DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed July 28, 2026. Claims 1, 13, and 14 have been amended. Claim 21 is new. Claims 12 and 16 have been canceled; claim 17 was previously canceled. Claims 1–11, 13–15 and 18–21 are currently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the previous rejection of claims 1–16 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks, “When the claim is analyzed, its determining steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind. … As described in the specification, these determinations are quantitative control-allocation operations performed on machine-generated signals. For example, the true combination control input is obtained by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem over the actuator capabilities of the vehicle combination (Specification ¶¶ [0088]-[0090]), and the resulting control inputs are used to command the physical actuators of each unit (Specification ¶ [0099]). These are not observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions of the type a person could perform mentally, and the mere use of the word ‘determining’ does not convert a limitation into a mental process.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111). At the outset, the sentence in the May 4, 2026 action stating that the claimed invention is directed to “the concept of tracking and predicting the movement of unclassified object in a scene” was a clerical error and is withdrawn. It did not describe these claims, and the analysis that followed it identified the “determining” limitations of claim 1 as the recited abstract idea. The corrected identification of the abstract idea is set forth in the § 101 rejection below. Claim 1 does not recite a weighted least squares optimization, any real-time requirement, any number or type of actuators, or any step of commanding an actuator. The weighted least squares optimization is recited only in dependent claims 13 and 15, and the actuator commands appear only in the specification passages that Applicant cites. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.01(II). As claimed, each step of claim 1 determines one value (an “input”) from other values: a power allocation input from a reference input and a power capability, subject to the result that total power losses are below a threshold; a virtual control input from the reference input; a true combination control input from those two inputs; and a unit-specific virtual control input from the true combination control input. For a combination of a tractor and a single trailer, a person can practically perform each of these determinations with pen and paper. For example, a person can take a requested acceleration and the state of charge of a trailer battery, choose how much of the requested propulsion the trailer should provide so that the estimated losses stay below a limit, compute the corresponding total force request, combine the two into an overall command, and divide that command into a share for the tractor and a share for the trailer. These are observations, evaluations, and judgments of the kind the mental-process grouping covers, and the use of a computer to perform them does not change that. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)–(C). Further, to the extent the determinations are performed by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem (claims 13 and 15), that optimization is a mathematical calculation, which is itself an abstract idea within the mathematical-concepts grouping. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Those claims therefore recite a judicial exception whether or not the optimization is practical to perform mentally.
Applicant further argues on page 9 of the Remarks, “The Office Action treats only a generic ‘computer’ as an additional element and does not address the specific control-allocation limitations recited in the claim.” Applicant further argues on page 10 of the Remarks, “This two-stage architecture, which further constrains the power allocation so that the total power losses of the vehicle combination remain below a threshold, is a concrete improvement to vehicle-control technology, not the mere automation of a mental task on a generic computer,” and “It determines control inputs that are used to control a particular machine: a physical vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit, having units with batteries, electrical machines, service brakes, and steering actuators (Specification ¶¶ [0052]-[0053]). The specification describes that, after the control inputs are determined, they are used to control the actuators of each vehicle unit, for example by sending control signals to those actuators (Specification ¶ [0099]).” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The “specific control-allocation limitations” are the four determining steps, and those steps are the abstract idea itself. They were addressed at Prong One and cannot also serve as the additional elements that integrate the exception. MPEP 2106.04(d)(II). The same is true of the requirement that the total power losses be below a threshold, which is a criterion that the recited determination must satisfy, not a separate element. An improvement can integrate an exception only if the claim itself reflects it, and the improvement cannot come from the abstract idea alone. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); MPEP 2106.05(a). Claim 1 ends with determining a unit-specific virtual control input. No claimed step sends any input to an actuator, operates a battery, electrical machine, service brake, or steering actuator, or otherwise changes the motion of the vehicle combination. The actuator control that Applicant describes (Specification ¶ [0099], as cited by Applicant) is not recited in claim 1 or in any dependent claim. The preamble phrase “for controlling a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit” states the intended use of the determined values and links the abstract idea to a field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h). For the same reason, the vehicle combination is not a particular machine that is integral to the claim. The claimed steps are not performed by the vehicle combination and do not use it; the vehicle combination is only the subject of the calculated values. MPEP 2106.05(b). The “computer” of the preamble, and the processor device, storage medium, computer system, and vehicle containing the processor device recited in claims 18–20, are generic computing elements used as tools to perform the determinations. They are mere instructions to apply the exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues on pages 10–11 of the Remarks, “The Step 2B analysis in the Office Action rests solely on the assertion that the ‘computer’ is a generic component performing the abstract idea, and it does not consider the recited limitations as an ordered combination. The specific, ordered combination recited in claim 1 forms the distributed, multi-level control-allocation system described in the specification (Specification ¶¶ [0063]-[0065]) and is not a well-understood, routine, and conventional arrangement. … The Office Action provides no factual evidence that this ordered combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as required under Berkheimer v. HP Inc. and MPEP § 2106.05(d).” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The Step 2B conclusion does not rest on a finding that any additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. It rests on the determination that the only additional elements, the generic computer and processor device, amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and that the preamble and the vehicle of claim 20 only link the exception to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h)). Those considerations do not require evidentiary support. The Berkheimer evidentiary requirement applies when an examiner concludes that an additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional under MPEP 2106.05(d). Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018); MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). No such conclusion is made, and no Berkheimer evidence is needed. The reference in the May 4, 2026 action to “well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements” in the dependent claims is not relied upon and does not appear in this action. As to the ordered combination, the order of the steps (power allocation input and virtual control input, then true combination control input, then unit-specific virtual control input) is the order of the calculations that make up the abstract idea. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add only a generic computer that performs those calculations in sequence. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself, however new or unconventional the calculation may be. MPEP 2106.05(I); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”). Therefore, the rejection of claims 1–11, 13–15, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained. New claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the reasons set forth in the rejection below.
In regards to the previous rejection of claims 1–16 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant argues that the prior art does not explicitly disclose the limitations “determining a true combination control input, uunits, based on the power allocation input, uunits,des, and the virtual combination control input, vcomb,req” and “determining a unit-specific virtual control input, uunit,i, based on the true combination control input”. Applicant further argues on page 12 of the Remarks, “The cited references do not teach or suggest this combination-level allocation. Källstrand and Johansen each describe conventional, single-level (‘flat’) control allocation, in which a single allocator maps a virtual control command directly onto the physical actuators of the vehicle by solving the over-determined system v = Bu for the actuator signals u. … Because the references map the virtual command straight to physical actuator signals, they never generate the claimed intermediate, unit-specific virtual control input, uunit,i, that is itself the output of a higher-level, combination-wide allocation and is only thereafter resolved into actuator commands at the unit level.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. As recited in the previous office action, Healy is incorporated to disclose the computer-implemented method for a vehicle combination of a towing vehicle and a towed trailer having an electrically powered drive axle, and the determination of a power allocation input based on a reference input and the power capability of the trailer’s energy store so as to minimize losses (see at least Healy, para. [0046], [0064], [0072], [0078]). Examiner is aware that Healy does not describe its torque split in control-allocation terms, however Johansen is incorporated to teach the true combination control input, and Källstrand is incorporated to teach the unit-specific virtual control input (see at least Johansen, p. 4, §2.1, eqs. (12)–(13); p. 16, §4.3.2; Källstrand, p. 34, §3.1.1; p. 41). Each of these limitations is attributed to one reference only. Neither reference is limited to the “flat” allocation Applicant describes. As to the true combination control input, Johansen’s allocation determines the control input u for the over-actuated system as a whole from the commanded virtual input and a preferred value of the control input: “minu∈Rp ½(u − up)TW(u − up) subject to τc = Bu” and “up is the preferred value of u” (see at least Johansen, p. 4, §2.1, eqs. (12)–(13)). Johansen does not require that this allocated input be the final actuator command. In the ground-vehicle applications that Johansen surveys, “Nonlinearities and uncertainty is with these approaches handled within low-level actuator/effector controllers that can also provide time-varying constraint limits (such as estimated maximum tire/road friction coefficient) to the control allocation.” (see at least Johansen, p. 16, §4.3.1). Johansen also applies the combination-level allocation where the effectors are whole vehicles: “several tug-boats cooperatively generate forces and moments in order to tow a floating structure” and the implementation “requires a supervisory strategy that coordinates the tub-boats that operate as effectors/actuators in this framework” (see at least Johansen, p. 15, §4.2.3). This is a combination-wide allocation of the kind Applicant describes as an allocator that “treats each entire vehicle unit as an actuator” (Remarks, p. 12). As to the unit-specific virtual control input, which only Källstrand is relied upon to teach, Källstrand does not map the virtual command straight to actuator signals. Källstrand’s allocation produces forces, which are then converted: “The result of the optimization problem is a set of tire forces, which can then be translated to actuator signals according to:” (see at least Källstrand, p. 41, eqs. (3.33a)–(3.33b)). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the force-level output of the allocation for the wheels of a given unit, which is later translated into that unit’s actuator signals, is considered a unit-specific virtual control input determined based on the true combination control input. Further, claim 1 does not require that the unit-specific virtual control input be produced by a “first-level allocator,” that it be “intermediate,” or that it be “only thereafter resolved into actuator commands at the unit level.” Claim 1 does not recite any actuator command. The multi-unit context of the combination is supplied by Healy’s power allocation input, which only Healy is relied upon to teach. Healy’s power allocation is itself a split of the combination’s torque demand between the powered vehicle and the trailer: “a first plurality of torques that may be applied by the powered vehicle, and a second plurality of torques that may be applied at the trailer (e.g., applied by the electric motor-generator), are determined” (see at least Healy, para. [0073]), “an optimal combination of a first torque from the first plurality of torques, and a second torque from the second plurality of torques, is selected” (see at least Healy, para. [0075]), and “a specified trailer torque may be computed and applied to the one or more trailer axles 120, by way of the electric motor-generator 130” (see at least Healy, para. [0078]; see also para. [0074]). Healy is not relied upon for the unit-specific virtual control input.
Applicant further argues on pages 12–13 of the Remarks, “But neither reference, alone or in combination, discloses first determining a true combination control input for the combination as a whole and then deriving a separate, intermediate per-unit virtual control input from it. Johansen’s generic description of a multi-level control hierarchy does not cure this deficiency, because it does not disclose the specific two-stage allocation now recited in claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Johansen’s teaching is not merely generic. As set forth above, Johansen describes an allocation that computes the control input for the whole over-actuated system from the commanded virtual forces and moments and a preferred value up of the control input (see at least Johansen, p. 4, §2.1, eqs. (12)–(13)). Johansen applies control allocation to ground vehicles to “coordinate the electric motors in individual combinations of drive/brake mode while optimizing energy efficiency” (see at least Johansen, p. 16, §4.3.2), handles nonlinearities and uncertainty of the individual actuators within low-level actuator/effector controllers (p. 16, §4.3.1), and applies the allocation across several whole vessels coordinated by a supervisory strategy (p. 15, §4.2.3). Källstrand, the only reference relied upon for the unit-specific virtual control input, teaches that the allocation result is a set of forces that is then translated into actuator signals (p. 41). Applicant’s argument that neither Källstrand nor Johansen alone discloses both steps attacks the references individually. Johansen teaches determining a combination-level allocated control input from the commanded virtual forces and a preferred (for example, energy-efficient) control input; Källstrand teaches that the allocated result is a set of forces for the individual wheels that is then translated into actuator signals; and Healy already determines the power allocation input as a split of the combination’s torque demand between the tractor unit and the trailer unit. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Healy to incorporate the teaching of determining a true combination control input for the vehicle combination based on the power allocation input and the virtual combination control input, and then determining from it a force-level, unit-specific virtual control input for each unit, because the weighted allocation meets the commanded virtual forces while honoring an energy-efficient preferred input (see at least Johansen, p. 4, §2.1, eqs. (12)–(13); p. 16, §4.3.2), and because in Källstrand “the actuator signals of the real system are abstracted into v, and the controller design performed on the virtual system model”, an approach that “simplifies the controller design process” (see at least Källstrand, p. 34, §3.1.1).
Applicant further argues on page 13 of the Remarks, “New claim 21 depends from claim 14 and recites additional features not described by the cited references,” and “This amendment recites the two-level architecture, including the plurality of unit control allocators that perform the second allocation step. Each unit-level allocator independently resolves its local unit-specific virtual control input into final actuator commands (u_i).” Claim 21 is a new claim. Its limitation “via a plurality of unit control allocators” was not previously presented, and it is addressed by the new ground of rejection of claim 21 set forth below, which is necessitated by amendment. As set forth there, Källstrand teaches determining the unit-specific true control input for the respective unit based on the unit-specific virtual control input (see at least Källstrand, p. 34, §3.1.1; p. 41), and Johansen teaches performing that lower-level allocation via a plurality of allocators, namely “hierarchical decomposition into actuator groups” where “the algorithm can be distributed on multiple processors” (see at least Johansen, p. 17, §4.4), with the individual actuators “handled in the low-level controllers at each actuator/effector” (see at least Johansen, p. 17, §4.3.4).
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 1–11, 13–15, and 18–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1–11, 13–15, and 21 are directed to a computer-implemented method for controlling a vehicle combination (i.e., a process). Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture), claim 19 is directed to a computer system (i.e., a machine), and claim 20 is directed to a vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1–11, 13–15, and 18–21 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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 computer-implemented method for controlling a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit, the method comprising:
determining a power allocation input, uunits,des, for the vehicle combination based on a reference input, rref, for the vehicle combination and a power capability of one or more units of the vehicle combination such that the total power losses of the vehicle combination are below a threshold;
determining a virtual control input, vcomb,req, for the vehicle combination based on the reference input;
determining a true combination control input, uunits, based on the power allocation input, uunits,des, and the virtual combination control input, vcomb,req; and
determining a unit-specific virtual control input, uunit,i, based on the true combination control input.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “determining a power allocation input…,” “determining a virtual control input…,” “determining a true combination control input…,” and “determining a unit-specific virtual control input…” in the context of this claim each determine a value from other values: a power allocation input from a reference input and a power capability, chosen so that the total power losses are below a threshold; a virtual control input from the reference input; a true combination control input from the power allocation input and the virtual control input; and a unit-specific virtual control input from the true combination control input. The claim does not limit how any of these values is determined, how many units or actuators are involved, or how quickly the determination is made. For a tractor and a single trailing unit, the steps encompass a person reading a requested acceleration and the state of charge of a battery, judging how much of the requested propulsion each unit should supply so that the estimated losses stay below a limit, computing the corresponding total force request, combining the two into an overall command, and dividing that command into a share for each unit, in the mind or with pen and paper. These are observations, evaluations, and judgments within the mental-process grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), and that the method is “computer-implemented” does not remove the steps from that grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, 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 are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for controlling a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit, the method comprising:
determining a power allocation input, uunits,des, for the vehicle combination based on a reference input, rref, for the vehicle combination and a power capability of one or more units of the vehicle combination such that the total power losses of the vehicle combination are below a threshold;
determining a virtual control input, vcomb,req, for the vehicle combination based on the reference input;
determining a true combination control input, uunits, based on the power allocation input, uunits,des, and the virtual combination control input, vcomb,req; and
determining a unit-specific virtual control input, uunit,i, based on the true combination control input.
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 additional limitation of “computer-implemented,” the examiner submits that this limitation merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computer environment. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps. The specification describes the processor device of the computer system as, for example, a general-purpose processor (description of FIG. 6), and describes the control allocators as modules that “may e.g. be implemented as code running on a processing circuitry, or similar” (description of FIG. 2). This limitation is mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional limitation of “for controlling a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit,” the examiner submits that this preamble limitation states the intended use of the determined inputs and does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely vehicle combinations. MPEP 2106.05(h). No step of claim 1 uses the determined inputs to operate any actuator, battery, electrical machine, brake, or steering system of the vehicle combination, or otherwise changes the motion of the vehicle combination; claim 1 ends with the determination of a unit-specific virtual control input. The vehicle combination is therefore not a particular machine that is integral to the claim; it is the subject of the determined values and does not perform or constrain the claimed steps. MPEP 2106.05(b). Nor does the claim reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to vehicle-control technology. The asserted benefits (reduced losses, stability, and adaptability to different configurations) are attributed to the determinations themselves, and an improvement in the abstract idea is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, 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 as 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 using a computer to perform the “determining…” steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of “for controlling a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit,” the examiner submits that this limitation merely links the abstract idea to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), which likewise cannot provide an inventive concept.
No additional element was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, so there is nothing to re-evaluate in Step 2B as to whether it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, and the conclusion above does not rest on any such finding. Accordingly, no evidentiary showing under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)(III) is required. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing beyond a generic computer that performs the recited calculations in the recited order, and the order of the calculations is part of the abstract idea itself. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself. MPEP 2106.05(I). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2–11, 13–15, and 21, and claims 18–20, which incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1, do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and additional elements that merely apply the exception on a generic computer or link it to a field of use, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 recite what the virtual control input and the power allocation input consist of; claims 4–7 and 10 recite what information the determinations are based on; and claim 14 recites a further determination of a unit-specific true control input from the unit-specific virtual control input. Each of these is an observation, evaluation, or judgment of the same kind as the steps of claim 1. Claims 13 and 15 recite determining the true combination control input (claim 13) and the unit-specific true control input (claim 15) “by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem,” and claim 11 recites determining the power allocation “using an optimisation function to minimise the total power losses of the vehicle combination.” These are mathematical calculations, and those claims therefore also recite an abstract idea within the mathematical-concepts grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). Claim 21 recites determining the unit-specific true control input “via a plurality of unit control allocators.” The unit control allocators are recited only by the function they perform and, on the description of FIG. 2 (code running on a processing circuitry), are generic software modules on generic processing circuitry; distributing a calculation over several such modules is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims 18 and 19 add only a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, instructions, a processor device, and a computer system, which are generic computer components used as tools to perform the method (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and claim 20 adds only a vehicle comprising the processor device, which links the method to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). None of these claims recites a step that uses the determined inputs to operate the vehicle combination, and none adds insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, dependent claims 2–11, 13–15, and 21, and claims 18–20, are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1–11, 13–15, and 18–21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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.
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 1–11, 13–15 and 18–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Healy et al. (US 20180086227 A1) in view of Källstrand (“Control Allocation for Vehicle Motion Control: Maximizing Traction and Steering Capabilities Under Different Road Conditions,” 2016) and further in view of Johansen et al. (“Control Allocation – A Survey,” 2013), hereinafter referred to as Healy, Källstrand and Johansen.
Regarding claim 1, Healy discloses
A computer-implemented method for controlling a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit, the method comprising: (“the hybrid suspension system 100 may include a frame 110, a suspension, one or more drive axles (e.g., such as a drive axle 120), at least one electric motor-generator (e.g., such as an electric-motor generator 130) coupled to the at least one or more drive axles, an energy storage system (e.g., such as a battery array 140), and a controller (e.g., such as a control system 150). In accordance with at least some embodiments, the hybrid suspension system 100 is configured for attachment beneath a trailer.” [0046]; “the trailer may include a semi-trailer coupled to and towed by a truck or tractor (e.g., a powered towing vehicle)” [0046]; “the tractor-trailer vehicle 160 of FIG. 1C may be referred to as an HVTS” [0069]; “the master control unit 228 may include a microprocessor and/or microcontroller operable to execute one or more sequences of instructions contained in the memory storage device, for example, to perform the various methods described herein” [0061]);
determining a power allocation input, uunits,des, for the vehicle combination based on a reference input, rref, for the vehicle combination and a power capability of one or more units of the vehicle combination such that the total power losses of the vehicle combination are below a threshold; (“the control system 150 may compute a total estimated torque and computationally estimate a torque applied by the powered vehicle 165 (e.g., which may include estimating throttle and/or braking). In some embodiments, based on the total estimated torque and the computationally estimated torque of the powered vehicle, a specified trailer torque may be computed” [0078]; “Based on the current SOC for battery array 140, an array of possible options for amperage discharge and charge values are calculated. These possibilities are converted to kW power as potential battery power discharge and charge possibilities. Battery inefficiencies and motor controller inefficiencies are considered” [0064]; “the specified trailer torque is computed, at least in part, by utilizing the estimated and/or predicted driver-applied torque in an energy optimization algorithm that utilizes an equivalent consumption minimization strategy (ECMS) to simultaneously optimize the fuel consumption of the powered vehicle and the energy usage (e.g., battery charge) of the hybrid suspension system 100” [0072]; “an optimal (e.g., minimum) fuel usage from the combined usage map is determined” [0075].
Healy does not explicitly disclose
determining a virtual control input, vcomb,req, for the vehicle combination based on the reference input;
determining a true combination control input, uunits, based on the power allocation input, uunits,des, and the virtual combination control input, vcomb,req; and
determining a unit-specific virtual control input, uunit,i, based on the true combination control input.
However, Källstrand does teach determining a virtual control input, vcomb,req, for the vehicle combination based on the reference input;(“For the considered vehicle application, the reference signal r is comprised of a longitudinal acceleration request axreq and desired front steering angle. The target generator then calculates the virtual control signal Fx as:” p. 36, eq. (3.14); “The reference signals sent by the motion controller are then used to generate the global forces and desired actuator signals.” p. 36; Figure 3.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy to also include determining a virtual control input, in the form of global forces and moment for the vehicle, from the reference input, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Expressing the motion request as a virtual control input lets the controller design be performed on the virtual system model, with the actuator signals of the real system abstracted into that input, while actuator limitations such as saturation limits and rate constraints can still be considered when the virtual input is mapped to the actuators. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Källstrand p. 34, §§3.1.1–3.1.2; p. 36.)
However, Johansen does teach determining a true combination control input, uunits, based on the power allocation input, uunits,des, and the virtual combination control input, vcomb,req; (“where B ∈ Rm×p is a matrix, sometimes called the control effectiveness matrix, that describes the relationship between the control inputs u and the virtual control inputs τ (forces and moments) produced jointly by the effectors” p. 4, §2, eq. (11); “minu∈Rp ½(u − up)TW(u − up) subject to τc = Bu” p. 4, §2.1, eq. (12); “where W ∈ Rp×p is a positive definite weighting matrix, and up is the preferred value of u. When B has full rank, this weighted least-squares problem has the following explicit solution” and “u = (I − CB)up + Cτc” p. 4, §2.1, eq. (13); “Control allocation can be used to coordinate the electric motors in individual combinations of drive/brake mode while optimizing energy efficiency.” p. 16, §4.3.2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand, to also include determining a combination-level allocated control input from the virtual control input and a preferred control input corresponding to the power allocation, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Weighting the allocated control input toward a preferred value while exactly producing the commanded virtual forces resolves the redundancy of an over-actuated system with an explicit solution, and Johansen applies control allocation to coordinate the electric drive/brake motors of ground vehicles while optimizing energy efficiency, so that Healy’s energy-optimal torque split can be honored while the combination’s motion request is met. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Johansen p. 4, §2.1, eqs. (12)–(14); p. 16, §4.3.2.)
However, Källstrand does teach determining a unit-specific virtual control input, uunit,i, based on the true combination control input.(“This approach simplifies the controller design process, which then can be split into two parts: 1. Design a primary controller which dictates the virtual control signal v. 2. Find a unique mapping between v and the physical actuator signals contained in u.” p. 34, §3.1.1; “With the optimization variables defined, the control vector u can then be written” p. 39, eq. (3.25), in which the control vector u consists of individual tire forces for the driven wheels; “The result of the optimization problem is a set of tire forces” p. 41; “This approach to motion control has shown promising results for both single unit trucks [8, 12, 18], as well as long vehicle combinations [19]” p. 36.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include determining, from the combination-level allocation, force-level inputs for the wheels of each unit that are subsequently translated into that unit’s actuator signals, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Splitting the design into a primary controller that dictates the virtual control signal and a separate mapping to the physical actuator signals simplifies the controller design, leaves only the control efficiency matrix to be found from the available actuators, and has shown promising results for long vehicle combinations. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Källstrand p. 34, §3.1.1; p. 35, §3.1.3; p. 36.)
Regarding claim 2,
Healy does not explicitly disclose
wherein the virtual combination control input, vcomb,req, comprises a set of desired motion parameters determined based the reference input, rref.
However, Johansen does teach wherein the virtual combination control input, vcomb,req, comprises a set of desired motion parameters determined based the reference input, rref. (“a high-level motion control algorithm commands a vector of virtual control efforts (i.e. forces and moments) in order to meet the overall motion control objectives” p. 1, Abstract; “where B ∈ Rm×p is a matrix, sometimes called the control effectiveness matrix, that describes the relationship between the control inputs u and the virtual control inputs τ (forces and moments) produced jointly by the effectors” p. 4, §2, eq. (11); “This is in particular the case during dynamic positioning operations that include station keeping and low-speed maneuvering using joystick control or automatic tracking functionality” and “Such control systems often control the vessel in three degrees of freedom (surge, sway and yaw) and command the required surge and sway forces as well as yaw moment to the thrust allocation system.” p. 13, §4.2.1; “The ESC detects deviation between the actual lateral motion of the vehicle and the drivers intention, usually by comparing the vehicle’s lateral acceleration and yaw rate with information computed from the steering wheel angle commanded by the driver.” and “the constrained forces and moments generated by the four brakes must be coordinated to generate the desired yaw moment” p. 15, §4.3.1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include a virtual control input made up of the desired forces and moments for the controlled degrees of freedom, determined from the commanded motion, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Commanding the virtual input as the required forces and moment in the controlled degrees of freedom, derived from the operator’s or driver’s command, gives the allocation a demand that the effectors can produce jointly through the control effectiveness matrix, so that the effectors together realize the requested motion and meet the overall motion control objectives. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Johansen p. 1, Abstract; p. 4, §2, eq. (11); p. 13, §4.2.1; p. 15, §4.3.1.)
Regarding claim 3,
Healy does not explicitly disclose
wherein the set of desired motion parameters of the virtual combination control input, vcomb,req, comprises at least one of a longitudinal force, Fxtot, of the vehicle combination, a lateral force, Fytot, of the vehicle combination, a longitudinal coupling force, Fcxi, between consecutive units, a lateral coupling force, Fcyi, between consecutive units, and a yaw moment for one or more units, Mzi.
However, Källstrand does teach wherein the set of desired motion parameters of the virtual combination control input, vcomb,req, comprises at least one of a longitudinal force, Fxtot, of the vehicle combination, a lateral force, Fytot, of the vehicle combination, a longitudinal coupling force, Fcxi, between consecutive units, a lateral coupling force, Fcyi, between consecutive units, and a yaw moment for one or more units, Mzi.(“Previous works on motion control by use of control allocation, see [8, 12, 18, 19], have used total, also referred to as global, forces and torques acting on the vehicle as the virtual control signal:” p. 35, eq. (3.9), in which the virtual control signal v consists of the total longitudinal force Fx, the total lateral force Fy, and the yaw moment Mz; “For ground vehicle motion control applications, the longitudinal and lateral dynamics, as well as the yaw motion are of the most interest. For these states Equation (2.2) can be expanded as follows:” p. 8, eqs. (2.3a)–(2.3c); see also the virtual control vector of the force allocation formulation, v = [Fx Mz]T, p. 39, and the longitudinal-force constraints of eq. (3.27), p. 39, and eq. (3.28), p. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include a virtual control input comprising the total longitudinal force, the total lateral force, and the yaw moment, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the global forces and yaw moment as the virtual control signal lets the controller design be performed on the virtual system model of the vehicle’s longitudinal, lateral, and yaw motion, while the control efficiency matrix is found from the available actuators. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Källstrand p. 34, §3.1.1; p. 35, §3.1.3.)
Regarding claim 4,
Healy does not explicitly disclose
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising determining the virtual control input, vcomb,req, for the vehicle combination based on a motion capability, vcomb,cap, of the vehicle combination.
However, Källstrand does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising determining the virtual control input, vcomb,req, for the vehicle combination based on a motion capability, vcomb,cap, of the vehicle combination. (“Based on the choice of virtual control signals, the control vector u and control efficiency matrix B can then be found.” p. 35; “Since the driven wheel cannot produce any additional lateral forces, the global force Fy will be dropped from the virtual control vector” p. 39; “Any desired driving or braking force Fx,i must thus fulfill:” p. 39, eq. (3.22); force limits set by the engine and brake capabilities, eq. (3.27), p. 39, and eqs. (3.28) and (3.32a)–(3.32b), p. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include determining the virtual control input based on the forces the vehicle is capable of producing, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Considering actuator limitations, such as saturation limits and rate constraints, when the virtual control input is mapped to the actuators avoids requesting forces that the vehicle cannot generate. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Källstrand p. 34, §3.1.2; p. 39; p. 40.)
Regarding claim 5,
Healy does not explicitly disclose
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising determining the virtual control input, vcomb,req, for the vehicle combination based on a vehicle model configured to model instabilities in vehicle motion.
However, Källstrand does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising determining the virtual control input, vcomb,req, for the vehicle combination based on a vehicle model configured to model instabilities in vehicle motion. (“The general state space model of the vehicle system, given by Equation (2.3), can thus be written” p. 35, eqs. (3.10a)–(3.10c), “which can be seen to resemble the general state space formulation ẋ = g(x) + v” p. 35; “The equations given in (2.3) form the nonlinear state space model upon which the controller algorithms presented in this thesis will be based.” p. 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include determining the virtual control input based on a nonlinear model of the vehicle’s longitudinal, lateral, and yaw dynamics, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Performing the controller design on a virtual system model of the vehicle’s motion states simplifies the controller design process. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Källstrand p. 8; pp. 34–35.)
Regarding claim 6,
Healy does not explicitly disclose
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the reference input, rref, comprises at least one of a longitudinal acceleration, a longitudinal velocity, vxi, of the tractor unit, a lateral velocity, vyi, of the tractor unit, a yaw rate, ωzi, of at least one unit of the vehicle combination, and a steering angle, δf,req, of the tractor unit.
However, Källstrand does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the reference input, rref, comprises at least one of a longitudinal acceleration, a longitudinal velocity, vxi, of the tractor unit, a lateral velocity, vyi, of the tractor unit, a yaw rate, ωzi, of at least one unit of the vehicle combination, and a steering angle, δf,req, of the tractor unit. (“For the considered vehicle application, the reference signal r is comprised of a longitudinal acceleration request axreq and desired front steering angle.” p. 36; “where δfreq is the front steering angle requested by the primary controller.” p. 37, following eq. (3.15)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include a reference input comprising a longitudinal acceleration request and a requested front steering angle, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. These are the requests that the operator, through the accelerator/brake pedals and steering wheel angle, or an autonomous motion controller naturally provides, and from which the global forces and desired actuator signals are generated. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Källstrand p. 36.)
Regarding claim 7, Healy discloses
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the power capability of a unit is determined based on at least one of a state of charge, a state of health, a state of power, and a state of energy of a battery of the unit. (“Based on the current SOC for battery array 140, an array of possible options for amperage discharge and charge values are calculated. These possibilities are converted to kW power as potential battery power discharge and charge possibilities.” [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Healy discloses
wherein the power allocation input, uunits,des, comprises a set of desired motion parameters determined based on a power allocation for one or more units. (“the corresponding index value is then used to select an optimal torque value for the hybrid suspension system 100 from the torque-to-energy usage map, and the optimal torque value for the hybrid suspension system 100 is applied” [0075]; “a specified trailer torque may be computed and applied to the one or more trailer axles 120, by way of the electric motor-generator 130” [0078]).
Regarding claim 9, Healy discloses
wherein the set of desired motion parameters of the power allocation input, uunits,des, comprises at least one of a desired electric machine force, Fx,eli,des, for one or more units and a desired electric service brake, Fx,sbi,des, force for one or more units. (“a specified trailer torque may be computed and applied to the one or more trailer axles 120, by way of the electric motor-generator 130” [0078]; “the hybrid suspension system 100 is operated in the appropriate one of the at least three modes of operation (e.g., power assist, regeneration, or passive) in order to provide the specified trailer torque” [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Healy discloses
comprising determining the power allocation for a unit based on a power demand and at least one of a power loss associated with service brakes of the unit, a power loss associated with a battery of the unit, and a power loss associated with an electrical machine of the unit. (“the control system 150 may compute a total estimated torque and computationally estimate a torque applied by the powered vehicle 165 (e.g., which may include estimating throttle and/or braking)” [0078]; “Battery inefficiencies and motor controller inefficiencies are considered along with possible electric drivetrain gear ratios to arrive at the corresponding potential electric motor torques that can be applied and resultant wheel torques which can be applied to the vehicle using electric motor-generator 130” [0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Healy discloses
comprising determining the power allocation for one or more units using an optimisation function to minimise the total power losses of the vehicle combination. (“the specified trailer torque is computed, at least in part, by utilizing the estimated and/or predicted driver-applied torque in an energy optimization algorithm that utilizes an equivalent consumption minimization strategy (ECMS) to simultaneously optimize the fuel consumption of the powered vehicle and the energy usage (e.g., battery charge) of the hybrid suspension system 100” [0072]; “an optimal (e.g., minimum) fuel usage from the combined usage map is determined” [0075]).
Regarding claim 13,
Healy does not explicitly disclose
comprising determining the true combination control input, uunits, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem.
However, Johansen does teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising determining the true combination control input, uunits, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem.(“minu∈Rp ½(u − up)TW(u − up) subject to τc = Bu” p. 4, eq. (12); “where W ∈ Rp×p is a positive definite weighting matrix, and up is the preferred value of u. When B has full rank, this weighted least-squares problem has the following explicit solution” p. 4, §2.1, eqs. (13)–(14)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include determining the combination-level allocated control input by solving a weighted least-squares problem, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. The weighted least-squares formulation exactly meets the commanded virtual input while weighting the deviation from the preferred control input through a positive definite weighting matrix, and when B has full rank it has an explicit solution through a generalized inverse. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Johansen p. 4, §2.1, eqs. (12)–(14).)
Regarding claim 14,
Healy does not explicitly disclose
comprising determining a unit-specific true control input, ui, for a respective unit of the vehicle combination based on the unit-specific virtual control input, uunits,i.
However, Källstrand does teach comprising determining a unit-specific true control input, ui, for a respective unit of the vehicle combination based on the unit-specific virtual control input, uunits,i. (“2. Find a unique mapping between v and the physical actuator signals contained in u. To realize the virtual forces described by v, the over-determined system of equations v = Bu (3.4) needs to be solved for u.” p. 34, §3.1.1; “The result of the optimization problem is a set of tire forces, which can then be translated to actuator signals according to:” p. 41, eqs. (3.33a)–(3.33b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include translating each unit’s force-level input into actuator signals for the actuators of that unit, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Mapping the virtual forces to the physical actuator signals as a separate step keeps the primary controller independent of the actuators, and the allocated tire forces translate directly into the engine and brake torque commands. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Källstrand p. 34, §3.1.1; p. 41.)
Regarding claim 15,
Healy does not explicitly disclose
comprising determining the unit-specific true control input, ui, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem.
However, Johansen does teach comprising determining the unit-specific true control input, ui, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem.(“minu∈Rp ½(u − up)TW(u − up) subject to τc = Bu” p. 4, §2.1, eq. (12); “where W ∈ Rp×p is a positive definite weighting matrix, and up is the preferred value of u. When B has full rank, this weighted least-squares problem has the following explicit solution” p. 4, §2.1, eqs. (13)–(14)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include determining each unit’s actuator-level control input by solving a weighted least-squares problem, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. The weighted least-squares formulation resolves the redundancy among a unit’s actuators with an explicit solution through a generalized inverse, while its positive definite weighting matrix weights each actuator’s deviation from its preferred value. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Johansen p. 4, §2.1, eqs. (12)–(14).)
Regarding claim 18, Healy discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device, cause a processor device to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 1. (“the program code used to operate the control system 150 may reside on a memory storage device within the master control unit 228 (FIG. 2D). In addition, the master control unit 228 may include a microprocessor and/or microcontroller operable to execute one or more sequences of instructions contained in the memory storage device, for example, to perform the various methods described herein” [0061]).
Regarding claim 19, Healy discloses
A computer system comprising a processor device configured to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 1. (“a general purpose computer system (e.g., as described below with reference to FIG. 7) may be used to implement one or more aspects of the methods described herein” [0061]; “the master control unit 228 may include a microprocessor and/or microcontroller operable to execute one or more sequences of instructions contained in the memory storage device, for example, to perform the various methods described herein” [0061]).
Regarding claim 20, Healy discloses
A vehicle comprising the processor device to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 1. (“For purposes of this discussion, the hybrid suspension system 100, the coupled trailer, and the powered vehicle may be collectively referred to as ‘a hybrid trailer vehicle system (HTVS)’.” [0069]; “the program code used to operate the control system 150 may reside on a memory storage device within the master control unit 228 (FIG. 2D). In addition, the master control unit 228 may include a microprocessor and/or microcontroller operable to execute one or more sequences of instructions contained in the memory storage device, for example, to perform the various methods described herein” [0061]).
Regarding claim 21,
Healy does not explicitly disclose
comprising determining, via a plurality of unit control allocators, the unit-specific true control input, ui, for the respective unit of the vehicle combination based on the unit-specific virtual control input, uunit,i.
However, Källstrand does teach the determining of the unit-specific true control input, ui, for the respective unit of the vehicle combination based on the unit-specific virtual control input, uunit,i (“2. Find a unique mapping between v and the physical actuator signals contained in u. To realize the virtual forces described by v, the over-determined system of equations v = Bu (3.4) needs to be solved for u.” p. 34, §3.1.1; “The result of the optimization problem is a set of tire forces, which can then be translated to actuator signals according to:” p. 41, eqs. (3.33a)–(3.33b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include translating the force-level input for the respective unit into the actuator signals of that unit, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Mapping the virtual forces to the physical actuator signals as a separate step keeps the primary controller independent of the actuators, and the allocated tire forces translate directly into the engine and brake torque commands. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Källstrand p. 34, §3.1.1; p. 41.)
The combination of Healy and Källstrand does not explicitly teach via a plurality of unit control allocators.
However, Johansen does teach via a plurality of unit control allocators (“they empirically compare optimal solutions with approximate solution that depend on hierarchical decomposition into actuator groups. A similar approach was taken in (Singla & Junkins 2007), where a hierarchical decomposition and re-parameterization using basis-function leads to computational complexity reduction of the control allocation computations. These methods also allows parallelization so the algorithm can be distributed on multiple processors.” p. 17, §4.4; “Nonlinearities, uncertainty and additional complexity in these approaches is to a large extent handled in the low-level controllers at each actuator/effector.” p. 17, §4.3.4; “Nonlinearities and uncertainty is with these approaches handled within low-level actuator/effector controllers that can also provide time-varying constraint limits (such as estimated maximum tire/road friction coefficient) to the control allocation.” p. 16, §4.3.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Healy, as modified by Källstrand and Johansen, to also include performing the unit-level allocation with a plurality of allocators, one for the actuator group of each unit, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Hierarchical decomposition of the allocation into actuator groups reduces the computational complexity of the control allocation computations and allows the algorithm to be distributed on multiple processors, which suits a combination in which each unit carries its own actuators and, as in Healy’s trailer (Healy [0076]), its own control system. (With regard to this reasoning, see at least Johansen p. 17, §§4.3.4, 4.4; p. 16, §4.3.1.)
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 extension fee 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 AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights