DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims dated 10/10/2024 are being examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted between the dates of 10/10/2024 – 10/05/2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, and raises ambiguity as to whether this is referring to “the pushback vehicle” or some other vehicle. For examination, this limitation is interpreted to refer to “the pushback vehicle”.
Claims 2-9 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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 1-2, 4, 7, 10-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie et al. (US-20170106865-A1), in view of Zhang et al. (US-20170341583-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Lavoie and Zhang, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Lavoie teaches a controller system for a […] vehicle (FIG. 3 backup assist system 10) having an electric motor connected to a battery in association with a battery management system (FIG. 3 power assist steering system 64 comprising electric steering motor) and a plurality of sensors (FIG. 3 sensor system 22), the controller system comprising:
a motor controller connected to the electric motor via electric cables; and (FIG. 3 controller 26 and power assist steering system 64)
a control panel configured to interact with an operator to generate operator inputs, the control panel further including a vehicle master controller configured to (FIG. 3 steering input device 18 connected to controller 26):
receive the operator inputs from the control panel (FIG. 1 receives user inputs via steering wheel 64, rotatable knob 20, and/or accelerator/braking pedals);
receive sensor inputs from one of the plurality of sensors, at least one of the plurality of sensors including a towbar detection sensor (FIG. 3 receives sensor data from sensor system 22; [0027] Furthermore, it is contemplated that additional embodiments of the hitch angle sensor 24 and the sensor system 22 for providing the hitch angle γ may include one or a combination of a potentiometer, a magnetic-based sensor, an optical sensor, a proximity sensor, a rotational sensor, a capacitive sensor, an inductive sensor, or a mechanical based sensor);
determine if the received operator input should be overridden in response to the sensor inputs received from one of the plurality of sensors ([0074] Thus, the trailer backup assist system 10 may “override” a user steering request and generate a steering command curvature κ2 that includes a reduced steering angle relative to the user steering request);
generate a control signal based on the received operator inputs unless overridden by the received sensor inputs, wherein the operator input is overridden with a control signal causing the vehicle to slow or stop in response to a sensor input received from the towbar detection sensor indicating proximity of a detected towbar; and ([0074] For example, if the vehicle 14 is traveling in reverse at 7 kph, and an operator rapidly rotates the knob 20, the trailer backup assist system 10 may apply the brakes to slow the vehicle 14; [0037] … the trailer backup assist system 10 in some embodiments may regulate speed of the vehicle 14 during backing of the trailer 12, which can reduce the potential for unacceptable trailer backup conditions; [0063] …the trailer backup assist system 10 limits the vehicle speed using, for example, the vehicle brakes or drivetrain such that the vehicle 14 does not exceed the maximum allowable speed even if a vehicle operator attempts to back up at a higher speed by depressing the accelerator pedal)
provide the control signal to one or more of a steer cylinder, a brake cylinder, or the motor controller (FIG. 2 provides signals to brake control system 62, powertrain control system 66, and/or power assist steering system 65).
Lavoie’s vehicle is disclosed as “a pickup truck” ([0026]) that tows another vehicle, and while it is known that a pickup truck can function as a pushback vehicle, i.e., for towing small, lightweight aircraft such as single-engine Cessnas, Lavoie does not explicitly teach that the towing vehicle is a “pushback vehicle”.
However, Zhang teaches that teachings in systems and methods for towing, the towing vehicle may be a truck or a “pushback vehicle” ([0023] the teachings herein are not limited to use only with automobiles but rather, may be used with other types of vehicles as well. For example, the teachings herein may be compatible with vehicles including, but not limited to, aircraft, railway cars, commercial vehicles including tractors, aircraft tugs, aircraft pushback tugs, forklifts, etc).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the pickup truck in Lavoie to substitute a pushback vehicle as taught in Zhang because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the substitution of different vehicles would have had the predictable result of towing, as Zhang teaches the interchangeability and compatibility with different vehicles to be applied for towing.
Regarding claim 2, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 1.
Lavoie also teaches wherein an override control signal generated in response to sensor input received from the towbar detection sensor is a pressure control signal to the brake cylinder to actuate braking ([0074] For example, if the vehicle 14 is traveling in reverse at 7 kph, and an operator rapidly rotates the knob 20, the trailer backup assist system 10 may apply the brakes to slow the vehicle 14; [0037] … the trailer backup assist system 10 in some embodiments may regulate speed of the vehicle 14 during backing of the trailer 12, which can reduce the potential for unacceptable trailer backup conditions; [0063] …the trailer backup assist system 10 limits the vehicle speed using, for example, the vehicle brakes or drivetrain such that the vehicle 14 does not exceed the maximum allowable speed even if a vehicle operator attempts to back up at a higher speed by depressing the accelerator pedal).
Regarding claim 4, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 1.
Lavoie also teaches wherein an override control signal generated in response to sensor input received from the towbar detection sensor is a pressure control signal provided to the steer cylinder to provide a desired actuation of wheels of the pushback vehicle ([0073] Limiting the vehicle speed can be accomplished by sending a command to the brake control system 62 and/or the powertrain system control module 14; [0074] …an operator rapidly rotates the knob 20, the trailer backup assist system 10 may apply the brakes to slow the vehicle 14).
Regarding claim 7, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 1.
Lavoie also teaches wherein the vehicle master controller is further configured to receive video input ([0027] For instance, the illustrated camera 46 may include a video imaging camera that repeatedly captures successive images of the trailer 12 that may be processed to identify the target 52 and its location on the trailer 12 for determining movement of the target 52 and the trailer 12 relative to the vehicle 14 and the corresponding hitch angle γ) and send an alert to an operator based on the received video input ([0039] With continued reference to FIG. 3, the trailer backup assist system 10 in the illustrated embodiment may communicate with one or more devices including vehicle warning devices 90 that may be used to alert the driver of the vehicle in a variety of forms. […] The portable device may also include the display 100 for displaying one or more images and other information to a user. For instance, the portable device may display one or more images of the trailer 12 and the target location within a desired target placement zone on display. In addition, the portable device may provide feedback information, such as audible and tactile warnings).
Regarding claim 10, Lavoie teaches a controller system for a […] vehicle (FIG. 3 backup assist system 10), the controller system comprising:
a vehicle master controller configured to (FIG. 3 controller 26):
receive input signals from at least one component of the […] vehicle, and/or at least one sensor; and (FIG. 1 receives user inputs via steering wheel 64, rotatable knob 20, and/or accelerator/braking pedals; FIG. 3 receives sensor data from sensor system 22; [0027] Furthermore, it is contemplated that additional embodiments of the hitch angle sensor 24 and the sensor system 22 for providing the hitch angle γ may include one or a combination of a potentiometer, a magnetic-based sensor, an optical sensor, a proximity sensor, a rotational sensor, a capacitive sensor, an inductive sensor, or a mechanical based sensor)
generate an output control signal configured to change an operation of one or more of the at least one component of the […] vehicle, wherein contradictory input signals are resolved by the vehicle master controller ([0074] Thus, the trailer backup assist system 10 may “override” a user steering request and generate a steering command curvature κ2 that includes a reduced steering angle relative to the user steering request).
Lavoie’s vehicle is disclosed as “a pickup truck” ([0026]) that tows another vehicle, and while it is known that a pickup truck can function as a pushback vehicle, i.e., for towing small, lightweight aircraft such as single-engine Cessnas, Lavoie does not explicitly teach that the towing vehicle is a “pushback vehicle”.
However, Zhang teaches that teachings in systems and methods for towing, the towing vehicle may be a truck or a “pushback vehicle” ([0023] the teachings herein are not limited to use only with automobiles but rather, may be used with other types of vehicles as well. For example, the teachings herein may be compatible with vehicles including, but not limited to, aircraft, railway cars, commercial vehicles including tractors, aircraft tugs, aircraft pushback tugs, forklifts, etc).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the pickup truck in Lavoie to substitute a pushback vehicle as taught in Zhang because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the substitution of different vehicles would have had the predictable result of towing, as Zhang teaches the interchangeability and compatibility with different vehicles to be applied for towing.
Regarding claim 11, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 10.
Lavoie also teaches wherein the operation changed by the output control signal comprises: a rate of travel, a direction of travel, and proximity information ([0074] For example, if the vehicle 14 is traveling in reverse at 7 kph, and an operator rapidly rotates the knob 20, the trailer backup assist system 10 may apply the brakes to slow the vehicle 14; [0037] … the trailer backup assist system 10 in some embodiments may regulate speed of the vehicle 14 during backing of the trailer 12, which can reduce the potential for unacceptable trailer backup conditions; [0063] …the trailer backup assist system 10 limits the vehicle speed using, for example, the vehicle brakes or drivetrain such that the vehicle 14 does not exceed the maximum allowable speed even if a vehicle operator attempts to back up at a higher speed by depressing the accelerator pedal).
Regarding claim 12, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 10.
Lavoie also teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a towbar proximity sensor, a steer angle sensor, and a ground speed sensor (FIG. 3 receives sensor data from sensor system 22; [0027] Furthermore, it is contemplated that additional embodiments of the hitch angle sensor 24 and the sensor system 22 for providing the hitch angle γ may include one or a combination of a potentiometer, a magnetic-based sensor, an optical sensor, a proximity sensor, a rotational sensor, a capacitive sensor, an inductive sensor, or a mechanical based sensor).
Regarding claim 13, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 10.
Lavoie also teaches wherein the output control signal is a pressure control signal to a brake cylinder of the pushback vehicle to actuate braking ([0074] For example, if the vehicle 14 is traveling in reverse at 7 kph, and an operator rapidly rotates the knob 20, the trailer backup assist system 10 may apply the brakes to slow the vehicle 14; [0037] … the trailer backup assist system 10 in some embodiments may regulate speed of the vehicle 14 during backing of the trailer 12, which can reduce the potential for unacceptable trailer backup conditions; [0063] …the trailer backup assist system 10 limits the vehicle speed using, for example, the vehicle brakes or drivetrain such that the vehicle 14 does not exceed the maximum allowable speed even if a vehicle operator attempts to back up at a higher speed by depressing the accelerator pedal).
Regarding claim 14, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 10.
Lavoie also teaches wherein the output control signal is a pressure control signal to a steer cylinder to provide a desired actuation of the wheels ([0073] Limiting the vehicle speed can be accomplished by sending a command to the brake control system 62 and/or the powertrain system control module 14; [0074] …an operator rapidly rotates the knob 20, the trailer backup assist system 10 may apply the brakes to slow the vehicle 14).
Regarding claim 17, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 10.
Lavoie also teaches wherein a camera provides input signals to the vehicle master controller ([0027] For instance, the illustrated camera 46 may include a video imaging camera that repeatedly captures successive images of the trailer 12 that may be processed to identify the target 52 and its location on the trailer 12 for determining movement of the target 52 and the trailer 12 relative to the vehicle 14 and the corresponding hitch angle γ).
Regarding claim 18, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 17.
Lavoie also teaches wherein the input signals from the camera are utilized to control operation of the pushback vehicle ([0027] For instance, the illustrated camera 46 may include a video imaging camera that repeatedly captures successive images of the trailer 12 that may be processed to identify the target 52 and its location on the trailer 12 for determining movement of the target 52 and the trailer 12 relative to the vehicle 14 and the corresponding hitch angle γ).
Regarding claim 19, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 10.
Lavoie also teaches wherein one or more of the input signals from the at least one component of the pushback vehicle is generated by an operator of the pushback vehicle ([0074] Thus, the trailer backup assist system 10 may “override” a user steering request and generate a steering command curvature κ2 that includes a reduced steering angle relative to the user steering request).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie, in view of Zhang, in view of King et al. (US-20170301210-A1) and herein after will be referred to as King.
Regarding claim 3, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 1.
Lavoie also teaches an override control signal generated in response to sensor input received from the towbar detection sensor results in a slowing of the vehicle (cited above to [0074], [0037], [0063]), but Lavoie does not explicitly teach wherein an override control signal generated in response to sensor input received from the towbar detection sensor is “a motor control signal provided to the motor controller to reduce an amount of power provided to the electric motor”.
However, it is a well-known operating principle in vehicles that when a motor controller receives a motor control signal to reduce an amount of power provided to the electric motor, the result is a slowing of the vehicle. As supporting evidence that this operating principle is well-known, King teaches this operating principle in [0036] The controller 16 may be configured to control and/or limit the power available from the battery 24 to the motor 33 to reduce the power delivered to the drive system of the vehicle 8, thus reducing vehicle speed and acceleration.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the override control signal generated in response to sensor input received from the towbar detection sensor taught in Lavoie that results in a slowing of the vehicle to avoid collision to substitute an override control signal wherein a motor controller receives a signal to reduce an amount of power provided to the electric motor, that also results in a slowing of the vehicle because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the different ways to implement an override control signal are equally viable as they predictably result in slowing down the vehicle to avoid a rear collision.
Regarding claim 15, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 10.
Lavoie also teaches the output control signal generated in response to sensor input received from the towbar detection sensor results in a slowing of the vehicle (cited above to [0074], [0037], [0063]), but Lavoie does not explicitly teach wherein the output control signal is a signal to a motor controller to reduce an amount of power provided to an electric motor.
However, it is a well-known operating principle in vehicles that when a motor controller receives a motor control signal to reduce an amount of power provided to the electric motor, the result is a slowing of the vehicle. As supporting evidence that this operating principle is well-known, King teaches this operating principle in [0036] The controller 16 may be configured to control and/or limit the power available from the battery 24 to the motor 33 to reduce the power delivered to the drive system of the vehicle 8, thus reducing vehicle speed and acceleration.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the override control signal generated in response to sensor input received from the towbar detection sensor taught in Lavoie that results in a slowing of the vehicle to avoid collision to substitute an override control signal wherein a motor controller receives a signal to reduce an amount of power provided to the electric motor, that also results in a slowing of the vehicle because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the different ways to implement an override control signal are equally viable as they predictably result in slowing down the vehicle to avoid a rear collision.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie, in view of Zhang, in view of Anderson et al. (US-20190337517-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Anderson.
Regarding claim 5, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 1.
Lavoie, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the received operator input overridden by the vehicle master controller is a gear selection.
However, Anderson teaches wherein the received operator input overridden by the vehicle master controller is a gear selection (FIG. 3 monitor an operating input of a vehicle 310 and downshift the transmission to the low gear 340; [0044] In some implementations, vehicle controller 250 may determine the transmission is to be downshifted based on determining the turning capabilities of the vehicle in a currently engaged gear relative to the turning maneuver and/or desired path. […] Vehicle controller 250 may determine the engaged gear based on a sensor associated with transmission 215, based on an operator setting or input associated with transmission 215 (e.g., an operator may use a user interface to set which gear of transmission 215 is to be engaged to provide power to drives 240)).
Automatic gear shift control systems are well-known in the art (where a control system automatically overrides the initial operator gear selection to different shifting of gear to compensate for varying vehicle conditions/performance limits), and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the initial gear selection by the operator as taught in Lavoie to incorporate the teachings of Anderson to include an automatic shift that enables the vehicle master controller to override the initial received operator input, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of automatically shifting gears such that the operator of vehicle 110 does not need to manually shift gears of the transmission of vehicle 110 each time the vehicle conditions change (Anderson [0017]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie, in view of Zhang, in view of McKee et al. (US-4740898-A) and herein after will be referred to as McKee.
Regarding claim 6, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 1.
Lavoie also teaches wherein the plurality of sensors further includes a speed sensor (FIG. 3 speed sensor 78).
Lavoie does not explicitly teach that its speed sensor is a ground speed sensor.
However, McKee teaches the interchangeability of different types of speed sensors including a ground speed sensor to measure speed (col 5 ln 15-20: The ECU 30 may also include an input (not shown) for a radar ground speed sensor (not shown) such as described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,489,321, issued 18 Dec. 1984. In that case, ground speed information could be obtained directly from the ground speed sensor rather than from sensed engine speed and gear ratio.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the speed sensor taught in Lavoie to substitute a ground speed sensor as taught in McKee because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, as evidenced by McKee teaching the interchangeability of different speed sensors, the substitution of a general speed sensor for a ground speed sensor would have had the predictable result of sensing vehicle speed. Further it is well-known that a primary benefit of a ground speed sensor over general speed sensors such as a wheel speed sensor is slip-independent measurement, as a ground speed sensor measures a vehicle's actual speed relative to the earth's surface rather than the rotational speed of its wheels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement a ground speed sensor at least for the well-known benefits of slip independent measurement.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie, in view of Zhang, in view of Gratton et al. (US-20120271493-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Gratton.
Regarding claim 8, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 3.
Lavoie, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the motor controller is in bi-directional communication with the vehicle master controller and wherein the motor controller is configured to monitor the electric motor via one or more sensors.
However, Gratton teaches wherein the motor controller is in bi-directional communication with the vehicle master controller and wherein the motor controller is configured to monitor the electric motor via one or more sensors ([0016] Second controller 62 is illustratively a transmission or vehicle controller 62 in communication with motor controller 50 and an operator interface 42. Second controller 62 is configured to control transmission 54, although motor controller 50 or another controller may alternatively be used. Second controller 62, which includes a processor 68 and software stored in a memory 70, receives user input and various vehicle parameters for controlling transmission 54 and for issuing electric machine commands to controller 50 for controlling motor 52. Motor controller 50 provides vehicle parameters, such as electric machine speed feedback, to second controller 62. In one embodiment, transmission 54 includes a speed sensor providing transmission speed feedback to second controller 62. In one embodiment, second controller 62 is configured to coordinate a motor diagnostic test, as described herein. The functionalities of first and second controllers 50, 62 may alternatively be provided in a single controller or other controller configurations).
Motor feedback control is well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Lavoie, as modified, to substitute Gratton’s functionalities of the vehicle master controller and motor controller such that the motor controller is in bi-directional communication with the vehicle master controller and wherein the motor controller is configured to monitor the electric motor via one or more sensors because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, Gratton [0016] teaches the interchangeability of the arrangement of control functionalities between the controllers. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention would be motivated to incorporate feedback (motor controller is configured to monitor the electric motor via one or more sensors) for the benefits of enabling motor performance diagnosis (Gratton [0022]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie, in view of Zhang, in view of Kawai et al. (US-20190366936-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Kawai.
Regarding claim 9, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 1.
Kawai teaches wherein the control panel is cantilevered (FIG. 1 an automotive center console structure constructed with a cantilevered front section; [0012] In the structure, the visual floating feeling of the upper body can be provided for the occupant by terminating the extension part of the upper body of the center console in the proximity of the rear projecting part of the instrument panel. On the other hand, the supporting strength of the upper body can be obtained even when the upper body has a cantilever shape by locking the portion of the extension part close to the front of the vehicle to the rear projecting part of the instrument panel).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the control panel as taught in Lavoie, as modified to incorporate the teachings of Kawai to include wherein the control panel is cantilevered, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of more legroom beneath the console and the display device can be disposed close to the occupant, the visibility of the display surface is improved, and the instrument panel can be simplified (Kawai [0013]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie, in view of Zhang, in view of King, in view of Gratton.
Regarding claim 16, Lavoie, as modified, teaches the controller system of claim 15.
Lavoie, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the motor controller is in bi-directional communication with the vehicle master controller.
However, Gratton teaches wherein the motor controller is in bi-directional communication with the vehicle master controller ([0016] Second controller 62 is illustratively a transmission or vehicle controller 62 in communication with motor controller 50 and an operator interface 42. Second controller 62 is configured to control transmission 54, although motor controller 50 or another controller may alternatively be used. Second controller 62, which includes a processor 68 and software stored in a memory 70, receives user input and various vehicle parameters for controlling transmission 54 and for issuing electric machine commands to controller 50 for controlling motor 52. Motor controller 50 provides vehicle parameters, such as electric machine speed feedback, to second controller 62. In one embodiment, transmission 54 includes a speed sensor providing transmission speed feedback to second controller 62. In one embodiment, second controller 62 is configured to coordinate a motor diagnostic test, as described herein. The functionalities of first and second controllers 50, 62 may alternatively be provided in a single controller or other controller configurations).
Motor feedback control is well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Lavoie, as modified, to substitute Gratton’s functionalities of the vehicle master controller and motor controller such that the motor controller is in bi-directional communication with the vehicle master controller because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, Gratton [0016] teaches the interchangeability of the arrangement of control functionalities between the controllers. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention would be motivated to incorporate feedback (bi-directionally) for the benefits of enabling motor performance diagnosis (Gratton [0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20160083113-A1: Schramm discloses A single point disconnect system useful for pushback of an aircraft using a tow bar and a vehicle
US-20200073398-A1: Niewiadomski discloses a controller configured to process image data from the image sensor identifying a coupler position of a trailer
US-20190391590-A1: Niewiadomski discloses a controller configured to identify a force applied to the hitch via the at least one sensor.
US-20200361466-A1: Xu discloses identifying a coupler distance based on the image data depicting a coupler of the trailer
US-20200189336-A1: Sharma discloses braking to avoid collision between a vehicle and a trailer during a hitching operation
US-20190337343-A1: Llanos discloses determining a region of interest within images from a rear camera. The region of interest includes a representation of the trailer hitch
WO-2018185261-A1: Ferrari discloses an anticollision system with proximity sensors configured to detect a drawbar, and “braking features of tractor 1 are controlled by control unit 8 as long as a warning position is detected. For example, if the automatic braking is activated and the driver presses the braking pedal but the warning position is still detected when the driver releases the braking pedal, then the automatic braking program would still work and operates as above described. For example, the automatic braking may comprise a step of applying a predetermined braking torque in order to gently decelerate tractor 1”
US-20170247027-A1: Nefcy discloses that a controller may selectively inhibit the driver requested gear change when the change may negatively impact fuel economy
EP-3323664-A1: Lowrie discloses conventional systems having a vehicle control unit and motor control unit
US-20190250611-A1: Costin discloses sensor data from more than one sensor can be aggregated at one controller prior to the aggregated sensor data being communicated to another controller thereby saving bandwidth and reducing transmission times
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights