DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding the independent claim 1, the claim is directed to a method of detecting (or determining) a yaw instability in a vehicle combination [e.g., a tractor/towing vehicle unit and a trailing/towed vehicle unit], the method generally comprising evaluating data and processing said data with respect to an associated threshold to make a subsequent determination concerning a status of at least one unit of the vehicle combination.
Evaluating data and processing said data to make a subsequent determination are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea. The abstract ideal falls into the category of abstract ideas of “mental processes” since it involves an evaluation that could be performed in the human mind. The additional elements recited in the respective claims, such as a tractor unit and at least one trailing unit, while being beyond the judicial exception, are all individually known, conventional elements of a commonplace vehicle combination.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps (or processes) of evaluating data and processing said data to make a subsequent determination only generally link the use of the judicial exception to the environment of a commonplace vehicle combination. Furthermore, there is no transformation or reduction of any vehicle component to a different state or thing [e.g., there is no transformation or reduction of any vehicle component to a different state or thing based on the determining that a yaw instability is present in the vehicle combination]. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered as a whole with each of the additional elements, the claim(s) simply append(s) well-understood conventional components of a commonplace vehicle combination to the judicial exception with a high generality.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-4 and 8-16, the dependent claims 2-4 and 8-16 also do not recite any additional limitations beyond the abstract idea itself [e.g., specifying that one or more conventional sensors are used to evaluate and process the data, describing the associated threshold via mathematical relationships, making additional subsequent determinations that aren’t being used to transform or reduce any vehicle component to a different state or thing, and/or utilizing a computer to perform the method do not constitute limitations beyond the abstract idea itself];
[e.g., there is still no transformation or reduction of any vehicle component to a different state or thing based on the determining that a yaw instability is present in the vehicle combination].
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 3-4 recite “at least one unit of the vehicle combination”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned at least one unit is intended to be distinct from (or in reference to) one or more of the previously established limitations of “a tractor unit” and “at least one trailing unit”. Note that the examiner has construed the aforementioned claim limitation(s) as being in reference to one or more of the previously established limitations of “a tractor unit” and “at least one trailing unit”, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
The claim first recites “detecting a yaw instability in a vehicle combination”, and then subsequently recites “determining that a yaw instability is present in the vehicle combination”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to how many distinct yaw instability limitations are intended to be in the claim, and it is not exactly clear as to what necessarily distinguishes the detecting of a yaw instability from the determining that a yaw instability is present.
The last two lines of the claim recite “a trailing unit”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned trailing unit is intended to be distinct from (or in reference to) the previously established “at least one trailing unit”. Note that the examiner has construed the aforementioned claim limitation as being in reference to the previously established limitation of “at least one trailing unit”, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the sideslip angle” and “the sideslip angular rate”. There is no clear antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what/which limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., there is/are no preceding claim limitation(s) that clearly provide(s) for a sideslip angle or a sideslip angular rate of the at least one unit that is/are distinct from the previously established sideslip angle parameter limitation].
Regarding claims 8-12, each claim recites “the steady state value”. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what/which limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., there is/are no preceding claim limitation(s) that clearly provide(s) for “a steady state value”].
Each claim recites “the threshold for sideslip angle”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned sideslip angle is intended to be distinct from (or in reference to) to the previously established “sideslip angle parameter”.
Regarding claim 9, the claim provides for a mathematical relationship to describe the claimed threshold. The claim is rendered indefinite such that the mathematical relationship is not clear, since at least the variables A, B and C of the mathematical relationship are not clearly defined in any preceding claim limitation(s).
Regarding claim 10, the claim provides for a mathematical relationship to describe the claimed threshold. The claim is rendered indefinite such that the mathematical relationship is not clear, since at least the variables A and B of the mathematical relationship are not clearly defined in any preceding claim limitation(s).
Regarding claim 11, the claim provides for a mathematical relationship to describe the claimed threshold. The claim is rendered indefinite such that the mathematical relationship is not clear, since at least the variables A, B and C of the mathematical relationship are not clearly defined in any preceding claim limitation(s).
Regarding claim 12, the claim provides for a mathematical relationship to describe the claimed threshold. The claim is rendered indefinite such that the mathematical relationship is not clear, since at least the variables A, B and C of the mathematical relationship are not clearly defined in any preceding claim limitation(s).
Regarding claims 14-15, the claims respectively attempt to describe determining that a jack-knife or trailer swing is present in the vehicle combination if the current value of the sideslip angle parameter of the tractor or trailing unit is beyond the threshold. The claims are rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether or not the aforementioned determinations are intended to be distinct from (or in reference to) the determination that a yaw instability is present in the vehicle combination limitation(s) per claim 1 [e.g., it is not exactly clear as to whether the respective determinations per claims 14-15 are intended to further limit/describe the yaw instability determination per claim 1, or if a separate determination is being made that is distinct from the determination per claim 1]; [e.g., jackknifing and trailer swing both constitute forms of yaw instability].
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “the method steps”. There is no clear antecedent basis for any step(s) in the claim, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what/which limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., particular “steps” are not clearly defined in claim 1, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to where each step of the method necessarily begins and ends, and/or as to exactly how many steps are necessarily being defined in the claim(s)];
[e.g., does the initial determining phrase of claim 1 define a first step and the comparing phrase define a second step, or does the determining phrase and the comparing phrase collectively define a first step and the subsequent determining phrase define a second step, etc.?].
Claims 3-4 and 13 are rejected due to dependency from one or more indefinite claims.
Note that notwithstanding the substantial outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues currently in the claims, the examiner has still applied what appears to be the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20050209763 A1 (Offerle).
Regarding claim 1, Offerle (Figures 1-5, 19-20) [emphasis on Fig. 19-20] teaches a method of detecting a yaw instability in a vehicle combination (10, 160), the vehicle combination comprising a tractor unit (10) and at least one trailing unit (160) (see Fig. 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0127]-[0136]), the method comprising:
determining a current value of a sideslip angle parameter of at least one unit of the vehicle combination (see Fig. 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0127]-[0136]) [e.g., “In step 268, the rear axle side slip angle of the vehicle may be estimated and monitored”];
comparing the current value of the sideslip angle parameter to a threshold (see Fig. 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0127]-[0136]) [e.g., “When the rear axle side slip angle is above a predetermined value together with its rate change above a certain threshold (indicating that the side slip angle is constantly crossing zero)”]; [e.g., the aforementioned excerpt describes a functional equivalent to the claimed comparing]; and
if the current value of the sideslip angle parameter is beyond the threshold, determining that a yaw instability is present in the vehicle combination (see Fig. 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0127]-[0136]) [e.g., “When the rear axle side slip angle is above a predetermined value together with its rate change above a certain threshold (indicating that the side slip angle is constantly crossing zero), the vehicle velocity is above a velocity threshold, and the steering wheel is about zero, and the brake-steer system determines that the vehicle is in straight line driving and the trailering is potentially unstable, brake-steer is applied to the vehicle”]; [e.g., note that the phrase “the trailering is potentially unstable” is just another way of saying that the vehicle combination is highly susceptible to, or currently experiencing, yaw instability].
Offerle fails to explicitly or expressly teach wherein the threshold is necessarily determined based on a current operating state of the vehicle combination, wherein the current operating state of the vehicle combination comprises a longitudinal speed of the vehicle combination, a lateral acceleration of the tractor unit, a lateral acceleration of the trailing unit, a road wheel angle of the tractor unit, a road wheel angle of a trailing unit, a road surface friction coefficient and/or a road profile [e.g., in other words, Offerle fails to explicitly or expressly teach wherein the threshold is determined dynamically based on a current operating state of the vehicle combination]; [e.g., note that based on the current “and/or” language, the claim currently only requires one of the aforementioned current operating states].
However, Offerle at least suggests the aforementioned technical feature (or the option to implement the aforementioned technical feature) via context (see Fig. 3, 19-20 in conjunction with paragraph [0074]) [e.g., “the yaw stability control system 106 may have thresholds that are set by the controller 26 and that may be changed based upon the various conditions of the vehicle such as a trailering condition”].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly have wherein the threshold is (or can be) determined based on a current operating state of the vehicle combination, wherein the current operating state of the vehicle combination comprises a longitudinal speed of the vehicle combination, a lateral acceleration of the tractor unit, a lateral acceleration of the trailing unit, a road wheel angle of the tractor unit, a road wheel angle of a trailing unit, a road surface friction coefficient and/or a road profile as a modification (or an alternative) [e.g., such that the threshold is configured to be dynamically changed based on the various conditions of the vehicle, such as a trailering condition which fundamentally entails and/or is defined by one or more factors including longitudinal speed, lateral acceleration, road wheel angles, road surface friction, and/or a road profile associated with the vehicle combination], so as to enhance (or further enhance) one or more of safety, performance, and operational efficiency, via enabling the vehicle combination to adapt to changing environments [e.g., instead of relying on a fixed threshold, a dynamically changed threshold will allow the vehicle combination to be optimally controlled and/or stabilized based on the various conditions of the vehicle combination such as the trailering condition, regardless as to whether the road surface is dry or icy, whether the road surface is sloping up or down, whether the vehicle combination is moving fast, turning, etc.] (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles concerning the utilization of dynamically determined thresholds instead of fixed thresholds in vehicle control systems).
Regarding claim 2, Offerle teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Offerle further teaches wherein the sideslip angle parameter is a sideslip angle of the at least one unit (see Fig. 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0127]-[0136]). Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Offerle teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Offerle further teaches wherein the current value of the sideslip angle parameter is determined using one or more sensors on the vehicle combination (see Fig. 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0127]-[0136]) [e.g., per Fig. 19, note the preceding vehicle sensors 254]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Offerle teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Offerle further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the threshold is a deviation from a steady state value of the sideslip angle (see Fig. 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0127]-[0136]) [e.g., “When the rear axle side slip angle is above a predetermined value together with its rate change above a certain threshold (indicating that the side slip angle is constantly crossing zero)”]; [e.g., if a rate of change is constantly crossing zero, it generally indicates a deviation from a steady state value]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-13, Offerle teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Offerle further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the threshold is a deviation from a steady state value of the sideslip angle (see Fig. 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0127]-[0136]) [e.g., “When the rear axle side slip angle is above a predetermined value together with its rate change above a certain threshold (indicating that the side slip angle is constantly crossing zero)”]; [e.g., if a rate of change is constantly crossing zero, it generally indicates a deviation from a steady state value].
Offerle fails to expressly teach the specific mathematical relationship(s) that necessarily define the threshold, and the use of experimental data to determine the constants of the specific mathematical relationship(s).
However, in consideration that Offerle at least suggests having the threshold(s) be changeable as a function of the various conditions of the vehicle combination such as the trailing condition which fundamentally entails and/or is defined by one or more factors including longitudinal speed, lateral acceleration, road wheel angles, road surface friction, and/or a road profile associated with the vehicle combination (see Fig. 3, 19-20 in conjunction with paragraph [0074]) [e.g., “the yaw stability control system 106 may have thresholds that are set by the controller 26 and that may be changed based upon the various conditions of the vehicle such as a trailering condition”],
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly implement and/or specifically define the various associated mathematical relationships that will (or can) be involved in the yaw stability control system per Offerle when having the threshold(s) be changeable as a function of the various conditions of the vehicle combination such as the trailing condition [e.g., merely experimenting with and/or describing the relevant mathematical relationship(s) involved in achieving the stability control functionality suggested and/or encompassed by the invention(s) per Offerle], so as to enhance (or further enhance) one or more of safety, performance, and operational efficiency, via enabling the vehicle combination to adapt to changing environments [e.g., instead of relying on a fixed threshold, a dynamically changed threshold will allow the vehicle combination to be optimally controlled and/or stabilized based on the various conditions of the vehicle combination such as the trailering condition, regardless as to whether the road surface is dry or icy, whether the road surface is sloping up or down, whether the vehicle combination is moving fast, turning, etc.] (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles concerning the utilization of dynamically determined thresholds instead of fixed thresholds in vehicle control systems). Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-15, Offerle teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Offerle further teaches and/or suggests determining that the trailering is potentially unstable based on the side slip angle being beyond (or exceeding, being above, etc.) the threshold(s) (see Fig. 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0127]-[0136]), and similar to the discussion regarding claim 1, the disclosed phrase “the trailering is potentially unstable” per Offerle is just another way of saying that the vehicle combination is highly susceptible to, or currently experiencing, yaw instability, which in the context of a vehicle combination, includes and/or reasonably encompasses determining that a jack-knife or trailer swing may be present in the vehicle combination [e.g., the jack-knife and trailer swing limitations are merely with respect to specific ways of elaborating on the disclosed determining that the trailering is potentially unstable based on the side slip angle being beyond (or exceeding, being above, etc.) the threshold(s)]; [e.g., potentially unstable trailering refers to the vehicle combination being in a state that is highly susceptible to, or currently experiencing, yaw instability, and jackknifing and trailer swing are specific types of yaw instability (and/or the potential result of unstable trailering)]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Offerle teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Offerle further teaches wherein the method of claim 1 is configured to be performed via a controller/computing device [e.g., that defines and/or encompasses a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors cause execution of the method steps per claim 1] (see Fig. 3, 19-20 in conjunction with paragraphs [0048]-[0049]) [e.g., per Fig. 3, observe at least the controller/computing device 26 and the various control systems that depend on the controller/computing device]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
While not relied upon per the detailed rejection above, the examiner notes the following prior art reference as being pertinent to the subject matter of claims 1-4 and 8-16:
EP 2684753 A1 (Kovacs) [e.g., Kovacs (Figure 3) teaches a comparable vehicle combination, and wherein a tractor vehicle’s sideslip angle is determined, and then compared to threshold values based on kinematical conditions, of which would presumably include one or more of speed, acceleration, road surface friction, etc. of the vehicle combination]; [e.g., while Kovacs fails to explicitly or expressly describe a subsequent determination that a yaw instability is present when the aforementioned threshold values based on kinematical conditions are exceeded, Kovacs at least suggests the subject matter of the independent claim 1, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably presume that exceeding the aforementioned thresholds would be a primary indicator of yaw instability] (see Fig. 3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0001], [0031], [0035]-[0037] and claims 1-2).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747