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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCTEP2022065415, filed on 6/07/2022.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–16 and 18–20 of U.S. Application No. 18/872,384 filed on 12/06/2024 have been examined.
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 1–16 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of tracking and predicting the movement of unclassified object in a scene. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claims 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 include 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, uunts,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;
and determining a control input, unts,,unts,,,u,, for the vehicle combination based on the power allocation input and the virtual control input.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. 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 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, uunts,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;
and determining a control input, unts,,unts,,,u,, for the vehicle combination based on the power allocation input and the virtual 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 limitations of “computer” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the determining by a computer processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The computer processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer processor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “computer” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-16 and 18-20 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–16 and 18–20 are rejected as being unpatentable over Healy et al. (US 10,245,972 B2) in view of Källstrand (Control Allocation for Vehicle Motion Control: Maximizing Traction and Steering Capabilities Under Different Road Conditions) and Johansen et al. (Control Allocation – A Survey), hereinafter referred to as Healy , Källstrand and Johansen respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Healy discloses A computer-implemented method for controlling a vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit (“a towed vehicle for use in combination with a towing vehicle, the towed vehicle having an electrically powered drive axle configured to supply supplemental torque to one or more wheels of the towed vehicle and to thereby supplement, while the towed vehicle travels over a roadway and in at least some modes of operation, primary motive forces applied through a separate drivetrain of the towing vehicle; an energy store on the towed vehicle, the energy store configured to supply the electrically powered drive axle with electrical power and further configured to receive energy recovered using the drive axle in a regenerative braking mode of operation; and an electrical power interface to supply electrical power from the energy store to the towing vehicle.” [Col. 2 ln 35-50]),
the method comprising:
determining a power allocation input, u_{units,des}, for the vehicle combination based on a reference input, r_{ref}, 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 application of the brakes, and/or various combinations of deceleration, axle speed, trailer weight and incline/decline readings may dictate, at least in part, an ability and amount of regeneration possible by the hybrid suspension system 100. In various embodiments, regenerative braking may persist until the energy storage system is fully charged, until a predetermined minimum level of stored energy has been achieved, or until the powered trailer axle has reached a minimum threshold rotational speed.” (Col. 20 ln 55-67, Block 508, FIG. 5B) and “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).” (Col. 18 ln 15-20, Block 506, FIG. 5B);
Healy does not explicitly teach determining a virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on the reference input.
However, Källstrand does teach determining a virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on the reference input Källstrand (“For the considered vehicle application, the reference signal r is comprised of a longitudinal acceleration request a req x and desired front steering angle. The target generator then calculates the virtual control signal Fx” [P. 36]). Both Healy and Källstrand teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Källstrand explicitly teaches determining a virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on the reference input.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include determining a virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on the reference input, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Källstrand, P. 36]).
Healy does not explicitly teach determining a control input, u_{units,1}, u_{units,2}, u_{i}, for the vehicle combination based on the power allocation input and the virtual control input.
However, Johansen does teach determining a control input, u_{units,1}, u_{units,2}, u_{i}, for the vehicle combination based on the power allocation input and the virtual control input (“The control algorithm hierarchy of motion control for over-actuated mechanical systems … commonly includes three levels. First, a high-level motion control algorithm commands a vector of virtual control efforts (i.e. forces and moments) … Second, a control allocation algorithm coordinates the different effectors such that they together produce the desired virtual control efforts” (P.1 , Abstract and Section 1). Both Healy and Johansen teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Johansen explicitly teaches determining a control input, u_{units,1}, u_{units,2}, u_{i}, for the vehicle combination based on the power allocation input and the virtual control input.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include determining a control input, u_{units,1}, u_{units,2}, u_{i}, for the vehicle combination based on the power allocation input and the virtual control input, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Johansen, P.1 , Abstract and Section 1]).
Regarding claim 2,
Healy does not explicitly teach wherein the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}, comprises a set of desired motion parameters determined based on the reference input, r_{ref}.
However, Johansen does teach wherein the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}, comprises a set of desired motion parameters determined based on the reference input, r_{ref} (“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). Both Healy and Johansen teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Johansen explicitly teaches wherein the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}, comprises a set of desired motion parameters determined based on the reference input, r_{ref}.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include wherein the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}, comprises a set of desired motion parameters determined based on the reference input, r_{ref}, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Johansen, P.1 Abstract]).
Regarding claim 3,
Healy does not explicitly teach wherein the set of desired motion parameters of the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}, comprises at least one of a longitudinal force, F_{x,tot}, of the vehicle combination , a lateral force, F_{y,tot}, of the vehicle combination, a longitudinal coupling force, F_{cxi}, between consecutive units , a lateral coupling force, F_{cyi}, between consecutive units, and a yaw moment for one or more units, M_{zi}.
However, Källstrand does teach wherein the set of desired motion parameters of the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}, comprises at least one of a longitudinal force, F_{x,tot}, of the vehicle combination , a lateral force, F_{y,tot}, of the vehicle combination, a longitudinal coupling force, F_{cxi}, between consecutive units , a lateral coupling force, F_{cyi}, between consecutive units, and a yaw moment for one or more units, M_{zi} (“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” [P.8] See also (p. 40, Eqs. 3.27–3.28 referencing F_x tire forces). Both Healy and Källstrand teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Källstrand explicitly teaches wherein the set of desired motion parameters of the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}, comprises at least one of a longitudinal force, F_{x,tot}, of the vehicle combination , a lateral force, F_{y,tot}, of the vehicle combination, a longitudinal coupling force, F_{cxi}, between consecutive units , a lateral coupling force, F_{cyi}, between consecutive units, and a yaw moment for one or more units, M_{zi}.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include wherein the set of desired motion parameters of the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}, comprises at least one of a longitudinal force, F_{x,tot}, of the vehicle combination , a lateral force, F_{y,tot}, of the vehicle combination, a longitudinal coupling force, F_{cxi}, between consecutive units , a lateral coupling force, F_{cyi}, between consecutive units, and a yaw moment for one or more units, M_{zi}, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Källstrand, P.8]).
Regarding claim 4,
Healy does not explicitly teach determining the virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on a motion capability, v_{comb,cap}, of the vehicle combination.
However, Källstrand does teach determining the virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on a motion capability, v_{comb,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. 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]) see also (p. 40, Eqs. 3.27, 3.28, 3.32). Both Healy and Källstrand teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Källstrand explicitly teaches determining the virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on a motion capability, v_{comb,cap}, of the vehicle combination.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include determining the virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on a motion capability, v_{comb,cap}, of the vehicle combination, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Källstrand, P.35]).
Regarding claim 5,
Healy does not explicitly teach determining the virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on a vehicle model configured to model instabilities in vehicle motion.
However, Källstrand does teach determining the virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on a vehicle model configured to model instabilities in vehicle motion (“This is a design parameter used to assign priority to minimizing the term containing Bu−v. Thus, γ is usually chosen as a large constant, but numerical instability might be introduced in solving the WLS problem if inner dimensions are not considered [18].” [P.35]). Both Healy and Källstrand teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Källstrand explicitly teaches determining the virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on a vehicle model configured to model instabilities in vehicle motion.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include determining the virtual control input, v_{comb,req}, for the vehicle combination based on a vehicle model configured to model instabilities in vehicle motion, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Källstrand, P.35]).
Regarding claim 6,
Healy does not explicitly teach wherein the reference input, r_{ref}, comprises at least one of a longitudinal acceleration, a longitudinal velocity, v_{x1}, of the tractor unit, a lateral velocity, v_{y1}, of the tractor unit, a yaw rate, \omega_{z1}, of at least one unit of the vehicle combination , and a steering angle, \delta_{r,req}, of the tractor unit.
However, Källstrand does teach wherein the reference input, r_{ref}, comprises at least one of a longitudinal acceleration, a longitudinal velocity, v_{x1}, of the tractor unit, a lateral velocity, v_{y1}, of the tractor unit, a yaw rate, \omega_{z1}, of at least one unit of the vehicle combination , and a steering angle, \delta_{r,req}, of the tractor unit. (“For the considered vehicle application, the reference signal r is comprised of a longitudinal acceleration request a req x and desired front steering angle. The target generator then calculates the virtual control signal Fx as: Fx=mareq x (3.14) For the front steering angle, which in most situations should seldom deviate from the angle specified by the motion controller, the allocated control signal should hence match the requested steering angle. To ensure this, both the desired actuator usage ud and the global force and torque request s Fy and Mz can be utilized as follows. First, the desired rear steering angle is generated based on Ackerman conditions [11]: δdes r =−arctan "l4 l1 tanδreq f # (3.15) where δreq f is the front steering angle requested by the primary controller. Secondly, the virtual control signals and desired actuator signals are generated” [P. 36-37]). Both Healy and Källstrand teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Källstrand explicitly teaches wherein the reference input, r_{ref}, comprises at least one of a longitudinal acceleration, a longitudinal velocity, v_{x1}, of the tractor unit, a lateral velocity, v_{y1}, of the tractor unit, a yaw rate, \omega_{z1}, of at least one unit of the vehicle combination , and a steering angle, \delta_{r,req}, of the tractor unit.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include wherein the reference input, r_{ref}, comprises at least one of a longitudinal acceleration, a longitudinal velocity, v_{x1}, of the tractor unit, a lateral velocity, v_{y1}, of the tractor unit, a yaw rate, \omega_{z1}, of at least one unit of the vehicle combination , and a steering angle, \delta_{r,req}, of the tractor unit, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Källstrand, P. 36-37]).
Regarding claim 7, Healy discloses 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.” (Col.13 ln 10-24, FIG. 5A).
Regarding claim 8, Healy discloses wherein the power allocation input, u_{units,des}, comprises a set of desired motion parameters determined based on a power allocation 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” (Col.18 ln 20-30, Block 508, FIG. 5B).
Regarding claim 9, Healy discloses wherein the set of desired motion parameters of the power allocation input, u_{units,des}, comprises at least one of a desired electric machine force, F_{x,eli,des}, for one or more units and a desired electric service brake, F_{x,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” (Col.18 ln 20-30, Block 508, FIG. 5B).
Regarding claim 10, Healy discloses determining the power allocation for a unit based on a power demand and at least one of a power loss associated with service brakes (150) of the unit, a power loss associated with a battery (120) of the unit, and a power loss associated with an electrical machine (120) 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).” (Col.18 ln 15-25, Block 506, FIG. 5B) and “Battery inefficiencies and motor controller inefficiencies are considered along with possible electric drivetrain gear ratios” (Col.13 ln 10-24, FIG. 5A).
Regarding claim 11, Healy discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 10, 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.” [Col.16 ln 25-40]).
Regarding claim 12,
Healy does not explicitly teach determining a control input … by: determining a true combination control input, u_{units,i}, based on the power allocation input, u_{units,des}, and the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}.
However, Johansen does teach determining a control input … by: determining a true combination control input, u_{units,i}, based on the power allocation input, u_{units,des}, and the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req} (“The control algorithm hierarchy of motion control for over-actuated mechanical systems … commonly includes three levels. First, a high-level motion control algorithm commands a vector of virtual control efforts (i.e. forces and moments) … Second, a control allocation algorithm coordinates the different effectors such that they together produce the desired virtual control efforts” (P.1 , Abstract and Section 1). Both Healy and Johansen teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Johansen explicitly teaches determining a true combination control input, u_{units,i}, based on the power allocation input, u_{units,des}, and the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include determining a true combination control input, u_{units,i}, based on the power allocation input, u_{units,des}, and the virtual combination control input, v_{comb,req}, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Johansen, P.1 , Abstract and Section 1]).
Healy does not explicitly teach determining a unit-specific virtual control input, u_{units,i}, based on the true combination control input.
However, Källstrand does teach determining a unit-specific virtual control input, u_{units,i}, based on the true combination control input (“when the system has more control inputs than controlled states. Such a system is called over-actuated, meaning that the same control of states can be achieved by use of several different sets of control inputs u. To circumvent this non-uniqueness, the controller design can be performed on a simplified system formulation: ˙ x =g(x)+v (3.3) where v ∈ Rn is called the virtual control input. Essentially, the actuator signals of the real system are abstracted into v, and the controller design performed on the virtual system model, where the number of controlled states are equal to that of the virtual inputs. 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. To realize the virtual forces described by v, the over-determined system of equations v =Bu needs to be solved for u.” [ P.33-34]). Both Healy and Källstrand teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Källstrand explicitly teaches determining a unit-specific virtual control input, u_{units,i}, based on the true combination control input.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include determining a unit-specific virtual control input, u_{units,i}, based on the true combination control input, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Källstrand, P.33-34]).
Regarding claim 13,
Healy does not explicitly teach determining the true combination control input, u_{units}, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem.
However, Johansen does teach determining the true combination control input, u_{units}, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem (the control allocation cost function formulation min u∈Rp 1 2 (u−up)TW(u−up) subject to τc=Bu (12) where W∈Rp×p is appositive 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]). Both Healy and Johansen teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Johansen explicitly teaches determining the true combination control input, u_{units}, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include determining the true combination control input, u_{units}, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Johansen, P. 4]).
Regarding claim 14,
Healy does not explicitly teach determining a unit-specific true control input, u_i, for a respective unit of the vehicle combination based on the unit-specific virtual control input, u_{units,i}.
However, Källstrand does teach determining a unit-specific true control input, u_i, for a respective unit of the vehicle combination based on the unit-specific virtual control input, u_{units,i} (“when the system has more control inputs than controlled states. Such a system is called over-actuated, meaning that the same control of states can be achieved by use of several different sets of control inputs u. To circumvent this non-uniqueness, the controller design can be performed on a simplified system formulation: ˙ x =g(x)+v (3.3) where v ∈ Rn is called the virtual control input. Essentially, the actuator signals of the real system are abstracted into v, and the controller design performed on the virtual system model, where the number of controlled states are equal to that of the virtual inputs. 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. To realize the virtual forces described by v, the over-determined system of equations v =Bu needs to be solved for u.” [ P.33-34]). Both Healy and Källstrand teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Källstrand explicitly teaches determining a unit-specific true control input, u_i, for a respective unit of the vehicle combination based on the unit-specific virtual control input, u_{units,i}.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include determining a unit-specific true control input, u_i, for a respective unit of the vehicle combination based on the unit-specific virtual control input, u_{units,i}, as taught by Källstrand, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Källstrand, P.33-34]).
Regarding claim 15,
Healy does not explicitly teach determining the unit-specific true control input, u_i, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem.
However, Johansen does teach determining the unit-specific true control input, u_i, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem (the control allocation cost function formulation min u∈Rp 1 2 (u−up)TW(u−up) subject to τc=Bu (12) where W∈Rp×p is appositive 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]). Both Healy and Johansen teach methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage. However, Källstrand explicitly teaches determining the unit-specific true control input, u_i, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem.
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 multi-unit vehicle control method of Healy to also include determining the unit-specific true control input, u_i, by solving a weighted least squares optimization problem, as taught by Johansen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods for controlling multi-unit vehicle combinations with distributed propulsion and energy storage (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Johansen, P. 4]).
Regarding claims 16 and 18-20, Healy discloses A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by a processor device, the computer-implemented method of claims 1 (“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,” [Col.12 ln 39-51]).
Conclusion
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