DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first unit the first unit” in line 2-3 should be “the first unit in the first unit” consistent with language in Claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
As per Claim 1, “the fault” in line 16 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claims 2-10 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 2, “a fault” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “the fault” in line 16 of Claim 1. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 3, “the fault” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claim 4 depending from Claim 3 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 4, “the fault” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 6, “a fault” in line 9 does not clearly relate back to “the fault” in line 16 of Claim 1. Clarification is required. Claim 7 depending from Claim 6 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 7, “a fault” in line 8 does not clearly relate back to “the fault” in line 16 of Claim 1 or “a fault” in line 9 of Claim 6. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 8, “a fault” in line 3 does not clearly relate back to “the fault” in line 16 of Claim 1. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 11, “the fault” in line 17 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claims 12-20 depending from Claim 11 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 12, “a fault” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “the fault” in line 17 of Claim 11. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 13, “the fault” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 14, “the fault” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 16, “a fault” in line 9 does not clearly relate back to “the fault” in line 17 of Claim 11. Clarification is required. Claim 17 depending from Claim 16 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 17, “a fault” in line 8 does not clearly relate to “the fault” in line 17 of Claim 11 or “a fault” in line 9 of Claim 16. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 18, “a fault” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “the fault” in line 17 of Claim 11. Clarification is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimanaka (US Patent No. 10,525,946) in view of Choi (US Pub. No. 2022/0306063).
As per Claim 1, Shimanaka discloses a computer system (50, 60) for a vehicle combination (20, 40), the computer system (50, 60) comprising processing circuitry (as per “the first controller 50 transmits a brake-related signal to the second controller 60 via the on-board network” in 5:24-26) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22) configured to implement:
a first controller (50) implemented in a first unit (20) of the vehicle combination (20, 40), the first controller (50) configured to, in a first mode of operation (as per “the execution unit 52 of the first controller 50 is configured to execute an automatic brake control that brakes the vehicle 10 by controlling the first actuator control unit 51 and the second actuator control unit 61 in accordance with the distance between the vehicle 10 and an object located near the vehicle detected by the distance sensor 72” in 5:65-6:3), determine a requested unit control input (as per “the section unit 52 sets an execution condition” in 6:3-5) for one or more units (20, 40) of the vehicle combination (20, 40) based on a reference input (as per “a map is used to calculate the braking force” in 6:13) representing a requested movement (as per “brakes the vehicle 10” in 5:66-67) of the vehicle combination (20, 40) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22); and
a second controller (60) implemented in a second unit (40) of the vehicle combination (20, 40) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22), the second controller (60) configured to:
in the first mode of operation (as per “the execution unit 52 of the first controller 50 is configured to execute an automatic brake control that brakes the vehicle 10 by controlling the first actuator control unit 51 and the second actuator control unit 61 in accordance with the distance between the vehicle 10 and an object located near the vehicle detected by the distance sensor 72” in 5:65-6:3), receive a requested unit control input (as per “the section unit 52 sets an execution condition” in 6:3-5) for the second unit (60) from the first controller (50), and implement the requested unit control input (as per “the section unit 52 sets an execution condition” in 6:3-5) for the second unit (40) in the second unit (40) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22); and
in a second mode (as per “When the driver operates the brake pedal 24, the first controller 50 receives an output signal corresponding to the operation amount from the stroke sensor 71” in 5:14-16), determine a requested unit control input (as per “The second actuator control unit 61 of the second controller 60 calculates a suitable braking force for the trailer 40 based on the brake-related signal, which has been transmitted from the first controller 50” in 5:27-30) for one or more units (40) of the vehicle combination (20, 40) based on the reference input (as per “brake-related signal” in 5:25, 5:29) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22);
wherein the processing circuitry (as per “the first controller 50 transmits a brake-related signal to the second controller 60 via the on-board network” in 5:24-26) is further configured to implement a monitor (62) in the second controller (60) configured to monitor operation and detect the fault (Fig. 1; 5:7-9, 6:32-38).
Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the second controller is configured to monitor operation of the first controller and/or of the first unit.
Choi discloses vehicle (10) having a plurality of brakes (110, 120, 130, 140) and controllers (210, 220, 230, 240) (Fig. 1; ¶34). The controllers (210, 220, 230, 240) are electrically connected to each other and operate to determine whether a controller (210, 220, 230, 240) has malfunctioned (Figs. 3-4; ¶46-63). In operation, when any one of the controllers (210, 220, 230, 240) includes a malfunction, remaining controllers (210, 220, 230, 240) that function normally replace a function of the faulty controller (¶40). In this way, a control strategy for ensuring stability of the vehicle is established (¶52). Like Shimanaka, Choi is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein the second controller is configured to monitor operation of the first controller and/or of the first unit” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to monitor one another as per Choi.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the second mode of operation is triggered by detection of a fault associated with the first controller and/or the first unit.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein the role of main controller passes from one controller to another (e.g., S600) in response to detection of a malfunction in that controller initially designated as a main controller (S200) (Fig. 4; ¶53-63).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein the second mode of operation is triggered by detection of a fault associated with the first controller and/or the first unit” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to pass control from one to another as per Choi.
As per Claim 3, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the monitor is configured to detect the fault by comparing the requested control input from the first controller with one or more requested unit control inputs and/or one or more limits.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein malfunctions are detected by comparing the value of data transmitted between the controllers (Fig. 3; ¶46-52).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein the monitor is configured to detect the fault by comparing the requested control input from the first controller with one or more requested unit control inputs and/or one or more limits” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to detect malfunctions as per Choi.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein, in the second mode of operation, the second controller is configured to implement a requested unit control input for the first unit the first unit.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein the role of main controller passes from one controller to another (e.g., S600) in response to detection of a malfunction in that controller initially designated as a main controller (S200) (Fig. 4; ¶53-63).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein, in the second mode of operation, the second controller is configured to implement a requested unit control input for the first unit the first unit” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to pass control from one to another as per Choi.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to implement a third controller configured to implement a minimum risk manoeuvre in response to detection of a fault associated with the first controller and/or the second controller.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein failure of two controllers moves authority to a third controller that controls the vehicle in an emergency driving mode in order to move the vehicle to a safe zone in a limp aside mode (Fig. 4; ¶53-63).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to implement a third controller configured to implement a minimum risk manoeuvre in response to detection of a fault associated with the first controller and/or the second controller” in that the system of Shimanaka would be adapted to pass control to a third controller in order to perform a limp aside mode.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka further discloses wherein the first unit (20) is a tractor unit (as per “tractor” in 4:14) of the vehicle combination (20, 40), and the second unit (40) is a trailing unit (as per “trailer” in 4:14) of the vehicle combination (20, 40).
As per Claim 10, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. The combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests further discloses a vehicle (as per vehicle 10 of Shimanaka) comprising the computer system (as per first controller 50 and second controller 50 of Shimanaka as informed by teachings of Choi) of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
As per Claim 11, Shimanaka discloses a computer-implemented method (as per operation of first controller 50, second controller 60) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22) comprising:
in a first mode of operation (as per “the execution unit 52 of the first controller 50 is configured to execute an automatic brake control that brakes the vehicle 10 by controlling the first actuator control unit 51 and the second actuator control unit 61 in accordance with the distance between the vehicle 10 and an object located near the vehicle detected by the distance sensor 72” in 5:65-6:3) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22):
determining, at a first controller (50) in a first unit (20) of a vehicle combination (20, 40), a requested unit control input (as per “the section unit 52 sets an execution condition” in 6:3-5) for one or more units (20, 40) of the vehicle combination (20, 40) based on a reference input (as per “a map is used to calculate the braking force” in 6:13) representing a requested movement (as per “brakes the vehicle 10” in 5:66-67) of the vehicle combination (20, 40) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22);
receiving, by a second controller (60) implemented in a second unit (40) of the vehicle combination (20, 40), a requested unit control input (as per “the section unit 52 sets an execution condition” in 6:3-5) for the second unit (40) from the first controller (50) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22); and
implementing, by the second controller (60), the requested unit control input (as per “the section unit 52 sets an execution condition” in 6:3-5) for the second unit (40) in the second unit (60) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22); and
in a second mode of operation (as per “When the driver operates the brake pedal 24, the first controller 50 receives an output signal corresponding to the operation amount from the stroke sensor 71” in 5:14-16) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22):
determining, by the second controller (60), a requested unit control input (as per “The second actuator control unit 61 of the second controller 60 calculates a suitable braking force for the trailer 40 based on the brake-related signal, which has been transmitted from the first controller 50” in 5:27-30) for one or more units (40) of the vehicle combination (20, 40) based on the reference input (as per “brake-related signal” in 5:25, 5:29) (Figs. 1-2; 4:13-5:37, 5:65-6:22):
the computer-implemented method (as per operation of first controller 50, second controller 60) further comprising monitoring, by a monitor (62) implemented in the second controller (50), operation to detect the fault (Fig. 1; 5:7-9, 6:32-38).
Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the second controller is configured to monitor operation of the first controller and/or of the first unit.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi.
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein the second controller is configured to monitor operation of the first controller and/or of the first unit” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to monitor one another as per Choi.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the second mode of operation is triggered by detection of a fault associated with the first controller and/or the first unit.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein the role of main controller passes from one controller to another (e.g., S600) in response to detection of a malfunction in that controller initially designated as a main controller (S200) (Fig. 4; ¶53-63).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein the second mode of operation is triggered by detection of a fault associated with the first controller and/or the first unit” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to pass control from one to another as per Choi.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein detecting the fault comprises comparing the requested control input from the first controller with one or more requested unit control inputs and/or one or more limits.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein malfunctions are detected by comparing the value of data transmitted between the controllers (Fig. 3; ¶46-52).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein detecting the fault comprises comparing the requested control input from the first controller with one or more requested unit control inputs and/or one or more limits” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to detect malfunctions as per Choi.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose in the second mode of operation, implementing, by the second controller, a requested unit control input for the first unit in the first unit.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein the role of main controller passes from one controller to another (e.g., S600) in response to detection of a malfunction in that controller initially designated as a main controller (S200) (Fig. 4; ¶53-63).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “in the second mode of operation, implementing, by the second controller, a requested unit control input for the first unit in the first unit” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to pass control from one to another as per Choi.
As per Claim 18, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose implementing, by a third controller, a minimum risk manoeuvre in response to detection of a fault associated with the first controller and/or the second controller.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein failure of two controllers moves authority to a third controller that controls the vehicle in an emergency driving mode in order to move the vehicle to a safe zone in a limp aside mode (Fig. 4; ¶53-63).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “implementing, by a third controller, a minimum risk manoeuvre in response to detection of a fault associated with the first controller and/or the second controller” in that the system of Shimanaka would be adapted to pass control to a third controller in order to perform a limp aside mode.
As per Claim 19, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 11.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein control logic is embodied as non-transitory computer readable media on a computer readable medium containing executable program instructions executed by a controller (¶29). In an alternative embodiment, the computer readable medium is distributed in network coupled computer systems in a distributed fashion (¶29).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates with “a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 11” in that the system of Shimanaka as informed by Choi would be implemented as a program adapted for operation on a controller as per Choi.
As per Claim 20, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 11.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi. Choi further discloses wherein control logic is embodied as non-transitory computer readable media on a computer readable medium containing executable program instructions executed by a controller (¶29). In an alternative embodiment, the computer readable medium is distributed in network coupled computer systems in a distributed fashion (¶29).
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka and Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by ensuring stability. Applying the teachings of Choi to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates with “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 11” in that the system of Shimanaka as informed by Choi would be implemented as media containing instructions adapted for operation on a controller as per Choi.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimanaka (US Patent No. 10,525,946) in view of Choi (US Pub. No. 2022/0306063), further in view of Lindqvist (US Pub. No. 2005/0288843).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 3. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the monitor is configured to detect the fault by determining sensor values and/or covariance values associated with one or more units of the vehicle combination.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi.
Lindqvist discloses a braking system (10) that includes: at least two control units (12, 12’) that generate control signals for brake components (14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24); and a human machine interface (50) for allowing a driver to input various control commands (Fig. 3; ¶38, 58). The HMI (50) includes a brake pedal that includes two sensors (52, 54) that provide input signals to respective control units (12, 12’) (Fig. 3; ¶59). In operation, the control units (12, 12’) perform cross-checking of the signals from the sensors (52, 54) (Fig. 4; ¶58-64). In this way, an out-of-control vehicle situation is prevented (¶61). Like Shimanaka, Lindqvist is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka, Choi, and Lindqvist, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi and Lindqvist to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by: ensuring stability; and preventing an out-of-control vehicle situation. Applying the teachings of Choi and Lindqvist to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system “wherein the monitor is configured to detect the fault by determining sensor values and/or covariance values associated with one or more units of the vehicle combination” in that the system of Shimanaka would be adapted to perform cross-checking of signals as per Lindqvist.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 13. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein detecting the fault comprises determining sensor values and/or covariance values associated with one or more units of the vehicle combination.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Lindqvist.
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka, Choi, and Lindqvist, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi and Lindqvist to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by: ensuring stability; and preventing an out-of-control vehicle situation. Applying the teachings of Choi and Lindqvist to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system “wherein detecting the fault comprises determining sensor values and/or covariance values associated with one or more units of the vehicle combination” in that the system of Shimanaka would be adapted to perform cross-checking of signals as per Lindqvist.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimanaka (US Patent No. 10,525,946) in view of Choi (US Pub. No. 2022/0306063), further in view of Maitlen (US Pub. No. 2014/0046566).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to implement a comparator and, in the first mode of operation: the second controller is configured to determine a predicted unit control input for the one or more units of the vehicle combination based on the reference input; and the comparator is configured to compare the one or more requested unit control inputs from the first controller and the one or more predicted unit control inputs from the second controller, and, if there is a difference between the one or more requested unit control inputs and the one or more predicted unit control inputs, determine that there is a fault associated with the first controller or the second controller.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi.
Maitlen discloses a vehicle (2) connected to a trailer (10), the vehicle (2) including a trailer brake controller (4), the trailer (10) including a trailer braking system (12), the trailer brake controller (4) and trailer braking system (12) communicating with a trailer connection (14) (Fig. 1; ¶41-43). The trailer brake controller (4) is further connected to a vehicle control system (6) via a CAN bus (8) and receives information including braking operating input (212) corresponding to a driver’s application of vehicle brakes (Figs. 1, 3a; ¶41, 58-59). In operation, the trailer brake controller (4) evaluates data receives via the CAN bus (8) to determine if detected brake pressure (520) is stuck high (522), stuck low (524), or erratic (526) (Fig. 10a; ¶93-94). In this way, the trailer brake controller (4) ensures that data inputs to the trailer brake controller (4) are correct (¶93). Like Shimanaka, Maitlen is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka, Choi, and Maitlen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi and Maitlen to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by: ensuring stability; and ensuring that data inputs are correct. Applying the teachings of Choi and Maitlen to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to implement a comparator and, in the first mode of operation: the second controller is configured to determine a predicted unit control input for the one or more units of the vehicle combination based on the reference input; and the comparator is configured to compare the one or more requested unit control inputs from the first controller and the one or more predicted unit control inputs from the second controller, and, if there is a difference between the one or more requested unit control inputs and the one or more predicted unit control inputs, determine that there is a fault associated with the first controller or the second controller” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to detect malfunctions in controllers as per Choi and further adapted to determine whether braking commands are correct as per Maitlen.
As per Claim 16, the combination of Shimanaka and Choi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose in the first mode of operation: determining, by the second controller a predicted unit control input for the one or more units of the vehicle combination based on the reference input, and comparing, by a comparator, the one or more requested unit control inputs from the first controller and the one or more predicted unit control inputs from the second controller, and, if there is a difference between the one or more requested unit control inputs and the one or more predicted unit control inputs, determining, by the comparator, that there is a fault associated with the first controller or the second controller.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi.
See rejection of Claim 16 for discussion of teachings of Maitlen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka, Choi, and Maitlen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi and Maitlen to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by: ensuring stability; and ensuring that data inputs are correct. Applying the teachings of Choi and Maitlen to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to implement a comparator and, in the first mode of operation: the second controller is configured to determine a predicted unit control input for the one or more units of the vehicle combination based on the reference input; and the comparator is configured to compare the one or more requested unit control inputs from the first controller and the one or more predicted unit control inputs from the second controller, and, if there is a difference between the one or more requested unit control inputs and the one or more predicted unit control inputs, determine that there is a fault associated with the first controller or the second controller” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to detect malfunctions in controllers as per Choi and further adapted to determine whether braking commands are correct as per Maitlen.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimanaka (US Patent No. 10,525,946) in view of Choi (US Pub. No. 2022/0306063), further in view of Maitlen (US Pub. No. 2014/0046566), further in view of Nilsson (US Pub. No. 2008/0296106).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Shimanaka, Choi, and Maitlen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to implement a dummy controller and, in the first mode of operation: the dummy controller is configured to determine a dummy unit control input for the one or more units of the vehicle combination based on the reference input; and the comparator is further configured to compare the one or more requested unit control inputs, the one or more predicted vehicle control inputs, and the one or more dummy vehicle control inputs, and determine which of the first controller or the second controller has a fault based on the comparison.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Maitlen.
Nilsson discloses a vehicle brake system (10) that includes brake units (241-4), the brake units (241-4) each including first and second local control units (40, 40’) (Fig. 1; ¶41, 51-56). In one embodiment, each axle includes a pair of dual control modules (24) that act as four synchronized control CPUs acting as a virtual axle module and that operate with triple majority decisions for the output of the safety software (Fig. 4; ¶65-66). In this way, the system provides a fail safe operation (¶15, 76). Like Shimanaka, Nilsson is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka, Choi, Maitlen, and Nilsson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi, Maitlen, and Nilsson to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by: ensuring stability; ensuring that data inputs are correct; and providing a fail safe operation. Applying the teachings of Choi, Maitlen, and Nilsson to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to implement a dummy controller and, in the first mode of operation: the dummy controller is configured to determine a dummy unit control input for the one or more units of the vehicle combination based on the reference input; and the comparator is further configured to compare the one or more requested unit control inputs, the one or more predicted vehicle control inputs, and the one or more dummy vehicle control inputs, and determine which of the first controller or the second controller has a fault based on the comparison” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to detect malfunctions in controllers as per Choi; further adapted to determine whether braking commands are correct as per Maitlen; and further adapted to include output via majority voting as per Nilsson.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Shimanaka, Choi, and Maitlen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 16. Shimanaka does not expressly disclose in the first mode of operation: determining, by a dummy controller, a dummy unit control input for the one or more units of the vehicle combination based on the reference input, and comparing, by the comparator, the one or more requested unit control inputs, the one or more predicted vehicle control inputs, and the one or more dummy vehicle control inputs, and determining, by the comparator, which of the first controller or the second controller has a fault based on the comparison.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Choi.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Maitlen.
See rejection of Claim 17 for discussion of teachings of Nilsson.
Therefore, from these teachings of Shimanaka, Choi, Maitlen, and Nilsson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Choi, Maitlen, and Nilsson to the system of Shimanaka since doing so would enhance the system by: ensuring stability; ensuring that data inputs are correct; and providing a fail safe operation. Applying the teachings of Choi, Maitlen, and Nilsson to the system of Shimanaka would result in a system that operates “in the first mode of operation: determining, by a dummy controller, a dummy unit control input for the one or more units of the vehicle combination based on the reference input, and comparing, by the comparator, the one or more requested unit control inputs, the one or more predicted vehicle control inputs, and the one or more dummy vehicle control inputs, and determining, by the comparator, which of the first controller or the second controller has a fault based on the comparison” in that the controllers of Shimanaka would be adapted to detect malfunctions in controllers as per Choi; further adapted to determine whether braking commands are correct as per Maitlen; and further adapted to include output via majority voting as per Nilsson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heseding (US Pub. No. 2022/0097786) discloses a trailer vehicle and trailer brake
Controller, and method and computer program product therefor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656