentally a vehicle motion safety and stability concern. Preventing tire slip is a core part of immediate motion control, not a long-term wear objective. The examiner also cites the goal of operating "not in a near-limit condition." This is about maintaining a stability margin. By staying away from actuator limits, the system preserves its ability to react to unexpected disturbances. This is, again, a concern for the robustness of immediate motion control”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2142-2144 discusses the requirements for a case of obviousness using 35 USC 103 and provides examples of such cases. MPEP 2111 discusses Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and the interpretation of claims.
Examiner would like to note that these arguments are the same as discussed during the previous interview, and were found to not be fully persuasive.
As discussed in the rejections below Chen teaches determining a preferred operating point or range of operating points for a vehicle MSD (Paragraph [0023], “Corner state of health 312 and corner capacity 314 used as inputs can be used to describe how much force and moment a particular corner can desirably handle in current conditions. System constraints integration module 320 monitors the assessment of corner capacity from module 310 and determines how individual corners, as constrained or limited, can contribute to vehicle control. “) here the primary goal of the system is to safely evaluate the individual MSDs of the vehicle to determine how they can contribute to vehicle control thereby determining system constraints which allow the vehicle to navigate a corner; the system then uses the optimization module to optimize control of the system by balancing secondary objectives such as minimizing control effort (energy efficiency) (Paragraph [0020], “According to exemplary operation, module 220 minimizes a difference between desired and actual vehicle forces and moment, minimizes a control effort, and minimizes an occurrence of wheel instability such as excessive brake or traction slip.”).
Regarding the applicants argument of “Furthermore, "minimizes a control effort" is a term of art in control systems engineering. It refers to using the least amount of actuator movement or energy to achieve the desired control output. It is about the efficiency of the control action itself, not the overall fuel economy of the vehicle.”. The claims as currently written only recite an energy efficiency as a secondary objective, by the applicants own admission here “minimizes a control effort … is about the efficiency of the control action” therefore satisfying the limitation of the claim. While fuel economy is an interpretation of energy efficiency, as the claims are currently written they do not require a fuel economy.
Therefore the Chen teaches wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of at least one of an energy efficiency of the MSD, a component wear of the MSD, a passenger comfort value, or a probability of failure of the MSD, and the rejections under 35 USC 102 are maintained.
On pages 11-12 the applicant argues “An "Inverse Vehicle Dynamics Model" (as in Chen) is a high-level, multi-body model of the entire vehicle. As described in Chen ( [0020]), its purpose is to take driver inputs or autonomous commands and translate them into a desired overall vehicle motion. It treats the vehicle as a rigid body and calculates the necessary global forces to achieve a desired kinematic state. An "Inverse Tire Model", on the other hand, is a low-level, specific model of the tire-road interface. As described in the application ( [0077-0078] and Fig. 7), its purpose is to relate the longitudinal force (Fx) generated by a tire to the longitudinal slip ratio (X) of that specific wheel. It is a local, component-level model used for fast and precise actuator control. The Vehicle Model of Chen plans the motion of the whole car. The tire model of claim 11 controls the behavior of a single tire. The examiner has conflated a model of the forest (the whole vehicle) with a model of a single tree (the tire). Chen discloses the former, but not the latter. Therefore, the rejection is factually incorrect.”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2142-2144 discusses the requirements for a case of obviousness using 35 USC 103 and provides examples of such cases. MPEP 2111 discusses Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and the interpretation of claims.
As discussed in the rejections below Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Chen further teaches wherein the capability message is indicative of an estimated inverse tire model (Paragraph [0020], “According to one exemplary embodiment, command integration module 110 utilizes an inverse vehicle dynamics model.”). Here as noted by the applicant an inverse vehicle model is an inverse model incorporating the entire vehicle, which calculates required control values using desired vehicle movements—such as target speed, acceleration, or position, thereby performing calculations in an “inverse” manner. An inverse vehicle model will include an inverse tire model, control allocation works backward from desired vehicle acceleration or trajectory → required tire/chassis forces → required tire slip angles/ratios (via an inverse tire model) → final actuator inputs like steering angle and brake pressure. The vehicle model of Chen plans the motion of the entire vehicle using inverse methods and is therefore performing tire model calculations.
Therefore Chen teaches wherein the capability message is indicative of an estimated inverse tire model.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20120029769).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a motion support device (MSD) control unit for controlling at least one MSD on a heavy duty vehicle, wherein the control unit is arranged to (Paragraph [0017], “Actuator supervisory control module 130 inputs desired vehicle force and moment 132 and generates control commands 142, 147, and 152 to respective actuator modules 140, 145, and 150 providing control commands to different systems within the vehicle”)
determine a limiting operating point of each of the at least one MSD associated with a performance limit of the respective MSD (Paragraph [0024], “System constraints integration module 360 utilizes inputs to determine how individual actuators can contribute to the corner control and outputs parameters describing corner actuator limits (maximum torque, actuator bandwidth, etc.) to the optimized actuator control module 370.”)
determine a preferred operating point or range of operating points of each of the at least one MSD (Paragraph [0023], “Module 320 outputs the constrained corner parameters to the optimized corner force distribution module 330. Optimized corner force distribution module 330 inputs the output of module 320 and desired vehicle force and moment 132 and distributes the force and moment to the various wheels as desired corner force and moment distribution 232. “) (Paragraph [0024], “Optimized actuator control allocation module 370 inputs the output of module 360 and desired corner force and moment distribution 232 and generates control commands to relevant actuators, in this example, commands 142, 147, and 152,” here the system is determining an optimized/preferred control command/operating point)
indicative of an operating point or range of operating points of the respective MSD associated with an improvement in a secondary objective function value compared to the limiting operating point (Paragraph [0019], “Further, by distributing the desired force and moment to the four corner of the vehicle, real-time corner constraints or constraints describing an ability of each corner to contribute to vehicle control can be applied as part of the distribution, ensuring that the desired corner force and moment distribution is within a desired range for each corner and not in a near-limit condition.”) (Paragraph [0020], “According to exemplary operation, module 220 minimizes a difference between desired and actual vehicle forces and moment, minimizes a control effort, and minimizes an occurrence of wheel instability such as excessive brake or traction slip.”)
wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of at least one of an energy efficiency of the MSD, a component wear of the MSD, a passenger comfort value, or a probability of failure of the MSD (Paragraph [0020], “module 220 minimizes a difference between desired and actual vehicle forces and moment, minimizes a control effort,” here the system is minimizing a control effort and performing the desired control in the most energy efficient way) (Paragraph [0019], “Further, by distributing the desired force and moment to the four corner of the vehicle, real-time corner constraints or constraints describing an ability of each corner to contribute to vehicle control can be applied as part of the distribution, ensuring that the desired corner force and moment distribution is within a desired range for each corner and not in a near-limit condition,” here the system is determining the preferred ranges for each control system so as to avoid any part of the system being in a near-limit condition which indicates a probability of failure)
and transmit a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the respective MSD and the preferred operating point of the respective MSD (See Figure 6) (Paragraph [0024], “System constraints integration module 360 utilizes inputs to determine how individual actuators can contribute to the corner control and outputs parameters describing corner actuator limits (maximum torque, actuator bandwidth, etc.) to the optimized actuator control module 370. Optimized actuator control allocation module 370 inputs the output of module 360 and desired corner force and moment distribution 232 and generates control commands to relevant actuators, in this example, commands 142, 147, and 152,” here the system is transmitting/outputting a capability message to a VMM/optimized actuator control module, this module 370 receives information including/messages including limits for how actuators can contribute and the desired range for each corner of the vehicle in order to generate control messages for each MSD/actuator system)
and coordinate the at least one MSD based on the capability message (Paragraph [0021], “As described in association with FIG. 2, vehicle control can include commands instructing a group of actuators controlling a vehicle sub-system or a group of vehicle sub-systems. Control of such actuators can implement a desired corner force and moment distribution as developed in FIG. 3.”).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Chen further teaches wherein the limiting operating point is indicative of a peak torque of an electric machine (Paragraph [0024], “System constraints integration module 360 utilizes inputs to determine how individual actuators can contribute to the corner control and outputs parameters describing corner actuator limits (maximum torque”)
and wherein the preferred operating point is indicative of a torque value associated with increased energy efficiency of the electric machine compared to the peak torque operating point (Paragraph [0014], “Actuators utilized to control an output of the powertrain can include torque control of the engine/motor and clutches or torque vectoring for the axles.”) (Paragraph [0026], “In such a vehicle, the methods described herein can be utilized to provide different torque commands to each of the wheels.”) (Paragraph [0020], “The optimization is constrained by the real-time constraints, for example, providing actuator limits, data regarding actuator anomalies, and energy management requirements.”) (Paragraph [0022], “Actuator supervisory control module 230 may further monitor additional real-time constraints 237 from real-time constraints module 235, for example, applying energy capacity and actuator limit information to the generation of control commands.”).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Chen further teaches wherein the capability message is indicative of an estimated inverse tire model (Paragraph [0020], “According to one exemplary embodiment, command integration module 110 utilizes an inverse vehicle dynamics model.”).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Chen further teaches a vehicle comprising at least one MSD control unit according to claim 1 (Paragraph [0004], “and an actuator supervisory control module generates commands in one or more vehicle systems to effect the desired vehicle force and or moment.”) (See figure 2, item 130, Supervisory control module and items 140, 145, 150 actuator modules).
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches a vehicle unit computer (VUC) arranged for vehicle motion management of a heavy duty vehicle, wherein the VUC is arranged to (Paragraph [0005], “A method to control a vehicle includes monitoring desired vehicle force and moment, monitoring real-time corner constraints upon vehicle dynamics which includes monitoring corner states of health for the vehicle, and monitoring corner capacities for the vehicle.”)
obtain a motion request comprising an acceleration profile and/or a curvature profile from a traffic situation management (TSM) function (Paragraph [0020], “Method 200 includes command integration module 110 monitoring manual driving inputs 112 and/or sensor guided autonomous driving inputs 114 and generates desired vehicle dynamics/kinematics 122, describing vehicle operation desired by the driver of the vehicle or a desired vehicle longitudinal, lateral forces and yaw moment. This vehicle operation desired by the driver, including manual and automatic inputs synthesized as desired vehicle dynamics/kinematics, can be described as an overall vehicle control command.”)
perform vehicle state and/or motion estimation to estimate a current and/or future state of the heavy duty vehicle (Paragraph [0020], “According to one exemplary embodiment, command integration module 110 utilizes an inverse vehicle dynamics model. Additionally, command integration module 110 can monitor resultant vehicle dynamics/kinematics 124, as described above. Such resultant vehicle dynamics or kinematics can be developed by sensor or measurement systems, for example, monitoring a yaw rate, lateral acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, wheel speeds, estimated tire slip, estimated forces, and/or estimated friction between the wheels and the road surface.”)
perform force generation to determine a set of global forces to cause the vehicle to move according to the motion request 9 (Paragraph [0020], “Vehicle dynamics module 210 inputs desired vehicle dynamics/kinematics 122 and generates desired vehicle force and moment 132 and resulting vehicle dynamics/kinematics 124. Corner dynamics control module 220 is depicted, monitoring desired vehicle force and moment 132.”)
and coordinate a plurality of motion support devices (MSD) by an MSD coordination module (Paragraph [0004], “and an actuator supervisory control module generates commands in one or more vehicle systems to effect the desired vehicle force and or moment.”) (See figure 2, item 130, Supervisory control module and items 140, 145, 150 actuator modules)
generate a set of MSD actuator requests (Paragraph [0024], “Optimized actuator control allocation module 370 inputs the output of module 360 and desired corner force and moment distribution 232 and generates control commands to relevant actuators, in this example, commands 142, 147, and 152.”
wherein the MSD coordination module is arranged to receive at least one capability message from an MSD control unit, where the capability message comprises a limiting operating point of the MSD and preferred operating point of the MSD (See Figure 6) (Paragraph [0024], “System constraints integration module 360 utilizes inputs to determine how individual actuators can contribute to the corner control and outputs parameters describing corner actuator limits (maximum torque, actuator bandwidth, etc.) to the optimized actuator control module 370. Optimized actuator control allocation module 370 inputs the output of module 360 and desired corner force and moment distribution 232 and generates control commands to relevant actuators, in this example, commands 142, 147, and 152,” here the system is transmitting/outputting a capability message to a VMM/optimized actuator control module, this module 370 receives information including/messages including limits for how actuators can contribute and the desired range for each corner of the vehicle in order to generate control messages for each MSD/actuator system)
where the MSD coordination module is arranged to coordinate the plurality of MSDs based on the received at least one capability message (Paragraph [0022], “Method 250 includes an actuator supervisory control module 230 monitoring desired corner force and moment distribution 232 and generating control commands 142, 147, and 152 to respective actuator modules 140, 145, and 150 providing control commands to different sub-systems within the vehicle, as described above. Actuator supervisory control module 230 may further monitor additional real-time constraints 237 from real-time constraints module 235, for example, applying energy capacity and actuator limit information to the generation of control commands. Actuator supervisory control module 230 may further generate resultant tire slip/slip angle 234 and a resultant corner force and moment 236 for feedback to corner dynamics control module 220.”).
wherein the preferred operating point is indicative of an operating point or range of operating points of the respective MSD associated with an improvement in a secondary objective function value compared to the limiting operating point (Paragraph [0019], “Further, by distributing the desired force and moment to the four corner of the vehicle, real-time corner constraints or constraints describing an ability of each corner to contribute to vehicle control can be applied as part of the distribution, ensuring that the desired corner force and moment distribution is within a desired range for each corner and not in a near-limit condition.”) (Paragraph [0020], “According to exemplary operation, module 220 minimizes a difference between desired and actual vehicle forces and moment, minimizes a control effort, and minimizes an occurrence of wheel instability such as excessive brake or traction slip.”)
wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of at least one of an energy efficiency of the MSD, a component wear of the MSD, a passenger comfort value, or a probability of failure of the MSD (Paragraph [0020], “module 220 minimizes a difference between desired and actual vehicle forces and moment, minimizes a control effort,” here the system is minimizing a control effort and performing the desired control in the most energy efficient way) (Paragraph [0019], “Further, by distributing the desired force and moment to the four corner of the vehicle, real-time corner constraints or constraints describing an ability of each corner to contribute to vehicle control can be applied as part of the distribution, ensuring that the desired corner force and moment distribution is within a desired range for each corner and not in a near-limit condition,” here the system is determining the preferred ranges for each control system so as to avoid any part of the system being in a near-limit condition which indicates a probability of failure).
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 13, Chen further teaches a vehicle comprising VUC according to claim 13 (See figure 1 showing a vehicle).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches a computer implemented method performed in a motion support device (MDS) control unit for controlling at least one MSD on a heavy-duty vehicle, the method comprising (Paragraph [0017], “Actuator supervisory control module 130 inputs desired vehicle force and moment 132 and generates control commands 142, 147, and 152 to respective actuator modules 140, 145, and 150 providing control commands to different systems within the vehicle”)
determining a limiting operating point of each of the at least one MSD associated with a performance limit of the respective MSD (Paragraph [0024], “System constraints integration module 360 utilizes inputs to determine how individual actuators can contribute to the corner control and outputs parameters describing corner actuator limits (maximum torque, actuator bandwidth, etc.) to the optimized actuator control module 370.”)
determining a preferred operating point of each of the at least one MSD (Paragraph [0023], “Module 320 outputs the constrained corner parameters to the optimized corner force distribution module 330. Optimized corner force distribution module 330 inputs the output of module 320 and desired vehicle force and moment 132 and distributes the force and moment to the various wheels as desired corner force and moment distribution 232. “) (Paragraph [0024], “Optimized actuator control allocation module 370 inputs the output of module 360 and desired corner force and moment distribution 232 and generates control commands to relevant actuators, in this example, commands 142, 147, and 152,” here the system is determining an optimized/preferred control command/operating point)
indicative of an operating point of the respective MSD associated with an improvement in secondary objective function value compared to the limiting operating point (Paragraph [0019], “Further, by distributing the desired force and moment to the four corner of the vehicle, real-time corner constraints or constraints describing an ability of each corner to contribute to vehicle control can be applied as part of the distribution, ensuring that the desired corner force and moment distribution is within a desired range for each corner and not in a near-limit condition.”) (Paragraph [0020], “According to exemplary operation, module 220 minimizes a difference between desired and actual vehicle forces and moment, minimizes a control effort, and minimizes an occurrence of wheel instability such as excessive brake or traction slip.”)
wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of at least one of an energy efficiency of the MSD, a component wear of the MSD, a passenger comfort value, or a probability of failure of the MSD (Paragraph [0020], “module 220 minimizes a difference between desired and actual vehicle forces and moment, minimizes a control effort,” here the system is minimizing a control effort and performing the desired control in the most energy efficient way) (Paragraph [0019], “Further, by distributing the desired force and moment to the four corner of the vehicle, real-time corner constraints or constraints describing an ability of each corner to contribute to vehicle control can be applied as part of the distribution, ensuring that the desired corner force and moment distribution is within a desired range for each corner and not in a near-limit condition,” here the system is determining the preferred ranges for each control system so as to avoid any part of the system being in a near-limit condition which indicates a probability of failure)
and transmitting a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the respective MSD and the preferred operating point of the respective MSD (See Figure 6) (Paragraph [0024], “System constraints integration module 360 utilizes inputs to determine how individual actuators can contribute to the corner control and outputs parameters describing corner actuator limits (maximum torque, actuator bandwidth, etc.) to the optimized actuator control module 370. Optimized actuator control allocation module 370 inputs the output of module 360 and desired corner force and moment distribution 232 and generates control commands to relevant actuators, in this example, commands 142, 147, and 152,” here the system is transmitting/outputting a capability message to a VMM/optimized actuator control module, this module 370 receives information including/messages including limits for how actuators can contribute and the desired range for each corner of the vehicle in order to generate control messages for each MSD/actuator system)
and coordinate the at least one MSD based on the capability message (Paragraph [0021], “As described in association with FIG. 2, vehicle control can include commands instructing a group of actuators controlling a vehicle sub-system or a group of vehicle sub-systems. Control of such actuators can implement a desired corner force and moment distribution as developed in FIG. 3.”).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches the method as discussed above in claim 15, Chen further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 15 when said program is run on a computer or on processing circuitry of a control unit (Paragraph [0029], “Control module, module, controller, control unit, processor and similar terms mean any suitable one or various combinations of one or more of Application Specific Integrated Circuit(s) (ASIC), electronic circuit(s), central processing unit(s) (preferably microprocessor(s)) and associated memory and storage (read only, programmable read only, random access, hard drive, etc.) executing one or more software or firmware programs, combinational logic circuit(s), input/output circuit(s) and devices, appropriate signal conditioning and buffer circuitry, and other suitable components to provide the described functionality. The control module has a set of control algorithms, including resident software program instructions and calibrations stored in memory and executed to provide the desired functions.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20120029769) in view of Solari (US 20200088256).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the capability message comprises a time stamp and/or an indication of a validity time duration.
Solari teaches the real measurement of the residual braking torque in a vehicle due to the unwanted interaction between the brake pad and the disc including
wherein the capability message comprises a time stamp and/or an indication of a validity time duration (Paragraph [0076], “A residual braking torque indicator can also be developed that analyzes the output signals of the sensors 6 of the brake pads 7 in the time domain to determine residual braking torque. As with the example described above, which was based on frequency, the time domain approach provides a residual braking torque indicator that, while not measuring residual braking torque directly, is still associated with the residual braking torque. As with the example above, the residual braking torque indicator can be calibrated (as described below) to provide a measurement of the residual braking torque.”).
Chen and Solari are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling actuators in vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the capability message comprises a time stamp and/or an indication of a validity time duration of Solari in the system for holistic control of a vehicle of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce wear on the brake pads and increase the fuel economy of the vehicle (Paragraph [0117], “Various such advantages can be thanks to the direct control in substantially real time of the residual braking torque level. In various embodiments, identifying and rectifying residual drag can reduce wear on the brake pad and/or can increase fuel economy of the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the limiting operating point is peak torque of a friction brake and wherein the preferred operating point is a torque value associated with a decreased friction brake pad wear compared to the peak torque operating point.
Solari teaches the real measurement of the residual braking torque in a vehicle due to the unwanted interaction between the brake pad and the disc including
wherein the limiting operating point is peak torque of a friction brake (Paragraph [0057], “wherein the limiting operating point is peak torque of a friction brake and wherein the preferred operating point is a torque value associated with a decreased friction brake pad wear compared to the peak torque operating point”) (Paragraph [0068], “In certain embodiments, the frequency signals can be integrated to provide an indicator measurement of the residual braking torque. In some variants, the area under the line plotted in FIG. 4 is calculated and used in determining the indicator measurement. See FIG. 5, which can be described as a power spectrum. The total of the power spectrum can be related to the torque on brake pad. In some embodiments, the power spectrum can be summed (e.g., integrated), which can provide an indication of torque. In certain implementations, the peaks of the spectrum provide the majority of the sum,” here the system is using the power spectrucm/peak available torque for the brake system in order to determine residual braking torque which is the torque in excess of necessary torque to determine a preferred operating point for the vehicle)
and wherein the preferred operating point is a torque value associated with a decreased friction brake pad wear compared to the peak torque operating point (Paragraph [0117], “An advantage made possible by this application of the invention, will be the minimization of the clearance between pads and brakes. This can result in a consequently reduced (e.g., minimized) delay in applying the brakes, the control and reduction (e.g., minimization) of residual braking torque with low brake pad wear and reduced fuel consumption, the reduction (e.g., minimization) of the effect of aging and wear on the retraction materials, and/or the increase (e.g., maximization) of the efficiency of the brake caliper. Various such advantages can be thanks to the direct control in substantially real time of the residual braking torque level. In various embodiments, identifying and rectifying residual drag can reduce wear on the brake pad and/or can increase fuel economy of the vehicle.”)
Chen and Solari are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling actuators in vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the limiting operating point is peak torque of a friction brake and wherein the preferred operating point is a torque value associated with a decreased friction brake pad wear compared to the peak torque operating point of Solari in the system for holistic control of a vehicle of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce wear on the brake pads and increase the fuel economy of the vehicle (Paragraph [0117], “Various such advantages can be thanks to the direct control in substantially real time of the residual braking torque level. In various embodiments, identifying and rectifying residual drag can reduce wear on the brake pad and/or can increase fuel economy of the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the capability message comprises a vector of operating points with associated secondary objective function values and/or a function approximation indicative of a relationship between operating points and secondary objective function values.
Solari teaches the real measurement of the residual braking torque in a vehicle due to the unwanted interaction between the brake pad and the disc including
wherein the capability message comprises a vector of operating points with associated secondary objective function values and/or a function approximation indicative of a relationship between operating points and secondary objective function values (Paragraph [0099], “Some embodiments include determining a calibration function, such as a calibration curve. In some implementations, the calibration curve can be used to offset the residual braking torque indicator RD.sub.I values. In some embodiments, the calibration curve can be used to subtract noise (e.g., background noise contained within the pad signals and/or the dynamometer bench) from the residual braking torque indicator RD.sub.I in order to determine actual residual braking torque.”) (Paragraph [0121], “The residual braking torque data for each wheel, and the related contributions from individual brake caliper pads (e.g., the related brake pad temperature data and the level of wear of the same) can be transmitted to the vehicle on board multimedia service platform, to the “body computer” of the vehicle, or to a microprocessor belonging to said platform and/or system,” here the system can determine a relationship curve for the residual braking values the residual braking torque indicating increased wear on the brake pads).
Chen and Solari are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling actuators in vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the capability message comprises a vector of operating points with associated secondary objective function values and/or a function approximation indicative of a relationship between operating points and secondary objective function values of Solari in the system for holistic control of a vehicle of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce wear on the brake pads and increase the fuel economy of the vehicle (Paragraph [0117], “Various such advantages can be thanks to the direct control in substantially real time of the residual braking torque level. In various embodiments, identifying and rectifying residual drag can reduce wear on the brake pad and/or can increase fuel economy of the vehicle.”).
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20120029769) in view of Muenster (US 20230011747).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the limiting operating point is a maximum steering angle of a power steering device and wherein the preferred operating point is steering angle range associated with decreased wear on the steering system compared to operating at the maximum steering angle.
Muenster teaches a method and device for controlling a rear-axle steering system, in particular a rear-axle steering system of a motor vehicle including
wherein the limiting operating point is a maximum steering angle of a power steering device (Paragraph [0009], “A “physical state” of the rear-axle steering system is to be understood in the meaning of the invention as its technical “health”, which can include in particular mechanical and electrical or mechanical aspects, such as the state of wear of mechanical and/or electrical steering system components, the reliability, the degree of the functional scope still actually available in comparison to the specified function (for example, maximum deflection angle still achievable) of the rear-axle steering system or the current, power, or energy demand for its actuation,” here the system includes evaluating the functional scope/maximum steering angle)
and wherein the preferred operating point is steering angle range associated with decreased wear on the steering system compared to operating at the maximum steering angle (Paragraph [0003], “In the range of very low vehicle longitudinal speeds, in particular below approximately 6 km/h, which is also referred to hereinafter as the “range close to a standstill”, the forces required for steering the vehicle typically grow strongly. Accordingly, the load of the steering device increases, which in particular has negative effects on its service life and can even result in immediate damage. This also applies in particular to rear-axle steering systems. Moreover, steering using the rear axle in the range close to a standstill results in increased energy consumption and the actuator used to actuate the rear-axle steering system typically heats up as a result thereof upon frequent actuation. This in turn can have a negative influence on the availability of the actuator and thus the rear-axle steering system as a whole.”) (Paragraph [0026], “In some embodiments, the restriction of the maximum steering angle takes place as a function of the present physical state of the rear-axle steering system only for operating states of the rear-axle steering system from a selected partial range (section) of the operating range,” here the system defines a preferred operating point in the form a of a maximum permissible steering angle as a function of the vehicle state in order to prevent damage and negative effects on service life/wear).
Chen and Muenster are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling actuators in vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the limiting operating point is a maximum steering angle of a power steering device and wherein the preferred operating point is steering angle range associated with decreased wear on the steering system compared to operating at the maximum steering angle of Muenster in the system for holistic control of a vehicle of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce wear on the steering system and prevent damage to the system (Paragraph [0003], “In the range of very low vehicle longitudinal speeds, in particular below approximately 6 km/h, which is also referred to hereinafter as the “range close to a standstill”, the forces required for steering the vehicle typically grow strongly. Accordingly, the load of the steering device increases, which in particular has negative effects on its service life and can even result in immediate damage. This also applies in particular to rear-axle steering systems. Moreover, steering using the rear axle in the range close to a standstill results in increased energy consumption and the actuator used to actuate the rear-axle steering system typically heats up as a result thereof upon frequent actuation. This in turn can have a negative influence on the availability of the actuator and thus the rear-axle steering system as a whole.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raste (US-20230311849) teaches a method for controlling actuators acting on vehicle wheels of a motor vehicle comprises ascertaining a force to be brought about on a reference point of the motor vehicle on the basis of driver specifications, ascertaining wheel forces to be brought about on the vehicle wheels to implement the force to be brought about on the reference point of the motor vehicle by means of a first dynamic allocation by model-based predictive control (MPC). Money (US-20200331451) teaches vehicle systems with context based dynamic power savings. Wheals (US-20040249533) a vehicle control system includes at least one driver input, a supervisor and at least one sub-system controlled by the supervisor, the supervisor assesses the driver input to establish actual driver demand and controls the sub-systems accordingly.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER FEES whose telephone number is (303)297-4343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 5:30 MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights