DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/729,321, filed July 16, 2024. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits, Claims 1-16 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for domestic priority based on an application filed on January 27, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 7/16/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 240. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Under Step 1:
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim comprising a motion support device control unit. (thus the claims are to an apparatus Step 1: yes)
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b)certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
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
determine a limiting operating point of the MSD associated with a performance limit of the MSD
determine a preferred operating point or range of operating points of the MSD indicative of an operating point or range of operating points of the MSD associated with an improvement in a secondary objective function value compared to the limiting operating point and
transmit a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the preferred operating point of the MSD.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because as drafted, the limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. “A motion support device (MSD) control unit”). Specifically, but for the “A motion support device (MSD) control unit” language, “determine a limiting operating point of the MSD associated with a performance limit of the MSD, determine a preferred operating point or range of operating points of the MSD indicative of an operating point or range of operating points of the MSD associated with an improvement in a secondary objective function value compared to the limiting operating point” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a potential operating point of a device on the vehicle and based on that initial operating point determine a preferred operating point that improves on a secondary objective. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea area as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
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
determine a limiting operating point of the MSD associated with a performance limit of the MSD
determine a preferred operating point or range of operating points of the MSD indicative of an operating point or range of operating points of the MSD associated with an improvement in a secondary objective function value compared to the limiting operating point and
transmit a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the preferred operating point of the MSD.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the limitations of “transmit a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the preferred operating point of the MSD” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (control unit) to perform the process. In particular, the transmitting steps to a motion management function are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting vehicle information that is determined in the earlier mental process steps), and amounts to mere data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional limitations of “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” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, motion support device control unit is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The control unit is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (control unit).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “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” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “transmit a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the preferred operating point of the MSD” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore claim 1 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12
Under Step 1:
Claims 2-12 are to a method comprising the steps of “wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of an energy efficiency of the MSD” (Claim 2), “wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of a component wear of the MSD” (Claim 3), “wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of a passenger comfort value” (Claim 4), “wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of a probability of failure of the MSD” (Claim 5), “wherein the capability message comprises a time stamp and/or an indication of a validity time duration” (Claim 6), “wherein the limiting operating point is indicative of a peak torque of an electric machine” (Claim 7), “wherein the limiting operating point is peak torque of a friction brake” (Claim 8), “wherein the limiting operating point is a maximum steering angle of a power steering device” (Claim 9), “wherein the capability message comprises a vector of operating points with associated secondary objective function values” (Claim 10), “wherein the capability message is indicative of an estimated inverse tire model” (Claim 11) , and “a vehicle comprising at least one MSD control unit according to claim 1” (Claim 12) (thus the claims are to an method, Step 1: yes).
Under Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and recite the limitations of “wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of an energy efficiency of the MSD” (Claim 2), “wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of a component wear of the MSD” (Claim 3), “wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of a passenger comfort value” (Claim 4), “wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of a probability of failure of the MSD” (Claim 5), “wherein the capability message comprises a time stamp and/or an indication of a validity time duration” (Claim 6), “wherein the limiting operating point is indicative of a peak torque of an electric machine” (Claim 7), “wherein the limiting operating point is peak torque of a friction brake” (Claim 8), “wherein the limiting operating point is a maximum steering angle of a power steering device” (Claim 9), “wherein the capability message comprises a vector of operating points with associated secondary objective function values” (Claim 10), “wherein the capability message is indicative of an estimated inverse tire model” (Claim 11) , and “a vehicle comprising at least one MSD control unit according to claim 1” (Claim 12), These claims recite an abstract idea which is directed to mental process.
Under Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the claims do not includes any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically here claims 2-5 only further define the mental process by limiting what the secondary objective is. Claim 6 and 10-11 only defines the content of the post solution activity message. Claims 7-9 only define the mental process by defining the operating point functions and secondary objectives. And Claim 12 only includes the limitation of a vehicle which is only an attempt to generically link the claims to a technological environment. Therefore the claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
Step 2B, the claims 2-12 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as that discussed in Step 2A Prong Two.
The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims 2-12 fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-12 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15,
Under Step 1:
Claim 15 is a method claim comprising the steps of determining and transmitting. (thus the claims are to a method Step 1: yes)
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b)certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 15 recites:
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
determining a limiting operating point of the MSD associated with a performance limit of the MSD
determining a preferred operating point of the MSD indicative of an operating point of the MSD associated with an improvement in a secondary objective function value compared to the limiting operating point and
transmitting a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the preferred operating point of the MSD.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because as drafted, the limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. “A motion support device (MSD) control unit”). Specifically, but for the “A motion support device (MSD) control unit” language, “determining a limiting operating point of the MSD associated with a performance limit of the MSD, determining a preferred operating point or range of operating points of the MSD indicative of an operating point or range of operating points of the MSD associated with an improvement in a secondary objective function value compared to the limiting operating point” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a potential operating point of a device on the vehicle and based on that initial operating point determine a preferred operating point that improves on a secondary objective. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea area as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
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
determining a limiting operating point of the MSD associated with a performance limit of the MSD
determining a preferred operating point of the MSD indicative of an operating point of the MSD associated with an improvement in a secondary objective function value compared to the limiting operating point and
transmitting a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the preferred operating point of the MSD
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the limitations of “transmitting a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the preferred operating point of the MSD” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (control unit) to perform the process. In particular, the transmitting steps to a motion management function are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting vehicle information that is determined in the earlier mental process steps), and amounts to mere data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional limitations of “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” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, motion support device control unit is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The control unit is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (control unit).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “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” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “transmitting a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the preferred operating point of the MSD” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore claim 15 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 includes the additional limitation of a “a non-transitory computer readable medium” which amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore the claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 16 are not patent eligible.
EXAMINERS NOTE: Regarding claim 13, claim 13 includes the additional limitation of “where the MSD coordination module is arranged to coordinate the plurality of MSDs based on the received at least one capability message”, here this additional limitation of instructing the MSD to operate according to the capability message is considered to be implementing the results of the mental process steps into a practice application, and therefore is sufficient to not to invoke a rejection under 35 USC 101. If similar limitations for controlling the vehicle or MSDs according to the capability message are included in the other independent claims it would be sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101.
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) 1-2, 5, 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 the MSD associated with a performance limit of the 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 the 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 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.”)
and transmit a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the 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).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Chen further teaches wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of an energy efficiency 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).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Chen further teaches wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of a probability of failure of the MSD (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 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.”).
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 the MSD associated with a performance limit of the 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 the 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 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.”)
and transmitting a capability message to a vehicle motion management (VMM) function comprising the limiting operating point of the MSD and the 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).
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 3, 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 3, Chen teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the secondary objective function is indicative of a component wear of the MSD.
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 secondary objective function is indicative of a component wear of the MSD (Paragraph [0028], “For example, the residual contact that causes residual braking torques can considerably influence fuel consumption and brake pad wear.”).
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 secondary objective function is indicative of a component wear of the MSD 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 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 a