DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 12/18/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 23217683.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/17/2024 has been reviewed and considered. It is noted that the foreign patent document numbered WO 23030615, published on 3/9/2023, appears to correspond with the provided copy of WO 2023/030615.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show details regarding the blocks contained in figure 3 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 12, line 8, “in particular a coupling forces between units” should read “in particular coupling forces between units”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 52, line 3, “estimated from the a pressure sent” should read “estimated from a pressure sent”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 62, line 1, “be implemented a redundant IMU” should read “be implemented as a redundant IMU”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 65, line 7, the acronym LAN should be defined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, the closing parenthesis should be removed after the words “the second unit)”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 14, line 4, “between the first unit and a second unit” should read “between the first unit and the second unit” to make it clear that the second unit is the same second unit recited in claim 13, line 3.
In claim 17, lines 5-8, “a coupling point between the first unit and the second unit; acquiring, by the processing circuitry, a second set of parameters relating to a second unit” should read “a coupling point between the first unit and a second unit; acquiring, by the processing circuitry, a second set of parameters relating to the second unit” to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the second unit in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “localization unit [configured to localize]” in claims 6 and 13, lines 4-5 and 9, respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-7, 10 and 13-16 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 5, lines 2-4, the limitation “use the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit and/or the lateral acceleration of the second unit as an input” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the following combinations is input to the inertial measurement unit (IMU):
at least one of the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit or the lateral acceleration of the second unit; or
the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, and the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit or the lateral acceleration of the second unit.
A conventional IMU does not inherently require all of said parameters, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that at least one of the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit or the lateral acceleration of the second unit are used by the IMU.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, lines 4 and 7, respectively, the limitation “an input to an inertial measurement unit” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the IMU receives parameters from separate processing circuitry. A conventional IMU is an electronic device that measures a body's specific force and angular rate using combinations of accelerometers and gyroscopes. Paragraph 32 discloses inputting parameters to a “soft” inertial measurement unit (i.e., an inertial navigation system (INS)) that is implemented in a control unit, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to inputs of a software module that performs motion calculations and is executed by a control unit.
Regarding claim 6, lines 1-4, the limitation “use the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit and/or the lateral acceleration of the second unit” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the following combinations the processing circuitry is configured to use:
at least one of the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit, or the lateral acceleration of the second unit; or
the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, and the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit or the lateral acceleration of the second unit.
The values are used to verify corresponding parameters of a localization unit, a primary IMU, or satellite position sensor, each of which do not inherently include all of said parameters, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that at least one of the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit, or the lateral acceleration of the second unit are used for verification.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, lines 4-5 and 8-9, respectively, the limitation “verify corresponding parameters of a separate vehicle motion or localization unit” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether parameters of a separate vehicle motion or a separate vehicle motion unit are verified. There does not appear to be explicit disclosure of a vehicle motion unit, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that a vehicle motion is verified that is separate from the acquired sets of parameters.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, lines 4-5 and 9, respectively, the limitation “localization unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 7, lines 5-8, the limitation “determining the longitudinal coupling force and the lateral coupling force based on the acquired longitudinal acceleration of the first unit, lateral acceleration of the first unit, sum of longitudinal tire forces, sum of lateral tire forces, and mass of the first unit” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the parameters the respective determinations of the longitudinal coupling force and the lateral coupling force are based on. Equation 14 discloses the longitudinal coupling force is based on the mass of the first unit, longitudinal acceleration of the first unit, and sum of longitudinal tire forces. Equation 15 discloses the lateral coupling force is based on the mass of the first unit, lateral acceleration of the first unit, and sum of lateral tire forces. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that longitudinal coupling force is based on the mass, longitudinal tire forces, and longitudinal acceleration, of the first unit, and the lateral coupling force is based on the mass, lateral acceleration, and lateral tire forces, of the first unit.
Regarding claim 10, lines 2-4, the limitation “the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit and/or the lateral acceleration of the second unit are stored” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the following combinations of parameters are stored:
at least one of the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit, or the lateral acceleration of the second unit; or
the longitudinal coupling force, the lateral coupling force, the articulation angle, and the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit or the lateral acceleration of the second unit.
Paragraph 7 discloses that the longitudinal and lateral acceleration are not
determined in all embodiments, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that only a subset of the parameters are required to be stored in memory.
Claims 14-16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a computer system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c) Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire a first set of parameters relating to a first unit of a vehicle combination, the first set of parameters comprising a longitudinal acceleration of the first unit, a lateral acceleration of the first unit, a yaw rate of the first unit, and a first distance between the center of gravity of the first unit and a coupling point between the first unit and a second unit of the vehicle combination;
acquire a second set of parameters relating to the second unit, the second set of parameters comprising a longitudinal tire force of the second unit, a mass of the second unit, and a second distance between the center of gravity of the second unit and the coupling point;
acquire a longitudinal coupling force and a lateral coupling force between the first unit and the second unit; and
determine an articulation angle between the first unit and the second unit) based on the acquired first set of parameters, second set of parameters, longitudinal coupling force, and lateral coupling force [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine an articulation angle…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using received data to estimate an angle between a vehicle and a coupled trailer. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component]:
acquire a first set of parameters relating to a first unit of a vehicle combination, the first set of parameters comprising a longitudinal acceleration of the first unit, a lateral acceleration of the first unit, a yaw rate of the first unit, and a first distance between the center of gravity of the first unit and a coupling point between the first unit and a second unit of the vehicle combination [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
acquire a second set of parameters relating to the second unit, the second set of parameters comprising a longitudinal tire force of the second unit, a mass of the second unit, and a second distance between the center of gravity of the second unit and the coupling point [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
acquire a longitudinal coupling force and a lateral coupling force between the first unit and the second unit [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]; and
determine an articulation angle between the first unit and the second unit) based on the acquired first set of parameters, second set of parameters, longitudinal coupling force, and lateral coupling force.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “acquire … parameters…” and “acquire a longitudinal coupling force…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processing circuitry) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining vehicle information), and amounts to merely gathering data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processing circuitry” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing the generic computer function(s) of receiving data and performing kinematic calculations) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using processing circuitry to determine an articulation angle amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “acquire … parameters…” and “acquire a longitudinal coupling force…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 13 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to a computer-implemented method (i.e., a process) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12, 14-16 and 18-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 13 and 17.
Dependent claim 18 is further directed to a computer program product, i.e., “software per se”. “Software per se”, when claimed without any structural limitations, does not have a physical or tangible form. Therefore, it does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and is ineligible under 35 USC 101. see MPEP 2106.03. If support is found within the specification, Applicant is advised to amend the claim(s) to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, performs: [the claimed functions]”, or equivalent language. see MPEP 2106.03 (I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium would comprise an article of manufacture and thus fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-19 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vilca et al. (US 2022/0227418), hereinafter Vilca.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Vilca discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry (Vilca; para. 16: a computer program containing instructions for causing a computer, or the articulation angle estimation system in particular, to carry out the above method) configured to: acquire a first set of parameters relating to a first unit of a vehicle combination (Vilca; paras. 51-53: values—proper to the vehicle combination 199 or vehicle combinations of the same type—of the masses and/or moments of inertia are determined … the determined values may be inserted into a dynamics-based vehicle combination model … one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model); acquire a second set of parameters relating to a second unit of the vehicle combination (Vilca; paras. 51-53: values—proper to the vehicle combination 199 or vehicle combinations of the same type—of the masses and/or moments of inertia are determined … the determined values may be inserted into a dynamics-based vehicle combination model … one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model); determine a third set of parameters relating to the second unit of the vehicle combination (Vilca; para. 54: In a fourth step 240, an estimate
ϕ
^
of the articulation angle is extracted from a current state of the model.) based on the acquired first and second sets of parameters (Vilca; paras. 51-53: values—proper to the vehicle combination 199 or vehicle combinations of the same type—of the masses and/or moments of inertia are determined … the determined values may be inserted into a dynamics-based vehicle combination model … one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model); and use the third set of parameters as an input to an inertial measurement unit, IMU, for motion management of the vehicle combination (Vilca; para. 55: The fourth step 240 may be repeated whenever such entities which use the articulation angle estimate
ϕ
^
as input (e.g., regulator 120, assisted brake system, trailer anti-swing control system, low-speed maneuvering assistance system, autonomous driving system) require a fresh value.), or to verify corresponding parameters of a separate vehicle motion or localization unit (Vilca; para. 58: In embodiments where the system 110 includes one or more secondary data sources, such as an articulation angle sensor 112 or a kinematics-based estimator 114, there may further be provided a selector 115. The selector 115 is simplistically drawn in FIG. 1 as a switch, but may be implemented in a commercial product as a software or logic unit configured to indicate at each point in time the most accurate data source and/or to grade the accuracy of each data source. This way, the selector 115 may output the currently best estimate of the articulation angle
ϕ
.), a primary IMU of the vehicle combination, or global navigation satellite system, GNSS, based sensor equipment.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Vilca discloses the first set of parameters comprises a longitudinal acceleration of the first unit, a lateral acceleration of the first unit (Vilca; paras. 32-33: The sensors 111 in the vehicle combination 199 may be configured to capture linear and angular motion quantities, including a longitudinal velocity of the first vehicle unit, a longitudinal velocity of the second vehicle unit, a lateral velocity of the first vehicle unit, a lateral velocity of the second vehicle unit, a yaw rate of the first vehicle unit and/or the yaw rate of a second vehicle unit. Alternatively or additionally, the sensors 111 may be configured to capture time derivatives or integrals of these quantities … The sensors 111 may perform indirect measurements of the mentioned quantities), a yaw rate of the first unit (Vilca; para. 36:
θ
˙
1
yaw rate of vehicle unit 1), and a first distance between the center of gravity of the first unit and a coupling point between the first unit and a second unit of the vehicle combination (Vilca; para. 36:
l
c
1
distance (horizontal) to articulation point P from center of gravity
O
1
of vehicle unit 1).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Vilca discloses the second set of parameters comprises a longitudinal tire force of the second unit (Vilca; para. 36:
u
4
brake force (longitudinal) of vehicle unit 2), a mass of the second unit (Vilca; para. 36:
m
2
mass of vehicle unit … 2), and a second distance between the center of gravity of the second unit and the coupling point (Vilca; para. 36:
l
c
2
distance (horizontal) to articulation point P from center of gravity
O
2
of vehicle unit 2).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Vilca discloses the third set of parameters comprises an articulation angle between the first unit and the second unit (Vilca; para. 54: In a fourth step 240, an estimate
ϕ
^
of the articulation angle is extracted from a current state of the model.), optionally a longitudinal coupling force and a lateral coupling force between the first unit and the second unit, and optionally a longitudinal acceleration of the second unit and/or a lateral acceleration of the second unit.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilca.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Vilca discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry (Vilca; para. 16: a computer program containing instructions for causing a computer, or the articulation angle estimation system in particular, to carry out the above method) configured to: acquire a first set of parameters relating to a first unit of a vehicle combination (Vilca; paras. 51-53: values—proper to the vehicle combination 199 or vehicle combinations of the same type—of the masses and/or moments of inertia are determined … the determined values may be inserted into a dynamics-based vehicle combination model … one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model), the first set of parameters comprising a longitudinal velocity of the first unit, a lateral velocity of the first unit (Vilca; para. 32: The sensors 111 in the vehicle combination 199 may be configured to capture linear and angular motion quantities, including a longitudinal velocity of the first vehicle unit … a lateral velocity of the first vehicle unit), a yaw rate of the first unit (Vilca; para. 36:
θ
˙
1
yaw rate of vehicle unit 1), and a first distance between the center of gravity of the first unit and a coupling point between the first unit and a second unit of the vehicle combination (Vilca; para. 36:
l
c
1
distance (horizontal) to articulation point P from center of gravity
O
1
of vehicle unit 1); acquire a second set of parameters relating to the second unit (Vilca; paras. 51-53: values—proper to the vehicle combination 199 or vehicle combinations of the same type—of the masses and/or moments of inertia are determined … the determined values may be inserted into a dynamics-based vehicle combination model … one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model), the second set of parameters comprising a longitudinal tire force of the second unit (Vilca; para. 36:
u
4
brake force (longitudinal) of vehicle unit 2), a mass of the second unit (Vilca; para. 36:
m
2
mass of vehicle unit 2), and a second distance between the center of gravity of the second unit and the coupling point (Vilca; para. 36:
l
c
2
distance (horizontal) to articulation point P from center of gravity
O
2
of vehicle unit 2); acquire a longitudinal coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
x
1
… longitudinal coupling force on vehicle unit 1) and a lateral coupling force between the first unit and the second unit (Vilca; para. 36:
P
y
1
… lateral coupling force on vehicle unit 1); and determine an articulation angle between the first unit and the second unit) based on the acquired first set of parameters (Vilca; para. 54: In a fourth step 240, an estimate
ϕ
^
of the articulation angle is extracted from a current state of the model.), second set of parameters, longitudinal coupling force, and lateral coupling force (Vilca; paras. 51-53: values—proper to the vehicle combination 199 or vehicle combinations of the same type—of the masses and/or moments of inertia are determined … the determined values may be inserted into a dynamics-based vehicle combination model … one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model).
Vilca does not explicitly disclose using a longitudinal and a lateral acceleration of the first unit to determine the articulation angle.
However, Vilca, in paragraph 32, further discloses indirectly measuring the longitudinal and lateral velocities of each vehicle unit using sensors configured to capture their time derivatives. It is well known that acceleration is the first derivative of velocity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have calculated the articulation angle based on integrating the longitudinal and lateral acceleration measurements of each vehicle unit to derive their velocities, as disclosed by Vilca, to yield the predictable result of determining the articulation angle when direct velocity measurements are unavailable.
Regarding claim 2, Vilca, as modified, discloses the first set of parameters further comprises a yaw acceleration of the first unit (Vilca; para. 32: The sensors 111 in the vehicle combination 199 may be configured to capture … angular motion quantities, including … a yaw rate of the first vehicle unit and/or the yaw rate of a second vehicle unit. Alternatively or additionally, the sensors 111 may be configured to capture time derivatives or integrals of these quantities); and the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a longitudinal acceleration of the second unit and/or a lateral acceleration of the second unit based on the acquired first set of parameters, the acquired second set of parameters, and the determined articulation angle (Vilca; para. 34: dynamics-based estimator 113 may be implemented as a Kalman filter which maintains state variables x and updates these on the basis of the measurements y; para. 53: In a third step 230, one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model. As described, the sensing may utilize sensors capturing the measurement quantities directly, or may be structured as an indirect measurement that includes measuring different quantities and performing a calculation. The linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination may be used to compute initial states of the model. Alternatively, they may be used in an update step for a Kalman filter, in which the measured quantities are predicted from the current state of the model and compared with the true (measured) values.; para. 55: third step 230 may be repeated as often as is deemed necessary [i.e., the Kalman filter iteratively, based on the acquired first set of parameters, the acquired second set of parameters, and the determined articulation angle, predicts and updates the longitudinal speed of vehicle unit 2 state variable
v
x
2
which, as modified, is replaced with the time integral of the longitudinal acceleration of vehicle unit 2]).
Regarding claim 3, Vilca, as modified, discloses the processing circuitry is configured to determine the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit (Vilca; para. 34: dynamics-based estimator 113 may be implemented as a Kalman filter which maintains state variables x and updates these on the basis of the measurements y; para. 53: In a third step 230, one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model. As described, the sensing may utilize sensors capturing the measurement quantities directly, or may be structured as an indirect measurement that includes measuring different quantities and performing a calculation. The linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination may be used to compute initial states of the model. Alternatively, they may be used in an update step for a Kalman filter, in which the measured quantities are predicted from the current state of the model and compared with the true (measured) values.; para. 55: third step 230 may be repeated as often as is deemed necessary [i.e., the Kalman filter iteratively, based on the acquired first set of parameters, the acquired second set of parameters, and the determined articulation angle, predicts and updates the longitudinal speed of vehicle unit 2 state variable
v
x
2
which, as modified, is replaced with the time integral of the longitudinal acceleration of vehicle unit 2]) based on the determined articulation angle (Vilca; para. 54: In a fourth step 240, an estimate
ϕ
^
of the articulation angle is extracted from a current state of the model.), the longitudinal acceleration of the first unit, the lateral acceleration of the first unit, the yaw rate of the first unit (Vilca; para. 32: The sensors 111 in the vehicle combination 199 may be configured to capture linear and angular motion quantities, including a longitudinal velocity of the first vehicle unit, a longitudinal velocity of the second vehicle unit, a lateral velocity of the first vehicle unit, a lateral velocity of the second vehicle unit, a yaw rate of the first vehicle unit and/or the yaw rate of a second vehicle unit. Alternatively or additionally, the sensors 111 may be configured to capture time derivatives or integrals of these quantities, such as a longitudinal position, a longitudinal acceleration, a yaw pose etc.), and the first distance (Vilca; para. 36:
l
c
1
distance (horizontal) to articulation point P from center of gravity
O
1
of vehicle unit 1).
Vilca, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the determined longitudinal acceleration of the second unit is based on the yaw acceleration of the first unit.
However, Vilca, in paragraph 32, further discloses indirectly measuring the yaw rate of each vehicle unit using sensors configured to capture their time derivatives. It is well known that angular acceleration is the first derivative of angular velocity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have calculated the longitudinal acceleration based on integrating yaw acceleration measurements to derive the yaw rate of each vehicle unit, as disclosed by Vilca, to yield the predictable result of determining the articulation angle when direct yaw rate measurements are unavailable.
Regarding claim 4, Vilca, as modified, discloses the processing circuitry is configured to determine the lateral acceleration of the second unit (Vilca; para. 34: dynamics-based estimator 113 may be implemented as a Kalman filter which maintains state variables x and updates these on the basis of the measurements y; para. 53: In a third step 230, one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model. As described, the sensing may utilize sensors capturing the measurement quantities directly, or may be structured as an indirect measurement that includes measuring different quantities and performing a calculation. The linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination may be used to compute initial states of the model. Alternatively, they may be used in an update step for a Kalman filter, in which the measured quantities are predicted from the current state of the model and compared with the true (measured) values.; para. 55: third step 230 may be repeated as often as is deemed necessary [i.e., the Kalman filter iteratively, based on the acquired first set of parameters, the acquired second set of parameters, and the determined articulation angle, predicts and updates the lateral speed of vehicle unit 2 state variable
v
y
2
which, as modified, is replaced with the time integral of the lateral acceleration of vehicle unit 2]) based on the determined articulation angle (Vilca; para. 54: In a fourth step 240, an estimate
ϕ
^
of the articulation angle is extracted from a current state of the model.), the longitudinal acceleration of the first unit, the lateral acceleration of the first unit, the yaw acceleration of the first unit (Vilca; para. 32: The sensors 111 in the vehicle combination 199 may be configured to capture linear and angular motion quantities, including a longitudinal velocity of the first vehicle unit, a longitudinal velocity of the second vehicle unit, a lateral velocity of the first vehicle unit, a lateral velocity of the second vehicle unit, a yaw rate of the first vehicle unit and/or the yaw rate of a second vehicle unit. Alternatively or additionally, the sensors 111 may be configured to capture time derivatives or integrals of these quantities, such as a longitudinal position, a longitudinal acceleration, a yaw pose etc.), the distance between the center of gravity of the first unit and the coupling point (Vilca; para. 36:
l
c
1
distance (horizontal) to articulation point P from center of gravity
O
1
of vehicle unit 1), and the second distance (Vilca; para. 36:
l
c
2
distance (horizontal) to articulation point P from center of gravity
O
2
of vehicle unit 2).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Vilca, as modified, discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to use the longitudinal coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
x
1
… longitudinal coupling force on vehicle unit 1), the lateral coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
y
1
… lateral coupling force on vehicle unit 1), the articulation angle, the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit and/or the lateral acceleration of the second unit (Vilca; para. 34: dynamics-based estimator 113 may be implemented as a Kalman filter which maintains state variables x and updates these on the basis of the measurements y; para. 53: In a third step 230, one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model. As described, the sensing may utilize sensors capturing the measurement quantities directly, or may be structured as an indirect measurement that includes measuring different quantities and performing a calculation. The linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination may be used to compute initial states of the model. Alternatively, they may be used in an update step for a Kalman filter, in which the measured quantities are predicted from the current state of the model and compared with the true (measured) values.; para. 55: third step 230 may be repeated as often as is deemed necessary [i.e., the Kalman filter iteratively, based on the acquired first set of parameters, the acquired second set of parameters, and the determined articulation angle, predicts and updates the longitudinal and lateral speeds of vehicle unit 2 state variable
v
x
2
and
v
y
2
which, as modified, are replaced with the time integrals of the longitudinal and lateral accelerations of vehicle unit 2]) as an input to an inertial measurement unit, IMU, for motion management of the vehicle combination (Vilca; para. 55: The fourth step 240 may be repeated whenever such entities which use the articulation angle estimate
ϕ
^
as input (e.g., regulator 120, assisted brake system, trailer anti-swing control system, low-speed maneuvering assistance system, autonomous driving system) require a fresh value.).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Vilca, as modified, discloses the processing circuitry is configured to use the longitudinal coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
x
1
… longitudinal coupling force on vehicle unit 1), the lateral coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
y
1
… lateral coupling force on vehicle unit 1), the articulation angle (Vilca; para. 54: In a fourth step 240, an estimate
ϕ
^
of the articulation angle is extracted from a current state of the model.), the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit and/or the lateral acceleration of the second unit (Vilca; para. 34: dynamics-based estimator 113 may be implemented as a Kalman filter which maintains state variables x and updates these on the basis of the measurements y; para. 53: In a third step 230, one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model. As described, the sensing may utilize sensors capturing the measurement quantities directly, or may be structured as an indirect measurement that includes measuring different quantities and performing a calculation. The linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination may be used to compute initial states of the model. Alternatively, they may be used in an update step for a Kalman filter, in which the measured quantities are predicted from the current state of the model and compared with the true (measured) values.; para. 55: third step 230 may be repeated as often as is deemed necessary [i.e., the Kalman filter iteratively, based on the acquired first set of parameters, the acquired second set of parameters, and the determined articulation angle, predicts and updates the longitudinal and lateral speeds of vehicle unit 2 state variable
v
x
2
and
v
y
2
which, as modified, are replaced with the time integrals of the longitudinal and lateral accelerations of vehicle unit 2]) to verify corresponding parameters of a separate vehicle motion or localization unit (Vilca; para. 58: In embodiments where the system 110 includes one or more secondary data sources, such as an articulation angle sensor 112 or a kinematics-based estimator 114, there may further be provided a selector 115. The selector 115 is simplistically drawn in FIG. 1 as a switch, but may be implemented in a commercial product as a software or logic unit configured to indicate at each point in time the most accurate data source and/or to grade the accuracy of each data source. This way, the selector 115 may output the currently best estimate of the articulation angle
ϕ
.), a primary IMU of the vehicle combination, or global navigation satellite system, GNSS, based sensor equipment.
Regarding claim 8, Vilca, as modified, discloses the processing circuitry is configured to acquire at least some of the first set of parameters from a sensor system of the first unit of the vehicle combination (Vilca; para. 32: The sensors 111 in the vehicle combination 199 may be configured to capture linear and angular motion quantities, including a longitudinal velocity of the first vehicle unit … a lateral velocity of the first vehicle unit).
Regarding claim 9, Vilca, as modified, discloses the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the longitudinal tire force of the second unit (Vilca; para. 36:
u
4
brake force (longitudinal) of vehicle unit 2) from a braking system and/or propulsion system of the second unit (Vilca; para. 29: regulator 120 may be configured to generate the control signal u, which may be fed to actuators in the tractor and/or trailer, in such manner as to allow autonomous or semiautonomous driving; para. 31: The trailer (second vehicle unit, non-powered) may include a braking system and subsidiary propulsion system for reinforcing braking and/or forward acceleration, arrangements for adjusting wheel angles during motion to be more compatible with movements of the truck, a cooler or heater with an independent energy source, and similar installations. The trailer's braking system may be of a passive type (e.g., overrun brake) or include an active braking functionality controlled from the truck [i.e., system 110 and regulator 120 comprise a braking system of the trailer because they actively control its braking].).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Vilca, as modified, discloses the computer system is an electronic control unit, ECU, of the first unit (Vilca; para. 29: regulator 120 may be configured to generate the control signal u, which may be fed to actuators in the tractor and/or trailer, in such manner as to allow autonomous or semiautonomous driving), and the longitudinal coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
x
1
… longitudinal coupling force on vehicle unit 1), the lateral coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
y
1
… lateral coupling force on vehicle unit 1), the articulation angle (Vilca; para. 54: In a fourth step 240, an estimate
ϕ
^
of the articulation angle is extracted from a current state of the model.), the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit and/or the lateral acceleration of the second unit (Vilca; para. 34: dynamics-based estimator 113 may be implemented as a Kalman filter which maintains state variables x and updates these on the basis of the measurements y; para. 53: In a third step 230, one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model. As described, the sensing may utilize sensors capturing the measurement quantities directly, or may be structured as an indirect measurement that includes measuring different quantities and performing a calculation. The linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination may be used to compute initial states of the model. Alternatively, they may be used in an update step for a Kalman filter, in which the measured quantities are predicted from the current state of the model and compared with the true (measured) values.; para. 55: third step 230 may be repeated as often as is deemed necessary [i.e., the Kalman filter iteratively, based on the acquired first set of parameters, the acquired second set of parameters, and the determined articulation angle, predicts and updates the longitudinal and lateral speeds of vehicle unit 2 state variable
v
x
2
and
v
y
2
which, as modified, are replaced with the time integrals of the longitudinal and lateral accelerations of vehicle unit 2]) are stored in a memory associated with the ECU of the first unit (Vilca; para. 16: the invention further provides a computer program containing instructions for causing a computer, or the articulation angle estimation system in particular, to carry out the above method. The computer program may be stored or distributed on a data carrier. As used herein, a “data carrier” may be a transitory data carrier, such as modulated electromagnetic or optical waves, or a non-transitory data carrier. Non-transitory data carriers include volatile and non-volatile memories, such as permanent and non-permanent storage media of magnetic, optical or solid-state type; para. 34: In the system 110 shown in FIG. 1, a dynamics-based estimator 113 is responsible for generating the articulation angle estimate
ϕ
^
on the basis of the measurement vector y [i.e., the measurement vector y is stored, at least temporarily, in a memory of system 110 that is in communication with regulator 120].).
Regarding claim 11, Vilca, as modified, discloses the computer system is an electronic control unit, ECU, of the second unit (Vilca; para. 29: regulator 120 may be configured to generate the control signal u, which may be fed to actuators in the tractor and/or trailer, in such manner as to allow autonomous or semiautonomous driving), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to use the longitudinal coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
x
1
… longitudinal coupling force on vehicle unit 1), the lateral coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
y
1
… lateral coupling force on vehicle unit 1), the articulation angle (Vilca; para. 54: In a fourth step 240, an estimate
ϕ
^
of the articulation angle is extracted from a current state of the model.), the longitudinal acceleration of the second unit and/or the lateral acceleration of the second unit (Vilca; para. 34: dynamics-based estimator 113 may be implemented as a Kalman filter which maintains state variables x and updates these on the basis of the measurements y; para. 53: In a third step 230, one or more linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination are sensed and fed as signal y to the model. As described, the sensing may utilize sensors capturing the measurement quantities directly, or may be structured as an indirect measurement that includes measuring different quantities and performing a calculation. The linear and/or angular motion quantities of the vehicle combination may be used to compute initial states of the model. Alternatively, they may be used in an update step for a Kalman filter, in which the measured quantities are predicted from the current state of the model and compared with the true (measured) values.; para. 55: third step 230 may be repeated as often as is deemed necessary [i.e., the Kalman filter iteratively, based on the acquired first set of parameters, the acquired second set of parameters, and the determined articulation angle, predicts and updates the longitudinal and lateral speeds of vehicle unit 2 state variable
v
x
2
and
v
y
2
which, as modified, are replaced with the time integrals of the longitudinal and lateral accelerations of vehicle unit 2]) as a redundancy for determination of parameters by the second unit (Vilca; para. 58: In embodiments where the system 110 includes one or more secondary data sources, such as an articulation angle sensor 112 or a kinematics-based estimator 114, there may further be provided a selector 115. The selector 115 is simplistically drawn in FIG. 1 as a switch, but may be implemented in a commercial product as a software or logic unit configured to indicate at each point in time the most accurate data source and/or to grade the accuracy of each data source. This way, the selector 115 may output the currently best estimate of the articulation angle
ϕ
.).
Regarding claim 12, Vilca, as modified, discloses a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (Vilca; para. 30: The system 110 and optional associated regulator 120 may be installed onboard the vehicle combination 199 (e.g., in one or more vehicle units thereof) or externally.).
Regarding claim 18, Vilca, as modified, discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 17 (Vilca; para. 16: a computer program containing instructions for causing a computer, or the articulation angle estimation system in particular, to carry out the above method).
Regarding claim 19, Vilca, as modified, discloses 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 17 (Vilca; para. 16: a computer program containing instructions for causing a computer, or the articulation angle estimation system in particular, to carry out the above method. The computer program may be stored or distributed on a data carrier. As used herein, a “data carrier” may be a transitory data carrier, such as modulated electromagnetic or optical waves, or a non-transitory data carrier. Non-transitory data carriers include volatile and non-volatile memories, such as permanent and non-permanent storage media of magnetic, optical or solid-state type).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilca as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dhaens et al. (US 2024/0010036), hereinafter Dhaens.
Regarding claim 7, Vilca, as modified, discloses the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the longitudinal coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
u
4
brake force (longitudinal) of vehicle unit 2), the lateral coupling force (Vilca; para. 36:
P
y
1
… lateral coupling force on vehicle unit 1), a longitudinal tire force of the first unit (Vilca; para. 36:
u
3
brake force (longitudinal) of vehicle unit 1), a lateral tire force of the first unit (Vilca; para. 36:
F
y
1
f
lateral force on front axle of vehicle unit 1,
F
y
1
r
lateral force on rear axle of vehicle unit 1), and a mass of the first unit (Vilca; para. 36:
m
1
… mass of vehicle unit 1).
Vilca, as modified, does not explicitly disclose determining the longitudinal coupling force and the lateral coupling force based on the acquired longitudinal acceleration of the first unit, lateral acceleration of the first unit, sum of longitudinal tire forces, sum of lateral tire forces, and mass of the first unit.
Dhaens, in the same field of endeavor (towing vehicle controls), discloses a longitudinal force balance equation (Dhaens; para. 63) based on a towing vehicle mass
m
(Dhaens; para. 67) and a summation (Dhaens; eq. 1) of the force on each wheel (Dhaens; para. 67:
F
x
i
,
j
is the longitudinal force of the ij-th tire/wheel). Dhaens further discloses using the longitudinal force balance equation to determine the longitudinal hitch force component
F
x
,
t
j
2
c
(Dhaens; para. 73) based on the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle (Dhaens; para. 72: the hitch force module 420 may determine hitch joint force components (or hitch forces) based on the following assumptions: the yaw and pitch acceleration of the trailer 104 are disregarded; and the longitudinal and lateral accelerations of the trailer
α
x
,
t
and
α
y
,
t
are approximated by the hitch force module 420 based on the acceleration components of the vehicle 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have calculated the longitudinal coupling force based on the longitudinal acceleration, mass, and sum of longitudinal tire forces, of the tow vehicle, as disclosed by Dhaens, in the processor of Vilca, as modified, to yield the predictable result of determining the force acting on the vehicle without a direct trailer load measurement.
Vilca, as modified, does not explicitly disclose determining the lateral coupling force based on the lateral acceleration of the first unit, sum of lateral tire forces, and mass of the first unit.
Dhaens further discloses a lateral force balance equation (Dhaens; para. 64) based on a towing vehicle mass
m
(Dhaens; para. 67) and a summation (Dhaens; eq. 2) of the force on each wheel (Dhaens; para. 67:
F
y
i
,
j
is the lateral force of the ij-th tire/wheel). Dhaens further discloses using the lateral force balance equation to determine the lateral hitch force component
F
y
,
t
j
2
c
(Dhaens; para. 73) based on the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle (Dhaens; para. 72: the hitch force module 420 may determine hitch joint force components (or hitch forces) based on the following assumptions: the yaw and pitch acceleration of the trailer 104 are disregarded; and the longitudinal and lateral accelerations of the trailer
α
x
,
t
and
α
y
,
t
are approximated by the hitch force module 420 based on the acceleration components of the vehicle 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have calculated the lateral coupling force based on the lateral acceleration, mass, and sum of lateral tire forces, of the tow vehicle, as disclosed by Dhaens, in the processor of Vilca, as modified, to yield the predictable result of determining the force acting on the vehicle without a direct trailer load measurement.
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chie et al., in US 2015/0165850, disclose a trailer stability control method wherein hitch forces and accelerations are predicted to determine the likelihood of oscillating trailer instabilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665