DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie (US PG Pub No. 2016/0159347) in view of Lavoie2 (US PG Pub No. 2016/0288786).
Regarding claim 1, Lavoie teaches A control device for a combination vehicle, the combination vehicle including a tractor including a steered wheel that is a wheel configured to change a direction of travel of the vehicle, and a trailer towed by the tractor,
wherein the control device is configured to execute reverse assist control that is control for assisting in reverse operation of the combination vehicle, and a process for detecting an abnormality in a vehicle state quantity (hitch angle; paragraph 69 should hit angle fail and/or paragraph 66 160 figure 4 determined hitch angle) used in the reverse assist control,
the control device includes, as a control mode of the reverse assist control,
a normal mode that is set when the abnormality is not detected in the vehicle state quantity, (figure 8 160 figure 8 hitch angle good)
a bad mode that is set when the abnormality is detected in the vehicle state quantity and there is a substitute value for the vehicle state quantity, and (paragraph 69 should hitch angle sensor fail; slow down vehicle and let driver control)
when the control mode is set to the bad mode, continue to execute the reverse assist control using the substitute value for the vehicle state quantity, and (paragraph 69 should hitch angle sensor fail; slow down vehicle and let driver control)
Lavoie does not explicitly teach however Lavoie2 teaches
an abnormal mode that is set when the abnormality is detected in the vehicle state quantity and there is no substitute value for the vehicle state quantity, and the control device is configured to (paragraph 78 figure 11 hitch angle)
when the control mode is set to the abnormal mode, execute a process for stopping the combination vehicle. (paragraph 78 figure 11 hitch angle has reached a max angle… reduce throttle to zero and apply brakes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lavoie based on the teachings of Lavoie2 to teach an abnormal mode that is set when the abnormality is detected in the vehicle state quantity and there is no substitute value for the vehicle state quantity, and the control device is configured to when the control mode is set to the abnormal mode, execute a process for stopping the combination vehicle. The motivation would be to prevent trailer from becoming in contact with vehicle (Lavoie2 paragraph 78).
Regarding claim 2, Lavoie teaches wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the bad mode, execute the process for stopping the combination vehicle in response to a vehicle stop request received through a specific operation performed by an operator of the combination vehicle (paragraph 69 and 70 figure 9 sensor failure mitigation routine may provide driver with grater amount of time to respond to sensor failure… mitigation routine does not require immediate driver intervention (but eventual driver mitigation)).
Regarding claim 3, Lavoie teaches wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the bad mode, execute an arbitration process for arbitrating between a manipulated variable by an operator of the combination vehicle and a current controlled variable. (paragraph 69 and 70 combination of machine control to slow trailer and driver intervention).
Regarding claim 4, Lavoie teaches wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the bad mode, execute a process for reducing a steering angular velocity of the steered wheel to a value smaller than the steering angular velocity permitted when the normal mode is set. (paragraph 68 steer vehicle forward zero hitch angle).
Regarding claim 5, Lavoie teaches wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the bad mode, execute the process for stopping the combination vehicle while keeping the steering angular velocity of the steered wheel reduced, in response to a vehicle stop request received through a specific operation performed by an operator of the combination vehicle. (paragraph 68 hitch angle zero increase brake pressure).
Regarding claim 6, Lavoie does not explicitly teach however Lavoie2 teaches wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the abnormal mode, execute an arbitration process for arbitrating between a manipulated variable by an operator of the combination vehicle and a current controlled variable and then execute the process for stopping the combination vehicle. (paragraph 78)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lavoie based on the teachings of Lavoie2 to teach wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the abnormal mode, execute an arbitration process for arbitrating between a manipulated variable by an operator of the combination vehicle and a current controlled variable and then execute the process for stopping the combination vehicle. The motivation would be to prevent trailer from becoming in contact with vehicle (Lavoie2 paragraph 78).
Regarding claim 7, Lavoie does not explicitly teach however Lavoie2 teaches wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the abnormal mode, execute the process for stopping the combination vehicle while maintaining a steering angle of the steered wheel. (paragraph 78)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lavoie based on the teachings of Lavoie2 to teach wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the abnormal mode, execute the process for stopping the combination vehicle while maintaining a steering angle of the steered wheel. The motivation would be to prevent trailer from becoming in contact with vehicle (Lavoie2 paragraph 78). Regarding claim 9, Lavoie teaches wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the bad mode or the abnormal mode, end execution of the reverse assist control when an operation to end the reverse assist control by the operator of the combination vehicle is detected after the combination vehicle is stopped by execution of the process for stopping the combination vehicle. (paragraph 69 and 70).
Regarding claim 10, Lavoie does not explicitly teach however Lavoie2 teaches wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the bad mode or the abnormal mode, execute a process for keeping the combination vehicle stopped when an operation to end the reverse assist control by the operator of the combination vehicle is not detected even after a determined set time has elapsed since a time when the combination vehicle was stopped by execution of the process for stopping the combination vehicle. (paragraph 78)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lavoie based on the teachings of Lavoie2 to teach wherein the control device is configured to, when the control mode is set to the bad mode or the abnormal mode, execute a process for keeping the combination vehicle stopped when an operation to end the reverse assist control by the operator of the combination vehicle is not detected even after a determined set time has elapsed since a time when the combination vehicle was stopped by execution of the process for stopping the combination vehicle. The motivation would be to prevent trailer from becoming in contact with vehicle (Lavoie2 paragraph 78).
Regarding claim 11, Lavoie does not explicitly teach however Lavoie2 teaches wherein the control device is configured to execute a process for notifying an operator of the combination vehicle of the control mode. (paragraph 78 direct driver… message display)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lavoie based on the teachings of Lavoie2 to teach wherein the control device is configured to execute a process for notifying an operator of the combination vehicle of the control mode. The motivation would be to prevent trailer from becoming in contact with vehicle (Lavoie2 paragraph 78).
Regarding claim 12, Lavoie teaches wherein the vehicle state quantity includes
a target steering angle of the steered wheel,
a steering angle of the steered wheel,
a vehicle speed of the combination vehicle, and
a hitch angle that is an angle between a central axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the tractor and a central axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the trailer. (figure 3-4 paragraph 35-37)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights