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
This communication is in response to application No. 18/903,300, filed on 10/01/2024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-15 have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/01/2024 has been acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because:
In Fig. 1, rear drive axle 13 is missing
In Fig. 3, Fy is not mentioned in the specification
In Fig. 11, operating system 1016 is duplicated and program modules 1018 is missing. One of the two 1016s should most likely be changed to 1018
In Par. 63, drive train arrangement 5 has the same reference number as trailer 5
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Fig. 9 is an exemplary computer implemented method of reducing understeer of a vehicle” should most likely be “Fig. 9 is an exemplary computer implemented method of reducing oversteer of a vehicle”, since the method relates to reducing oversteer
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “a third set of vehicle parameters” and “a fourth braking command” should be changed to “a second set of vehicle parameters” and “a third braking command”, respectively. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, which only discloses “a first set of vehicle parameters” and “a second braking command”, and therefore the ordering is skipped. Claims 5 and 6 should be changed accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one axle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “a vehicle including an electrically powered tractor with a first electric machine coupled to a rear drive axle of the tractor, a second electric machine coupled to a front drive axle of the tractor, and a trailer coupled to the tractor by an articulated coupling”. It is unclear if this vehicle refers to the same vehicle as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a computer program product” does not have a physical or tangible form and is considered “software per se”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alders (DE 102019200820 A1) in view of Craig (US 8244442 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Alders teaches a computer system comprising processing circuitry (Fig. 1, control unit 28) configured to:
receive a braking request (par. 3, "a method for distributing a braking torque requested by a driver") for braking a vehicle (Fig. 1, motor vehicle 10) including an electrically powered (par. 3, vehicle is an electric vehicle) with an electric machine coupled to a rear drive axle of the tractor (Fig. 1, rear electric machine 26),
provide a first braking command encoding instructions to control braking on at least a front axle of the tractor (front axle VL), and on the rear drive axle of the tractor (rear axle HL) to provide a combined braking force fulfilling the braking request (par. 2, “As is known, the distribution of the friction braking torque to the axles can be scalar, i.e., the distribution of the friction braking torque to the front and rear axles is hydraulically fixed, as in... B. 60%/40%, or axle specific, i.e. the distribution between the front and rear axles can be variably changed during operation");
receive a first set of vehicle parameters (par. 19, "the check to determine whether driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer exists when cornering is carried out using sensors that are standard in today's motor vehicles and a corresponding evaluation of the data provided by these sensors, such as a detected lateral acceleration and/or a detected slip of a wheel of the motor vehicle and /or based on a yaw rate and/or yaw rate difference and/or a vehicle speed and/or a difference in wheel speeds of the wheels between the front and rear axles or the right and left side of the motor vehicle and/or a traction utilization at the wheels);
determine, based on the first set of vehicle parameters, that an understeer tendency of the vehicle during braking is higher than a predefined first understeer tendency threshold (par. 7, "it is checked whether a driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer is present");
and provide a second braking command encoding instructions to increase a braking force on the rear drive axle of the tractor using regeneration, and decrease a braking force on the front axle of the tractor, so that the combined braking force fulfills the braking request (par. 19, "the check to determine whether driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer exists when cornering is carried out using sensors that are standard in today's motor vehicles and a corresponding evaluation of the data provided by these sensors, such as a detected lateral acceleration and/or a detected slip of a wheel of the motor vehicle and /or based on a yaw rate and/or yaw rate difference and/or a vehicle speed and/or a difference in wheel speeds of the wheels between the front and rear axles or the right and left side of the motor vehicle and/or a traction utilization at the wheels”).
Alders fails to explicitly teach the vehicle includes an electrically powered tractor and a trailer coupled to the tractor by an articulated coupling. Alders does not specify the type of vehicle. However, understeering and oversteering is a known problem for semi-trailer trucks, among other vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that Alders’ method for reducing understeering and oversteering would be applicable to a wide variety of vehicles, including a tractor with a trailer.
Craig explicitly teaches an electrically powered tractor and a trailer coupled to the tractor by an articulated coupling (Fig. 5, vehicle 700 and trailer 800).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alders to incorporate the teachings of Craig to make the vehicle a tractor and a trailer.
Alders also fails to explicitly teach an understeer tendency threshold. However, Alders does teach “a brake force distribution counteracting the understeer or oversteer situation is applied, wherein the braking torque requested by the driver is achieved by means of the applied, i.e., the understeer or oversteer” (par. 7). It would have been obvious that there would be some kind of threshold to determine if there is understeer or oversteer present so that the system could act accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches the computer system of claim 1. Alders fails to teach the first braking command additionally encodes instructions to control braking on at least one axle of the trailer; and the second braking command additionally encodes instructions to decrease a braking force on the at least one axle of the trailer.
However, Craig teaches the first braking command additionally encodes instructions to control braking on at least one axle of the trailer; and the second braking command additionally encodes instructions to decrease a braking force on the at least one axle of the trailer (column 1 line 40, "providing stability control of the wheeled vehicle and the trailer using the automatically chosen dominant stability control system").
Alders fails to teach to control braking on the trailer since Alders does not explicitly teach a trailer. However, controlling brakes on trailers in order to combat understeering or oversteering is well-known in the art, as seen in Craig. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Alders in view of Craig to further incorporate the teachings of Craig in order to better control the stability of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches the computer system of claim 1. Alders further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a second set of vehicle parameters after having provided the second braking command (par. 19, "the check to determine whether driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer exists when cornering is carried out using sensors that are standard in today's motor vehicles and a corresponding evaluation of the data provided by these sensors, such as a detected lateral acceleration and/or a detected slip of a wheel of the motor vehicle and /or based on a yaw rate and/or yaw rate difference and/or a vehicle speed and/or a difference in wheel speeds of the wheels between the front and rear axles or the right and left side of the motor vehicle and/or a traction utilization at the wheels);
determine, based on the second set of vehicle parameters, that the understeer tendency of the vehicle during braking is lower than a predefined second understeer tendency threshold, lower than the first understeer tendency threshold (par. 7, "it is checked whether a driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer is present");
and provide a third braking command encoding instructions to decrease the braking force on the rear drive axle of the tractor, and increase the braking force on the front axle of the tractor, so that the combined braking force fulfills the braking request (par. 7, "it if an understeer or oversteer situation is present, a brake force distribution counteracting the understeer or oversteer situation is applied").
While it is not explicitly taught to receive a second set of vehicle parameters and to determine an understeer tendency of the vehicle a second time, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that Alders’ method would be used to continuously minimize understeer. Alders states that is it known that “the distribution between the front and rear axles can be variably changed during operation" (par. 2). Alders would continuously adjust the braking distribution.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches the computer system of claim 1. Alders further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a third set of vehicle parameters after having provided the second braking command (par. 19, "the check to determine whether driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer exists when cornering is carried out using sensors that are standard in today's motor vehicles and a corresponding evaluation of the data provided by these sensors, such as a detected lateral acceleration and/or a detected slip of a wheel of the motor vehicle and /or based on a yaw rate and/or yaw rate difference and/or a vehicle speed and/or a difference in wheel speeds of the wheels between the front and rear axles or the right and left side of the motor vehicle and/or a traction utilization at the wheels);
determine, based on the third set of vehicle parameters that that an oversteer tendency of the vehicle during braking is higher than a predefined oversteer tendency threshold (par. 7, “it is checked whether a driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer is present”);
and provide a fourth braking command encoding instructions to reduce the braking force on the rear drive axle of the tractor (par. 7, "To counteract oversteer, the brake force distribution is such that it is divided into a front braking torque to be applied to the front axle and a rear braking torque to be applied to the rear axle, such that the front braking torque necessarily includes a front recuperation torque component to be provided via the front electric machine and the rear braking torque necessarily includes a rear recuperation torque component to be provided via the rear electric machine").
While it is not explicitly taught to receive a second set of vehicle parameters and to determine an understeer tendency of the vehicle a second time, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that Alders’ method would be used to continuously minimize understeer. Alders states that is it known that “the distribution between the front and rear axles can be variably changed during operation" (par. 2). Alders would continuously adjust the braking distribution.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches the computer system of claim 4. Alders further teaches the fourth braking command further encodes instructions to increase the braking force on the front axle of the tractor, so that the combined braking force fulfills the braking request (par. 7, "To counteract oversteer, the brake force distribution is such that it is divided into a front braking torque to be applied to the front axle and a rear braking torque to be applied to the rear axle, such that the front braking torque necessarily includes a front recuperation torque component to be provided via the front electric machine and the rear braking torque necessarily includes a rear recuperation torque component to be provided via the rear electric machine").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches the computer system of claim 5. Alders fails to teach the fourth braking command further encodes instructions to increase the braking force on the at least one axle of the trailer.
However, Craig teaches the fourth braking command further encodes instructions to increase the braking force on the at least one axle of the trailer (column 1 line 40, "providing stability control of the wheeled vehicle and the trailer using the automatically chosen dominant stability control system").
Alders fails to teach to control braking on the trailer since Alders does not explicitly teach a trailer. However, controlling brakes on trailers in order to combat understeering or oversteering is well-known in the art, as seen in Craig. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Alders in view of Craig to further incorporate the teachings of Craig in order to better control the stability of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches the computer system of claim 1. Alders fails to explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a propulsion request for propelling a vehicle including an electrically powered tractor with a first electric machine coupled to a rear drive axle of the tractor, a second electric machine coupled to a front drive axle of the tractor, and a trailer coupled to the tractor by an articulated coupling; provide a first propulsion command encoding instructions to control the first electric machine and the second electric machine to provide a combined propulsion force fulfilling the propulsion request; receive a fourth set of vehicle parameters after having provided the first propulsion command; determine, based on the fourth set of vehicle parameters, that an understeer tendency of the vehicle during propulsion is higher than a predefined third understeer tendency threshold; and provide a second propulsion command encoding instructions to control the first electric machine and the second electric machine to increase a propulsion force on the rear drive axle of the tractor, and decrease a propulsion force on the front axle of the tractor, so that the combined propulsion force fulfills the propulsion request.
However, Craig teaches controlling a distribution of propulsion force to minimize understeer or oversteer (column 3 line 18, “Generally, a torque-based stability control system may automatically adjust (increase or decrease) the torque that is supplied to one or more wheels to correct an unstable driving condition”).
As disclosed in the instant application, it would have been obvious that the method of controlling the braking configuration to minimize understeering or oversteering could be used instead with a propulsion configuration (par. 62, “the skilled person will be able to suitably control the propulsion based on the examples provided herein for braking, and his/her own knowledge”). Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Alders in view of Craig to further incorporate the teachings of Craig to minimize understeer or oversteer using a propulsion configuration as detailed in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (Fig. 5, vehicle 700 and trailer 800).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches the vehicle of claim 8. Alders further teaches the vehicle includes an electrically powered (par. 3, vehicle is an electric vehicle) with an electric machine coupled to a rear drive axle of the tractor (Fig. 1, rear electric machine 26).
Alders fails to explicitly teach the vehicle includes an electrically powered tractor and a trailer coupled to the tractor by an articulated coupling. Alders does not specify the type of vehicle. However, understeering and oversteering is a known problem for semi-trailer trucks, among other vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that Alders’ method for reducing understeering and oversteering would be applicable to a wide variety of vehicles, including a tractor with a trailer.
Craig explicitly teaches an electrically powered tractor and a trailer coupled to the tractor by an articulated coupling (Fig. 5, vehicle 700 and trailer 800).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alders to incorporate the teachings of Craig to make the vehicle a tractor and a trailer.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches the vehicle of claim 8. Alders further teaches the vehicle includes an electrically powered (par. 3, vehicle is an electric vehicle) with a first electric machine coupled to a rear drive axle of the tractor (Fig. 1, rear electric machine 26), a second electric machine coupled to a front drive axle of the tractor (front electric machine 22).
Alders fails to explicitly teach the vehicle includes a tractor. Alders does not specify the type of vehicle. However, understeering and oversteering is a known problem for semi-trailer trucks, among other vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that Alders’ method for reducing understeering and oversteering would be applicable to a wide variety of vehicles, including a tractor.
Craig explicitly teaches a tractor (Fig. 5, vehicle 700).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alders to incorporate the teachings of Craig to make the vehicle a tractor.
Regarding claim 11, Alders teaches a computer-implemented method of reducing understeer of a vehicle (Fig. 1, motor vehicle 10) including an electrically powered (par. 3, vehicle is an electric vehicle) with an electric machine coupled to a rear drive axle of the tractor (Fig. 1, rear electric machine 26),
receiving, by a computer system, a braking request for braking the vehicle (par. 3, "a method for distributing a braking torque requested by a driver");
providing, by the computer system, a first braking command encoding instructions to control braking on at least a front axle of the tractor (front axle VL), and on the rear drive axle of the tractor (rear axle HL) to provide a combined braking force fulfilling the braking request (par. 2, “As is known, the distribution of the friction braking torque to the axles can be scalar, i.e., the distribution of the friction braking torque to the front and rear axles is hydraulically fixed, as in... B. 60%/40%, or axle specific, i.e. the distribution between the front and rear axles can be variably changed during operation");
receiving, by the computer system, a first set of vehicle parameters (par. 19, "the check to determine whether driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer exists when cornering is carried out using sensors that are standard in today's motor vehicles and a corresponding evaluation of the data provided by these sensors, such as a detected lateral acceleration and/or a detected slip of a wheel of the motor vehicle and /or based on a yaw rate and/or yaw rate difference and/or a vehicle speed and/or a difference in wheel speeds of the wheels between the front and rear axles or the right and left side of the motor vehicle and/or a traction utilization at the wheels);
determining, by the computer system, based on the first set of vehicle parameters, that an understeer tendency of the vehicle during braking is higher than a predefined first understeer tendency threshold (par. 7, "it is checked whether a driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer is present");
and providing, by the computer system, a second braking command encoding instructions to increase a braking force on the rear drive axle of the tractor using regeneration, and decrease a braking force on the front axle of the tractor, so that the combined braking force fulfills the braking request (par. 19, "the check to determine whether driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer exists when cornering is carried out using sensors that are standard in today's motor vehicles and a corresponding evaluation of the data provided by these sensors, such as a detected lateral acceleration and/or a detected slip of a wheel of the motor vehicle and /or based on a yaw rate and/or yaw rate difference and/or a vehicle speed and/or a difference in wheel speeds of the wheels between the front and rear axles or the right and left side of the motor vehicle and/or a traction utilization at the wheels”).
Alders fails to explicitly teach the vehicle includes an electrically powered tractor and a trailer coupled to the tractor by an articulated coupling. Alders does not specify the type of vehicle. However, understeering and oversteering is a known problem for semi-trailer trucks, among other vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that Alders’ method for reducing understeering and oversteering would be applicable to a wide variety of vehicles, including a tractor with a trailer.
Craig explicitly teaches an electrically powered tractor and a trailer coupled to the tractor by an articulated coupling (Fig. 5, vehicle 700 and trailer 800).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alders to incorporate the teachings of Craig to make the vehicle a tractor and a trailer.
Alders also fails to explicitly teach an understeer tendency threshold. However, Alders does teach “a brake force distribution counteracting the understeer or oversteer situation is applied, wherein the braking torque requested by the driver is achieved by means of the applied, i.e., the understeer or oversteer” (par. 7). It would have been obvious that there would be some kind of threshold to determine if there is understeer or oversteer present so that the system could act accordingly.
Regarding claim 12, Alders teaches the method of claim 11. Alders fails to teach the first braking command additionally encodes instructions to control braking on at least one axle of the trailer; and the second braking command additionally encodes instructions to decrease a braking force on the at least one axle of the trailer.
However, Craig teaches the first braking command additionally encodes instructions to control braking on at least one axle of the trailer; and the second braking command additionally encodes instructions to decrease a braking force on the at least one axle of the trailer.
(column 1 line 40, "providing stability control of the wheeled vehicle and the trailer using the automatically chosen dominant stability control system").
Alders fails to teach to control braking on the trailer since Alders does not explicitly teach a trailer. However, controlling brakes on trailers in order to combat understeering or oversteering is well-known in the art, as seen in Craig. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Alders in view of Craig to further incorporate the teachings of Craig in order to better control the stability of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches the method of claim 11. Alders further teaches the method further comprises:
receiving, by the computer system, a second set of vehicle parameters after having provided the second braking command (par. 19, "the check to determine whether driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer exists when cornering is carried out using sensors that are standard in today's motor vehicles and a corresponding evaluation of the data provided by these sensors, such as a detected lateral acceleration and/or a detected slip of a wheel of the motor vehicle and /or based on a yaw rate and/or yaw rate difference and/or a vehicle speed and/or a difference in wheel speeds of the wheels between the front and rear axles or the right and left side of the motor vehicle and/or a traction utilization at the wheels);
determining, by the computer system, based on the second set of vehicle parameters, that the understeer tendency of the vehicle during braking is lower than a predefined second understeer tendency threshold, lower than the first understeer tendency threshold (par. 7, "it is checked whether a driving instability in the form of understeer or oversteer is present");
and providing, by the computer system, a third braking command encoding instructions to decrease the braking force on the rear drive axle of the tractor, and increase the braking force on the front axle of the tractor, so that the combined braking force fulfills the braking request (par. 7, "it if an understeer or oversteer situation is present, a brake force distribution counteracting the understeer or oversteer situation is applied").
While it is not explicitly taught to receive a second set of vehicle parameters and to determine an understeer tendency of the vehicle a second time, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that Alders’ method would be used to continuously minimize understeer. Alders states that is it known that “the distribution between the front and rear axles can be variably changed during operation" (par. 2). Alders would continuously adjust the braking distribution.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 11 (although not explicitly taught, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume Alders’ control unit 28 uses code).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Alders in view of Craig teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 11 (although not explicitly taught, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume Alders’ control unit 28 uses code stored on a computer-readable storage medium).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665