DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 7/15/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15-16 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fassnacht (DE102016220905) in view of Gugel et al. (US 2017/0129558).
Fassnacht teaches:
Re claim 1. A method of control allocation in a vehicle combination including multiple vehicle units and a plurality of actuators configured to generate at least one of propulsion and braking forces, the plurality of actuators being distributed among the multiple vehicle units, the method being performed by processing circuitry of a controller and comprising (engine control 10, electric drive unit 23, Fig. 3 and paragraph [0032]: “The target torque is distributed between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2 by means of a distribution circuit 33.”):
- receiving requested global forces for the vehicle combination as a whole (HMI device (e.g., accelerator pedal) 30, Fig 3 and paragraph [0032]: “The control concept according to Fig. 3 is based on specifying a target torque to the drive unit 23 based on the specification of a desired speed via a human-machine interface (HMI) such as z. For example, an accelerator pedal, shown here as HMI device 30. The target torque is distributed between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2 by means of a distribution circuit 33.”);
- solving a control allocation problem in an attempt to find a true control input for the plurality of actuators based on the requested global forces, including an attempt to minimize a difference between the true control input and a reference control input for the plurality of actuators (setpoint torque limiter 32 sets limits on the target torque coming from the HMI device (accelerator pedal) 30, and the distribution circuit 33 distributes the limited target torque between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2, Fig. 3. The setpoint torque limiter 32 “attempts to minimize a difference between” the target torque coming from the HMI device 30 and the limited target torque input to the distribution circuit 33 as a limiter will retain the input value unless the input value exceeds the set limits of the limiter. Paragraph [0032]: “The target torque is distributed between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2 by means of a distribution circuit 33…. Translation management with a tractor-side target torque limitation 32 including the trailer 4 is provided to avoid stalling in the limit of the engine load if only the transmission torque is taken into account, because the trailer power also loads the drive unit 42 of the vehicle. A calculated and limited target torque is used together with an actual torque of the drive unit 23 for a target-actual comparison 41. Any difference resulting from the target-actual comparison is then fed to a torque controller 37, which adjusts the power output accordingly and delivers a corresponding power to the drive unit 23 in order to set the optimal torque to the front wheel 21 of the axle 22.”), and
- controlling the plurality of actuators based on the true control input such that each vehicle unit contributes to a longitudinal force of the vehicle combination indicated in the requested global forces (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0032]: “The target torque is distributed between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2 by means of a distribution circuit 33.”).
Fassnacht fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) wherein the method further comprises defining the reference control input such that:
a) capabilities of the plurality of actuators to generate at least one of propulsion and braking force are taken into account, and
b) when the true control input matches the reference control input, the contribution to the longitudinal force from one of the vehicle units does not counteract the contribution to the longitudinal force from any other one of the vehicle units.
Gugel teaches, at Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0005, 0007, 0017, and 0021], allocating drive power between a traction vehicle and drive axles of a trailer based on the contact forces associated with each drive axle, the available electrical power, and a threshold maximum drive force, so as to reduce losses of drive power due to wheel slippage, to not exceed the available electrical drive power of a trailer, and to not exceed a maximum drive force value. Gugel’s equation at paragraph [0013] indicates the target drive power for the respective trailer axle P_ATj will have the same sign as the traction drive power of the traction vehicle P_ZT, as long as both the traction vehicle and the trailer are heavier than air. This ensures the drive components are cooperating to move the combination vehicle in the same direction.
In view of Gugel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Fassnacht, (re claim 1) wherein the method further comprises defining the reference control input such that: a) capabilities of the plurality of actuators to generate at least one of propulsion and braking force are taken into account, and b) when the true control input matches the reference control input, the contribution to the longitudinal force from one of the vehicle units does not counteract the contribution to the longitudinal force from any other one of the vehicle units, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Gugel teaches allocating drive power between a traction vehicle and drive axles of a trailer based on the contact forces associated with each drive axle, the available electrical power, and a threshold maximum drive force, so as to reduce losses of drive power due to wheel slippage, to not exceed the available electrical drive power of a trailer, and to not exceed a maximum drive force value. Gugel additionally teaches ensuring the drive components are cooperating to move the combination vehicle in the same direction.
Fassnacht fails to specifically teach: (re claim 2) wherein the reference control input is defined such that, further, when the true control input matches the reference control input, there is no simultaneous braking and acceleration of a same vehicle unit of the multiple vehicle units.
Gugel’s equation at paragraph [0013] indicates the target drive power for each respective trailer axle P_ATj will have the same sign. This ensures the drive components are cooperating to move the combination vehicle in the same direction.
In view of Gugel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Fassnacht, (re claim 2) wherein the reference control input is defined such that, further, when the true control input matches the reference control input, there is no simultaneous braking and acceleration of a same vehicle unit of the multiple vehicle units, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Gugel’s equation at paragraph [0013] indicates the target drive power for each respective trailer axle P_ATj will have the same sign. This ensures the drive components are cooperating to move the combination vehicle in the same direction.
Fassnacht fails to specifically teach: (re claim 3) wherein defining the reference control input is further such that when the true control input matches the reference control input, the longitudinal force of the vehicle combination is split as evenly as possible among the multiple vehicle units subject to the capabilities of the actuators.
Gugel teaches, at paragraph [0036], “A target drive power P_ATj for an electrically driven drive axle AAj is determined on the basis of the consideration that it should be proportional as much as possible to the drive power P_ZT of the traction vehicle 1.” This ensures that each driven unit is equally contributing to the propulsion of the combination vehicle, thus spreading out the wear and tear on the system’s components.
In view of Gugel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Fassnacht, (re claim 3) wherein defining the reference control input is further such that when the true control input matches the reference control input, the longitudinal force of the vehicle combination is split as evenly as possible among the multiple vehicle units subject to the capabilities of the actuators, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Gugel teaches “A target drive power P_ATj for an electrically driven drive axle AAj is determined on the basis of the consideration that it should be proportional as much as possible to the drive power P_ZT of the traction vehicle 1.” This ensures that each driven unit is equally contributing to the propulsion of the combination vehicle, thus spreading out the wear and tear on the system’s components.
Fassnacht fails to specifically teach: (re claim 4) wherein the method further comprises defining a preset split-ratio of the longitudinal force of the vehicle combination among the multiple vehicle units, and wherein defining the reference control input is further such that when the true control input matches the reference control input, the longitudinal force of the vehicle combination is split among the multiple vehicle units in accordance with the preset split-ratio.
Gugel teaches, at paragraphs [0005 and 0007], allocating drive power between a traction vehicle and drive axles of a trailer based on the contact forces associated with each drive axle so as to reduce losses of drive power due to wheel slippage.
In view of Gugel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Fassnacht, (re claim 4) wherein the method further comprises defining a preset split-ratio of the longitudinal force of the vehicle combination among the multiple vehicle units, and wherein defining the reference control input is further such that when the true control input matches the reference control input, the longitudinal force of the vehicle combination is split among the multiple vehicle units in accordance with the preset split-ratio, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Gugel teaches allocating drive power between a traction vehicle and drive axles of a trailer based on the contact forces associated with each drive axle so as to reduce losses of drive power due to wheel slippage.
Fassnacht further teaches:
Re claim 5. Wherein the plurality of actuators includes one or more electric machines (paragraph [0030]: “The electrical energy for the drive unit 23 is generated by a generator 24”).
Fassnacht fails to specifically teach: (re claim 5) one or more service brakes.
Gugel teaches, at paragraph [0008], including a compressor for trailer braking. This allows for such combination vehicles to come to a stop.
In view of Fassnacht’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Fassnacht, (re claim 5) one or more service brakes, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Gugel teaches including a compressor for trailer braking. This allows for such combination vehicles to come to a stop.
Re claim 7. A controller for control allocation in a vehicle combination including multiple vehicle units and a plurality of actuators configured to generate at least one of propulsion and braking forces, the plurality of actuators being distributed among the multiple vehicle units, and the controller comprising processing circuitry configured to cause the controller to (engine control 10, electric drive unit 23, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0010 and 0032]: “The target torque is distributed between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2 by means of a distribution circuit 33.”):
- receive requested global forces for the vehicle combination as a whole (HMI device (e.g., accelerator pedal) 30, Fig 3 and paragraph [0032]: “The control concept according to Fig. 3 is based on specifying a target torque to the drive unit 23 based on the specification of a desired speed via a human-machine interface (HMI) such as z. For example, an accelerator pedal, shown here as HMI device 30. The target torque is distributed between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2 by means of a distribution circuit 33.”);
- solve a control allocation problem in an attempt to find a true control input for the plurality of actuators based on the requested global forces, including an attempt to minimize a difference between the true control input and a reference control input for the plurality of actuators (setpoint torque limiter 32 sets limits on the target torque coming from the HMI device (accelerator pedal) 30, and the distribution circuit 33 distributes the limited target torque between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2, Fig. 3. The setpoint torque limiter 32 “attempts to minimize a difference between” the target torque coming from the HMI device 30 and the limited target torque input to the distribution circuit 33 as a limiter will retain the input value unless the input value exceeds the set limits of the limiter. Paragraph [0032]: “The target torque is distributed between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2 by means of a distribution circuit 33…. Translation management with a tractor-side target torque limitation 32 including the trailer 4 is provided to avoid stalling in the limit of the engine load if only the transmission torque is taken into account, because the trailer power also loads the drive unit 42 of the vehicle. A calculated and limited target torque is used together with an actual torque of the drive unit 23 for a target-actual comparison 41. Any difference resulting from the target-actual comparison is then fed to a torque controller 37, which adjusts the power output accordingly and delivers a corresponding power to the drive unit 23 in order to set the optimal torque to the front wheel 21 of the axle 22.”), and
- control the plurality of actuators based on the true control input such that each vehicle unit contributes to a longitudinal force of the vehicle combination indicated in requested global forces (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0032]: “The target torque is distributed between the trailer 4 and the vehicle 2 by means of a distribution circuit 33.”).
Fassnacht fails to specifically teach: (re claim 7)
- receive at least one indication of capabilities of the plurality of actuators to generate at least one of propulsion and braking force;
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured such that it causes the controller to define the reference control input such that:
a) the capabilities of the plurality of actuators to generate at least one of propulsion and braking force are taken into account, and
b) when the true control input matches the reference control input, the contribution to the longitudinal force from one of the vehicle units does not counteract the contribution to the longitudinal force from any other one of the vehicle units.
Gugel teaches, at Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0005, 0007, 0017, and 0021], allocating drive power between a traction vehicle and drive axles of a trailer based on the contact forces associated with each drive axle, the available electrical power, and a threshold maximum drive force, so as to reduce losses of drive power due to wheel slippage, to not exceed the available electrical drive power of a trailer, and to not exceed a maximum drive force value. Gugel’s equation at paragraph [0013] indicates the target drive power for the respective trailer axle P_ATj will have the same sign as the traction drive power of the traction vehicle P_ZT, as long as both the traction vehicle and the trailer are heavier than air. This ensures the drive components are cooperating to move the combination vehicle in the same direction.
In view of Gugel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the controller as taught by Fassnacht, (re claim 7) - receive at least one indication of capabilities of the plurality of actuators to generate at least one of propulsion and braking force; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured such that it causes the controller to define the reference control input such that: a) the capabilities of the plurality of actuators to generate at least one of propulsion and braking force are taken into account, and b) when the true control input matches the reference control input, the contribution to the longitudinal force from one of the vehicle units does not counteract the contribution to the longitudinal force from any other one of the vehicle units, since Gugel teaches allocating drive power between a traction vehicle and drive axles of a trailer based on the contact forces associated with each drive axle, the available electrical power, and a threshold maximum drive force, so as to reduce losses of drive power due to wheel slippage, to not exceed the available electrical drive power of a trailer, and to not exceed a maximum drive force value. Gugel additionally teaches ensuring the drive components are cooperating to move the combination vehicle in the same direction.
Fassnacht further teaches:
Re claim 9. A vehicle unit configured to form part of a vehicle combination including multiple vehicle units and a plurality of actuators configured to generate at least one of propulsion and braking forces, the plurality of actuators being distributed among the multiple vehicle units, and the vehicle unit comprising the controller according to claim 7 (vehicle 2, engine control 10, trailer 4, electric drive unit 23, Fig. 3; and paragraph [0010]).
Re claim 10. A vehicle combination including multiple vehicle units and a plurality of actuators configured to generate at least one of propulsion and braking forces, wherein the plurality of actuators are distributed among the multiple vehicle units, and wherein the vehicle combination includes the controller according to claim 7 (vehicle 2, engine control 10, trailer 4, electric drive unit 23, Fig. 3; and paragraph [0010]).
Re claim 11. Wherein the plurality of actuators includes one or more electric machines (paragraph [0030]: “The electrical energy for the drive unit 23 is generated by a generator 24”).
Fassnacht fails to specifically teach: (re claim 11) one or more service brakes.
Gugel teaches, at paragraph [0008], including a compressor for trailer braking. This allows for such combination vehicles to come to a stop.
In view of Fassnacht’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Fassnacht, (re claim 11) one or more service brakes, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Gugel teaches including a compressor for trailer braking. This allows for such combination vehicles to come to a stop.
Fassnacht further teaches:
Re claim 15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program with computer code that, when running on processing circuitry of a controller of the vehicle combination, causes the controller to performed the method according to claim 1 (paragraph [0010]).
Re claim 16. A computer program product comprising the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 15 (inherently necessary to provide instructions for the computing unit of paragraph [0010]).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fassnacht (DE102016220905) as modified by Gugel et al. (US 2017/0129558) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0156604).
The teachings of Fassnacht have been discussed above. Fassnacht fails to specifically teach: (re claims 6 and 12) wherein the one or more electric machines are capable of generating both propulsion and braking force.
Liu teaches, at paragraph [0111], outputting electric braking force through traction motors of combination vehicles. This allows for such motors to be used for both acceleration and deceleration, and reduces the load on friction-based brakes.
In view of Liu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Fassnacht, (re claims 6 and 12) wherein the one or more electric machines are capable of generating both propulsion and braking force, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Liu teaches outputting electric braking force through traction motors of combination vehicles. This allows for such motors to be used for both acceleration and deceleration, and reduces the load on friction-based brakes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks, on pages 8-11,
With regards to Gugel, Gugel does not disclose solving of a control allocation problem in order to determine what forces that are to be generated by each actuator. For the sake of the argument, assume that the terms force and power are interchangeable.
PNG
media_image1.png
88
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To the contrary, Gugel discloses that the power target PAⱼ for each i-th actuator (or axle) of the trailer is to be decided based on the equation
where FAj is the contact force on the i-th axle, FZT is the sum of all contact forces of the tractor, and where PZT is the determined traction drive power of the traction vehicle (see e.g. [0013] and [0014] of Gugel).
The drive power PZT of the traction vehicle is an input to the equation used to determine the drive power for the i-th axle of the trailer.
Gugel does clearly not disclose solving any optimization problem, and certainly not one related to control allocation, but provides a specific solution in which the power target for each trailer axle is given directly by the above equation. There is no attempt whatsoever in Gugel to modify both PZT and PAⱼ in accordance with some particular cost function of an optimization problem.
Thus, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the equation (1) in the solution of Fassnacht. This is not correct, as that is not how control allocation works.
…
Obviously, in such control allocation, the various targets for the tractor and trailer are thus necessarily determined simultaneously, and one is not used as input to the other, in contrast with equation (1) of Gugel.
PNG
media_image2.png
56
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In control allocation, the way of steering the actuators towards a particular desired control input is through
U
r
e
f
. Trying to modify the solution of Fassnacht based on the teachings of Gugel would include to set
where FAⱼ is determined using equation (1). However, at this part of the algorithm, the value of e.g. PZτ required to determine FAⱼ would not be available, as PZτ is itself to be determined by solving the very same control allocation problem.
Giving the claims their broadest reasonable definition consistent with the specification, the specification as well as the claims themselves make no assumption other than that "control allocation" is how it is normally used and defined within the field of vehicle motion control, i.e. the problem of how to solve an underdetermined system resulting from an over-actuated system wherein the actuators available outnumber the controllable degrees of freedom. This does, by its very definition, require solving of an optimization problem such as indicated above to distribute the desired control allocation demand over the actuators. Gugel does not teach or relate to such a solution but instead proposes a direct solution wherein the "true control input"
u
is instead found directly based on an already determined/measured power PZτ of the traction vehicle and on measured contact forces FAⱼ and FZT of the trailer axle's and traction vehicle, respectively.
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). Gugel, at paragraphs [0005 and 0007], suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, allocating drive power between a traction vehicle and a drive axle (or multiple drive axles) of a trailer proportionally to the contact forces associated with the traction vehicle and the individual drive axles of the trailer so that losses of drive power due to wheel slippage are reduced. This achieves a drive torque transmitted to the surface being driven on that represents a maximum for the traction vehicle-trailer combination. Gugel further teaches, at paragraph [0017], controlling multiple drive axles on the trailer in such a manner that the sum of the individual target traction powers for the individual drive axles is at most as large as an electrical power available, and the ratio of the individual target drive powers for the individual drive axles corresponds to the ratio of the contact forces associated with these individual drive axles so as not to exceed the instantaneously available electrical drive power for the trailer. Gugel further teaches, at paragraph [0021], not exceeding a maximum transmittable drive torque or a maximum drive force, dependent on the weight force of the traction vehicle.
In view of Gugel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control allocation problem of Fassnacht to not exceed a maximum transmittable drive torque or a maximum drive force dependent on the available contact forces so as not to cause the wheels to slip while accelerating or decelerating the combination vehicle.
Applicant further remarks, on page 11,
Thus, the one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success of replacing the control allocation problem of Fassnacht with the direct solution of Gugel, as doing so would not make possible to find a solution for how to control the actuators to generate the control allocation demand V. Phrased differently, even if somehow succeeding to control the vehicle combination using the solution of Gugel, the resulting solution would not involve solving a control allocation problem as claimed, as such problems do not rely on already having determined the control actions of the traction vehicle. Claim 1 is thus not rendered obvious by Fassnacht in view of Gugel.
The proposed combination does not suggest replacing the control allocation problem of Fassnacht with the direct solution of Gugel, but rather suggests incorporating the suggestions of Gugel into the control allocation problem of Fassnacht so as to prevent the drive force from causing wheel slip.
Conclusion
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 SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights