DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Examiner’s Note:
The 05/20/2026 claim amendments have rendered moot the Claim Objections and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as the grammar of Claim 15 has been corrected, and Claim 18 has been amended to recite “obtaining” which appears to correct the issues indicated in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues
“Each of these 3 steps is expressly recited in the claim as being performed via control units within a vehicle control system. For example, the defining step is performed via a second control unit, and the obtaining and determining steps are performed via a first control unit. Control units are machines, not human minds. These steps cannot be carried out mentally, as they require machine execution within a vehicle network and actuator control environment. Accordingly, the defining, obtaining, and determining steps of Claim 18 do not fall within the category of mental processes under Step 2A, Prong I, and Claim 18 does not recite an abstract idea”. The arguments are not persuasive. The mere presence and use of the additional elements of the control units does not change the fact that the claim recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, each control unit is identified as merely a generic computer to perform the abstract idea, and the Applicant provides no persuasive rebuttal to this aspect of the rejection.
Regarding the argument “Control units are machines, not human minds”, the rejection never stated that a control unit is a human mind, however, the rejection did state that each control unit was acted as a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea that did not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, to which the Applicant has provided no persuasive rebuttal.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. These signals are specific geometric and load parameters essential for defining vehicle dynamics limits, not generic data collection”.
Merely stating that gathered data is “specific” and “essential” does not change the data gathering step to be something other than data gathering. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. This step enables functional communication between control units to enforce actuator control, which is integral to safe vehicle operation”.
Stating what the step “enables” and the supposed advantage of the step as being “integral to safe vehicle operation” does not amount to a rebuttal to the rejection as written, and does not change the data transmission step to be something other than data transmission. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. These are specialized automotive communication networks required for real-time vehicle control, not generic environments”.
This argument amounts to a baseless statement of disagreement that does not provide any evidence to show error in the rejection. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. The second control unit is a specialized ECU designed for real-time vehicle control, not a general-purpose computer”.
This argument amounts to a baseless statement of disagreement that does not provide any evidence to show error in the rejection. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. The first control unit is a dedicated ECU that determines manipulated variables of vehicle actuators, producing tangible physical effects”.
Claim 18 does not recite any limitation of “producing tangible physical effects”, and the Applicant is arguing the intended use of the “manipulated variable” of the “determine” step performed by the “first control unit”, which does not amount to a persuasive rebuttal of the rejection, as no control of a vehicle actuator by the “manipulated variable” is claimed in Claim 18. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. The combination integrates the steps into a practical application that improves vehicle safety and performance by dynamically controlling actuators based on real-time configuration”.
Claim 18 does not recite any limitation of “dynamically controlling actuators based on real-time configuration”, therefore, this argument is not persuasive and is in fact moot as it is not directed to the claims as written.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. These signals are specific vehicle parameters essential for defining driving dynamics limits, not generic data collection”.
Merely stating that signals are “specific” and “essential” does not change the data gathering step to be something other than data gathering. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. This step enables functional communication between control units to enforce actuator control, which is integral to safe vehicle operation”.
Stating what the step “enables” and the supposed advantage of the step as being “integral to safe vehicle operation” does not amount to a rebuttal to the rejection as written, and does not change the data transmission step to be something other than data transmission. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. These are specialized automotive networks integral to real-time vehicle control, not generic environments”.
This argument amounts to a baseless statement of disagreement that does not provide any evidence to show error in the rejection. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. The second control unit is a specialized ECU designed for real-time vehicle control, not a general-purpose computer”.
This argument amounts to a baseless statement of disagreement that does not provide any evidence to show error in the rejection. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. The first control unit is a dedicated ECU that determines manipulated variables of actuators, producing tangible physical effects”.
Claim 18 does not recite any limitation of “producing tangible physical effects”, and the Applicant is arguing the intended use of the “manipulated variable” of the “determine” step performed by the “first control unit”, which does not amount to a persuasive rebuttal of the rejection, as no control of a vehicle actuator by the “manipulated variable” is claimed in Claim 18. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claim as a whole provides an inventive concept by integrating specialized control units, networks, and actuator manipulation into a practical application that improves vehicle safety and performance”.
This argument amounts to a baseless statement of disagreement that does not provide any evidence to show error in the rejection regarding how the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and instead the argument explains what the Applicant considers as the supposed advantage of the invention. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 19 adds the specific step of predicting dynamic properties, which narrows and strengthens the method”.
The argument of adding a “specific step” and “narrows and strengthens the method” is a baseless opinion of the Applicant that does not constitute a proper rebuttal to any aspect of the rejection of Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Furthermore, the Applicant provides no evidence showing why a user would not be able to mentally predict dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics, and mentally define the driving dynamics limit value on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. Predicting dynamic properties in real time via control units is a specialized technical step, not routine”.
The Applicant provides no evidence showing why a user would not be able to mentally predict dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics, and mentally define the driving dynamics limit value on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 19 integrates prediction and definition of limit values into a vehicle control system that manipulates actuators, a tangible application”.
Claim 19 does not recite any “vehicle control system that manipulates actuators”, as no manipulation of vehicle actuators is claimed, therefore, this argument is not persuasive and is in fact moot as it is not directed to the claims as written.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 19 adds meaningful limitations by requiring prediction of dynamic properties before defining limit values”.
The argument of adding “meaningful limitations” does not constitute a proper rebuttal to any aspect of the rejection of Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Furthermore, the Applicant provides no evidence showing why a user would not be able to mentally predict dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics, and mentally define the driving dynamics limit value on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. Real time prediction of dynamic vehicle properties requires specialized control units and cannot be performed mentally by a human”.
Claim 19 does not recite any “Real time prediction”, therefore, this argument is not persuasive and is in fact moot as it is not directed to the claims as written.
Furthermore, the Applicant provides no evidence showing why a user would not be able to mentally predict dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics, and mentally define the driving dynamics limit value on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claim requires definition via a control unit, which is a machine, not a mental process”.
This argument completely ignores the identification of the “second control unit” as an additional element that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, the argument is not fully responsive to the rejection as written and is not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 19 provides an inventive concept by specifying prediction of dynamic properties and their use in defining limit values for actuator control, improving vehicle safety and performance”.
Claim 19 does not recite any “actuator control”, and the Applicant provides no evidence showing why a user would not be able to mentally predict dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics, and mentally define the driving dynamics limit value on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Applicant further argues
“On the one hand, regarding OA1N’s mapping of the means 140/140a of Andersson to the second control unit of Claim 1, Andersson merely describes the means 140/140a functionally as means for determining a maximum permitted instantaneous speed, rather than as a separate control unit within the claimed distributed vehicle-control architecture. In other words, the means 140/140a of Andersson does not teach or suggest the second control unit of Claim 1”.
The arguments are not persuasive, and the Applicant’s arguments are entirely baseless and provide no evidence showing why the means “140” and “140a” cannot be considered a “second control unit”. The means “140” that includes “140a” can be clearly seen as a distinct element in FIG. 2 of Andersson et al., and the means “140” can control a vehicle (“…means 140 to control the speed of the vehicle…”, see page 6) and signals can be received from “140” (“The electronic control unit 1 00 is connected through a link 40b such that it exchanges signals with the means 140”, see page 9), therefore, it is clear that the means “140” and “140a” control a vehicle and are then a “control unit” or “second control unit” as the means “140” is separate and distinct from the electronic control unit “100”. The Examiner notes that the vehicle control functionality is not even required to make the means “140” and “!40a” equivalent to a “control unit”, as the “second control unit” encompasses any software or hardware unit capable of performing the associated claimed steps. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“On the other hand, this limitation of Claim 1 (quoted above) requires that the second control unit be connected to the vehicle network. In contrast, Andersson does not disclose that the means 140/140a is connected to the data bus 515. Rather Andersson merely discloses localized signal exchanges associated with steering-angle-based speed control as shown in Fig. 2 of Andersson. The means 140/140a is not connected to a separate vehicle-wide network as required by this limitation of Claim 1”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 does not recite a “separate vehicle-wide network” or “vehicle-wide network”, therefore, the arguments are not directed to the claim as written and are the moot. Furthermore, Claim 1 does not require connection to a “data bus” as implied by the Applicant.
Additionally, the Applicant’s argument “Andersson does not disclose that the means 140/140a is connected to the data bus 515” is incorrect and a mischaracterization of Andersson et al. As see in page 10 and FIGS. 2 and 4, Andersson et al. recites “The data processing arrangement 510 can communicate with a data port 599 through a data bus 515” (emphasis added) and “Links associated with the control unit 100, for example, may be connected to the data port 599” (emphasis added), therefore, the links “40a” and “40b” used for communication between the means “140” and the control unit “100” are associated with the data port “599”, where communication between the means “140” and control unit “100” (which is equivalent to the arrangement “500” of FIG. 4) is then achieved using the data bus “515”. Therefore, the means “140” and “140” are in fact connected to the data bus “515”. The Applicant completely overlooks these teachings of Andersson et al. and instead completely mischaracterizes Andersson et al., and the arguments are then not directed to prior art Andersson et al. as written.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees with these teachings as follows. Specifically, this limitation of Claim 1 (quoted above) requires that the second control unit provides the driving dynamics limit value on the control system network. In contrast, Andersson does not disclose that the means 140/140a provides the maximum permitted instantaneous speed on the links 40/40a/40b. Instead, Andersson merely discloses exchanges of parameter data and control data within an integrated ECU-centric control arrangement”.
The arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner first notes for the record that Claim 1 is a system claim, therefore, the prior art is required to teach only a “second control unit” that is capable of performing the “define a driving dynamics limit value” limitation and capable of providing the “driving dynamics limit value on said control system network”. Furthermore, Claim 1 does not require that the “first control unit” actually obtains the “driving dynamics limit value” from the “second control unit” or from the “control system network”. For example, there is nothing in Claim 1 that excludes the “first control unit” from calculating the “driving dynamics limit value” itself, or from obtaining the “driving dynamics limit value” from a source other than the “second control unit” or the “control system network”.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “define a driving dynamics limit value of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics and to provide the driving dynamics limit value on said control system network” encompasses any of the signals transmitted by the control means “140” that are related to any of “the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics” may be considered a “driving dynamics limit value”.
For example, the “effective wheelbase” as described in page 16 of Andersson et al. may be considered a “driving dynamics limit value” that is obtained by “using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics”, as it is determined by using properties of “the distance between wheel axles, the number of wheel axles, the presence of a bogie where relevant, and possibly also the presence of a support axle and the position of the support axle, i.e. whether the support wheels on the support axle are caused to interact with the roadway or are elevated such that the support wheels are not in contact with the roadway. The effective wheelbase is estimated based on, among other things, the axle separation, the bogie distance, the number of axles, the distribution of weight, whether the support axle is elevated, etc.”, where these properties are equivalent to the “two or more geometric characteristics” and “two or more load characteristics” (see the previous and current rejection). Nothing in the claim excludes this interpretation of a “driving dynamics limit value”.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant respectfully disagrees with this teaching. Specifically, although distribution of weight is a load characteristic, support axle elevation is not. Whether a support axle is elevated or not merely reflects a vehicle configuration or axle state and therefore is not a load characteristic. Accordingly, Andersson does not disclose the claimed use of two or more load characteristics as required by this limitation quoted above”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Regarding the argument “Specifically, although distribution of weight is a load characteristic, support axle elevation is not”, this argument is completely baseless, and the Applicant does not provide evidence to support this argument. The claim does not define what does or does not qualify as a “load characteristic”, therefore, nothing in the claim excludes the Examiner’s interpretation of the “load characteristic”. Additionally, the support axle of Andersson et al. includes support wheels as described in page 8, where elevation of the support axles prevents contact of the support wheels with a roadway, where clearly if the support axle is not elevated and the support wheels are in contact with a roadway, this clearly may affect the load distribution among the vehicle wheels and/or axles, as is understood by common sense, meaning it is entirely reasonable to consider a support axle elevation as a “load characteristic”. The Applicant provides no persuasive argument and instead provides mere statements of disagreement, and the Applicant provides no evidence showing why the Examiner’s interpretation is incorrect.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“In addition, Andersson does not disclose the vehicle network, the private network, or the control system network according to the invention. According to the invention, the vehicle network is preferably a vehicle bus system, particularly preferably a vehicle CAN. The private network is preferably a private network of a vehicle subsystem. Particularly preferably, the private network is a steering system network of a steering system of the vehicle. According to an embodiment of the invention, the private network is a braking system network. The control system network according to the invention connects the first control unit directly to the second control unit. Specifically, Andersson does not disclose a vehicle network. Andersson features only a single control unit 100. The respective means 110 and 140 of Andersson have not been defined as control units. In the OA1N, means 110 is regarded as a first control unit, and means 140 as a second control unit, even though they are not defined as control units. Furthermore, means 110 and 140 are not directly connected to one another via a control system network according to the invention. Means 140 is also not connected to a vehicle network. Thus, the solution according to the invention as set forth in Claim 1 exhibits substantial differences compared to Andersson”.
Andersson et al. does not feature “only a single control unit 100”, as already explained above. Furthermore, the “vehicle network” can be seen clearly in the multiple elements in communication in the system of Andersson et al. in FIG. 2 of Andersson et al.
Additionally, the argument “In the OA1N, means 110 is regarded as a first control unit, and means 140 as a second control unit, even though they are not defined as control units” is unclear, as it is unclear what source is referred to as indicating “they are not defined as control units”. If the Applicant is referring to Andersson et al., the prior art does not need to use the exact words of “control unit” to teach the equivalent of a “control unit”, and Andersson et al. teaches two control units as already explained above.
Regarding the argument “means 110 and 140 are not directly connected to one another via a control system network according to the invention. Means 140 is also not connected to a vehicle network”, the claimed “control system network” includes the entire network of connected elements as seen in FIG. 2 of Andersson et al., and includes the data links of Andersson et al. Additionally, the means “140” and “140a” are in fact connected to a “vehicle network”, as already explained above.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Also, Katsuki (2022/0176959) discloses neither a vehicle network, a private network, nor a control system network. It remains entirely unclear in Katsuki how the individual units 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Katsuki are networked and connected within the vehicle. In particular, a private network for the second control unit according to the invention, as well as the control system network according to the invention, clearly do not emerge from Katsuki”.
These arguments are directed to limitations that were rejected without reliance on Katsuki, therefore, these arguments are moot. Furthermore, these arguments do not address the specific claim limitations rejected in view of Katsuki, therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“On the one hand, the rejection of Claim 4 is internally inconsistent with the rejection of Claim 1. In the rejection of Claim 1, the OA1N mapped Andersson elements 140/140a to the claimed “second control unit.” However, in rejecting Claim 4, which expressly recites “said second control unit,” the OA1N instead relies upon Andersson’s electronic control unit 100. Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 4 lacks a consistent claim mapping and fails to adequately show where Andersson teaches the limitations of Claim 4. On the other hand, the cited disclosure fails to teach adapting the driving dynamics limit value itself to a detected change, as required by Claim 4. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested”.
A change in steering wheel position used by the control unit “100” is determined by the means “140a” as seen in page 7 of Andersson et al., therefore, the mapping of Andersson et al. to the claimed limitations is in fact consistent and proper. Therefore, arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“The rejection of Claim 13 is improper because Viele does not teach or suggest detecting interventions of a stability control system, defining a driving dynamics limit value, or defining such a value using dynamic restrictions derivable from interventions of the stability control system, as required by Claim 13. The cited Viele passage merely discloses detecting excessive backward pitch indicative of excessive trailer braking and responsively reducing braking force. This at most describes reactive brake adjustment based on a detected vehicle condition, not detecting interventions performed by a stability control system. Moreover, Viele does not disclose any “driving dynamics limit value” or deriving dynamic restrictions from stability-control interventions to define such a value”.
The Examiner first notes for the record that Claim 13 does not indicate what the “interventions” are, what the “stability control system” is, or what is meant by “define”.
Viele teaches detection of excessive trailer braking, which is equivalent to detection of an intervention of a “stability control system”, as a “stability control system” encompasses a braking system. Furthermore, the “driving dynamics limit value” is rejected under Andsersson et al., not Viele. The teachings of Viele render obvious modifying any “driving dynamics limit value” such as braking based on interventions of any “stability control system”, such as a braking event of a braking system, therefore, Viele renders obvious Claim 13, and the Applicant provides no rebuttal to this use of Viele. Furthermore, the argument “The cited Viele passage merely discloses detecting excessive backward pitch indicative of excessive trailer braking and responsively reducing braking force” appears to imply that simply because the pitch is used to detect excessive braking, this is not a valid method of determining excessive braking, however, Claim 13 does not indicate what the “interventions” are, what the “stability control system” is, or what is meant by “define”, therefore, nothing in the claim excludes the use of the teachings of Viele.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2-16 and 19 are each dependent directly or indirectly on one of the aforementioned independent claims and therefore should also be allowable for at least this reason”.
No claim is allowable.
For the reasons given above, the arguments are not persuasive.
All claims are rejected.
The claims remain under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103.
No new prior art is introduced.
See the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes for the record that Claim 1 is a system claim, therefore, the prior art is required to teach only a “second control unit” that is capable of performing the “define a driving dynamics limit value” limitation and capable of providing the “driving dynamics limit value on said control system network”. Furthermore, Claim 1 does not require that the “first control unit” actually obtains the “driving dynamics limit value” from the “second control unit” or from the “control system network”. For example, there is nothing in Claim 1 that excludes the “first control unit” from calculating the “driving dynamics limit value” itself, or from obtaining the “driving dynamics limit value” from a source other than the “second control unit” or the “control system network”.
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 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See below.
Claim 18 is 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 18 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 18 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 18 recites:
A vehicle control method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
providing signals that include two or more geometric characteristics and two or more load characteristics of a current vehicle configuration of the vehicle on at least one of a vehicle network and a private network;
defining at least one driving dynamics limit value for the vehicle via a second control unit using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics;
providing the at least one driving dynamics limit value on a control system network that connects at least the second control unit to a first control unit;
obtaining, via the first control unit, the driving dynamics limit value provided on the control system network; and,
determining a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle via the first control unit using the vehicle dynamics limit value.
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. Specifically, regarding the “defining at least one driving dynamics limit value for the vehicle…using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics” step, a user may mentally define at least one driving dynamics limit value for the vehicle via a second control unit using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics. Furthermore, regarding the “obtaining…the driving dynamics limit value provided on the control system network” step, a user may mentally determine the driving dynamics limit value provided on the control system network, such as by simply looking at the driving dynamics limit value and/or mentally obtaining the driving dynamics limit value by mentally calculating the driving dynamics limit value. Furthermore, regarding the “determining a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle…using the vehicle dynamics limit value” step, a user may mentally determine a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle using the vehicle dynamics limit value. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle control method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
providing signals that include two or more geometric characteristics and two or more load characteristics of a current vehicle configuration of the vehicle on at least one of a vehicle network and a private network;
defining at least one driving dynamics limit value for the vehicle via a second control unit using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics;
providing the at least one driving dynamics limit value on a control system network that connects at least the second control unit to a first control unit;
obtaining, via the first control unit, the driving dynamics limit value provided on the control system network; and,
determining a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle via the first control unit using the vehicle dynamics limit value.
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 “providing signals that include two or more geometric characteristics and two or more load characteristics of a current vehicle configuration of the vehicle on at least one of a vehicle network and a private network”, the claim does not recite any device or structure that performs the “providing”, and this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and transmission of data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. Regarding the additional limitation “providing the at least one driving dynamics limit value on a control system network that connects at least the second control unit to a first control unit”, the claim again does not recite any device or structure that performs this “providing”, and this limitation amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and transmission of data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. Regarding the additional limitations “a vehicle network” and “a private network”, these limitations are not defined in terms of a device or structure and merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Regarding the additional limitation “via a second control unit”, the “second control unit” is recited at a high level of generality as a general means of performing the “defining” step, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Regarding the additional limitation “obtaining, via the first control unit”, the “first control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and acts as a general means of performing the “obtaining” which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “determining…via the first control unit”, the “first control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and acts as a general means of performing the “determining”, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
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 (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 18 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 limitation “providing signals that include two or more geometric characteristics and two or more load characteristics of a current vehicle configuration of the vehicle on at least one of a vehicle network and a private network”, amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and transmission of data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747, and the additional limitation “providing the at least one driving dynamics limit value on a control system network that connects at least the second control unit to a first control unit”, the claim again does not recite any device or structure that performs this “providing” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and transmission of data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747, and the additional limitations “a vehicle network” and “a private network” merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and the “second control unit” is recited at a high level of generality acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea, and the “first control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and acts as a general means of performing the “obtaining” which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the “first control unit” acts as a general means of performing the “determining”, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 19 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim 19 is directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claim 19 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 18-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claim.
As per Claim 19, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 18. A user may mentally predict dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics, and a user may mentally define the driving dynamics limit value on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties. See Claim 18 regarding the “second control unit”. Therefore, the clam does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (WO2015178843A1) in view of Hejase et al. (2020/0001920).
Regarding Claim 1, Andersson et al. teaches the claimed vehicle control system for a vehicle, wherein the vehicle has a vehicle network (“…a data bus 515”, see page 8) and a private network (“The electronic control unit 100 is connected such that it exchanges signals over a link 12 with the means 112 to determine the rate of change of angle of the steering wheel position”, see page 6), the vehicle control system comprising:
a first control unit configured to determine a manipulated variable…of the vehicle and to output the determined manipulated variable…(“The electronic control unit 1 00 is connected through a link 10a such that it exchanges signals with the means 1 10 to control the speed of the vehicle and in this case limit the increase of a maximum permitted instantaneous speed based on the rate of change of angle of the steering wheel position in such a manner that the increase to a determined extent is allowed only when the rate of change of angle has fallen below a predetermined value”, see page 6);
a second control unit configured to be connected to the vehicle network and the private network in order to receive signals that include two or more geometric characteristics (“The means 140a to determine a maximum permitted instantaneous speed comprises means 143 to determine the effective wheelbase L. The means 143 to determine the effective wheelbase includes the determination of properties of the vehicle including the distance between wheel axles, the number of wheel axles, the presence of a bogie where relevant, and possibly also the presence of a support axle and the position of the support axle, i.e. whether the support wheels on the support axle are caused to interact with the roadway or are elevated such that the support wheels are not in contact with the roadway. The effective wheelbase is estimated based on, among other things, the axle separation, the bogie distance, the number of axles…” (emphasis added), see page 5) and two or more load characteristics of a current vehicle configuration of the vehicle (“…the distribution of weight, whether the support axle is elevated, etc.”, see page 5);
a control system network which connects said first control unit and said second control unit (see FIG. 2);
said second control unit being configured to define a driving dynamics limit value of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics and to provide the driving dynamics limit value on said control system network (“The means 140a to determine a maximum permitted instantaneous speed…”, see page 5 as cited above and “The electronic control unit 100 is connected through a link 40a such that it exchanges signals with the means 140 to control the speed of the vehicle based on the steering wheel angle of the vehicle corresponding to a determined turning radius, such that a predetermined lateral acceleration is not exceeded. The electronic control unit 100 is arranged to transmit through the link 40a a signal to the means 140 representing control data for the control of the speed of the vehicle”, see page 7); and,
said first control unit being configured to determine the manipulated variable using the driving dynamics limit value (“The electronic control unit 100 is connected through a link 40a such that it exchanges signals with the means 140 to control the speed of the vehicle based on the steering wheel angle of the vehicle corresponding to a determined turning radius, such that a predetermined lateral acceleration is not exceeded. The electronic control unit 100 is arranged to transmit through the link 40a a signal to the means 140 representing control data for the control of the speed of the vehicle”, see page 7).
Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a first control unit configured to determine a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle and to output the determined manipulated variable of the vehicle actuator at an actuator interface.
However, Hejase et al. (2020/0001920) teaches determine a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle and to output the determined manipulated variable of the vehicle actuator at an actuator interface (Hejase et al.; see P[0039]-P[0040], P[0098]], P[0112]-P[0114] and P0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Hejase et al., and to provide a first control unit configured to determine a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle and to output the determined manipulated variable of the vehicle actuator at an actuator interface, as rendered obvious by Hejase et al., in order to provide for “preventing a jackknife condition in a tractor-trailer system” (Hejase et al.; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, Andersson et al. teaches the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the driving dynamics limit value is a maximum permissible vehicle speed, a maximum permissible lateral acceleration, a maximum permissible vehicle acceleration, a maximum permissible vehicle deceleration, a maximum permissible steering angle gradient, a maximum permissible steering angle frequency or a minimum permissible bend radius of the vehicle (“The electronic control unit 1 00 is connected through a link 10a such that it exchanges signals with the means 1 10 to control the speed of the vehicle and in this case limit the increase of a maximum permitted instantaneous speed based on the rate of change of angle of the steering wheel position in such a manner that the increase to a determined extent is allowed only when the rate of change of angle has fallen below a predetermined value”, see page 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Andersson et al. teaches the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein said second control unit is configured to monitor the signals for a change in a characteristic on which the definition of the driving dynamics limit value is based and to adapt the driving dynamics limit value to the change (“The electronic control unit 1 00 is connected through a link 10a such that it exchanges signals with the means 1 10 to control the speed of the vehicle and in this case limit the increase of a maximum permitted instantaneous speed based on the rate of change of angle of the steering wheel position in such a manner that the increase to a determined extent is allowed only when the rate of change of angle has fallen below a predetermined value”, see page 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Andersson et al. teaches the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the two or more geometric characteristics include at least a number of axles of the vehicle and an axle spacing between the axles of the vehicle (“The means 140a to determine a maximum permitted instantaneous speed comprises means 143 to determine the effective wheelbase L. The means 143 to determine the effective wheelbase includes the determination of properties of the vehicle including the distance between wheel axles, the number of wheel axles, the presence of a bogie where relevant, and possibly also the presence of a support axle and the position of the support axle, i.e. whether the support wheels on the support axle are caused to interact with the roadway or are elevated such that the support wheels are not in contact with the roadway. The effective wheelbase is estimated based on, among other things, the axle separation, the bogie distance, the number of axles…” (emphasis added), see page 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Andersson et al. teaches the claimed vehicle comprising:
a vehicle actuator (“The electronic control unit 100 is connected such that it exchanges signals over a link 12 with the means 112 to determine the rate of change of angle of the steering wheel position”, see page 6);
a vehicle network (“…a data bus 515”, see page 8);
a private network (“The electronic control unit 100 is connected such that it exchanges signals over a link 12 with the means 112 to determine the rate of change of angle of the steering wheel position”, see page 6);
a vehicle control system having a first control unit, a second control unit, and a control system network (see FIG. 2);
said first control unit being configured to determine a manipulated variable of said vehicle actuator and to output the determined manipulated variable of said vehicle actuator at an actuator interface (“The electronic control unit 1 00 is connected through a link 10a such that it exchanges signals with the means 1 10 to control the speed of the vehicle and in this case limit the increase of a maximum permitted instantaneous speed based on the rate of change of angle of the steering wheel position in such a manner that the increase to a determined extent is allowed only when the rate of change of angle has fallen below a predetermined value”, see page 6);
said second control unit being configured to be connected to said vehicle network and said private network in order to receive signals that include two or more geometric characteristics (“The means 140a to determine a maximum permitted instantaneous speed comprises means 143 to determine the effective wheelbase L. The means 143 to determine the effective wheelbase includes the determination of properties of the vehicle including the distance between wheel axles, the number of wheel axles, the presence of a bogie where relevant, and possibly also the presence of a support axle and the position of the support axle, i.e. whether the support wheels on the support axle are caused to interact with the roadway or are elevated such that the support wheels are not in contact with the roadway. The effective wheelbase is estimated based on, among other things, the axle separation, the bogie distance, the number of axles…” (emphasis added), see page 5) and two or more load characteristics of a current vehicle configuration of the vehicle (“…the distribution of weight, whether the support axle is elevated, etc.”, see page 5);
said control system network being configured to connect said first control unit and said second control unit (see FIG. 2);
said second control unit being configured to define a driving dynamics limit value of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics and to provide the driving dynamics limit value on said control system network (“The means 140a to determine a maximum permitted instantaneous speed…”, see page 5 as cited above and “The electronic control unit 100 is connected through a link 40a such that it exchanges signals with the means 140 to control the speed of the vehicle based on the steering wheel angle of the vehicle corresponding to a determined turning radius, such that a predetermined lateral acceleration is not exceeded. The electronic control unit 100 is arranged to transmit through the link 40a a signal to the means 140 representing control data for the control of the speed of the vehicle”, see page 7); and,
said first control unit being configured to determine the manipulated variable using the driving dynamics limit value (“The electronic control unit 100 is connected through a link 40a such that it exchanges signals with the means 140 to control the speed of the vehicle based on the steering wheel angle of the vehicle corresponding to a determined turning radius, such that a predetermined lateral acceleration is not exceeded. The electronic control unit 100 is arranged to transmit through the link 40a a signal to the means 140 representing control data for the control of the speed of the vehicle”, see page 7).
Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
said first control unit being configured to determine a manipulated variable of said vehicle actuator and to output the determined manipulated variable of said vehicle actuator at an actuator interface.
However, Hejase et al. (2020/0001920) teaches determining a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator and to output the determined manipulated variable of said vehicle actuator at an actuator interface (Hejase et al.; see P[0039]-P[0040], P[0098]], P[0112]-P[0114] and P0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Hejase et al., and said first control unit being configured to determine a manipulated variable of said vehicle actuator and to output the determined manipulated variable of said vehicle actuator at an actuator interface, as rendered obvious by Hejase et al., in order to provide for “preventing a jackknife condition in a tractor-trailer system” (Hejase et al.; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 18, Andersson et al. teaches the claimed vehicle control method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
providing signals that include two or more geometric characteristics (“The means 140a to determine a maximum permitted instantaneous speed comprises means 143 to determine the effective wheelbase L. The means 143 to determine the effective wheelbase includes the determination of properties of the vehicle including the distance between wheel axles, the number of wheel axles, the presence of a bogie where relevant, and possibly also the presence of a support axle and the position of the support axle, i.e. whether the support wheels on the support axle are caused to interact with the roadway or are elevated such that the support wheels are not in contact with the roadway. The effective wheelbase is estimated based on, among other things, the axle separation, the bogie distance, the number of axles…” (emphasis added), see page 5) and two or more load characteristics of a current vehicle configuration of the vehicle on at least one of a vehicle network and a private network (“…the distribution of weight, whether the support axle is elevated, etc.”, see page 5, and see FIG. 2);
defining at least one driving dynamics limit value for the vehicle via a second control unit using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics (“The means 140a to determine a maximum permitted instantaneous speed…”, see page 5 as cited above and “The electronic control unit 100 is connected through a link 40a such that it exchanges signals with the means 140 to control the speed of the vehicle based on the steering wheel angle of the vehicle corresponding to a determined turning radius, such that a predetermined lateral acceleration is not exceeded. The electronic control unit 100 is arranged to transmit through the link 40a a signal to the means 140 representing control data for the control of the speed of the vehicle”, see page 7);
providing the at least one driving dynamics limit value on a control system network that connects at least the second control unit to a first control unit (see FIG. 2);
obtaining, via the first control unit, the driving dynamics limit value provided on the control system network (“The means 140a to determine a maximum permitted instantaneous speed…”, see page 5 as cited above and “The electronic control unit 100 is connected through a link 40a such that it exchanges signals with the means 140 to control the speed of the vehicle based on the steering wheel angle of the vehicle corresponding to a determined turning radius, such that a predetermined lateral acceleration is not exceeded. The electronic control unit 100 is arranged to transmit through the link 40a a signal to the means 140 representing control data for the control of the speed of the vehicle”, see page 7, also see page 5); and,
determining a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle via the first control unit using the vehicle dynamics limit value (“The electronic control unit 100 is connected through a link 40a such that it exchanges signals with the means 140 to control the speed of the vehicle based on the steering wheel angle of the vehicle corresponding to a determined turning radius, such that a predetermined lateral acceleration is not exceeded. The electronic control unit 100 is arranged to transmit through the link 40a a signal to the means 140 representing control data for the control of the speed of the vehicle”, see page 7).
Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
determining a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle via the first control unit using the vehicle dynamics limit value.
However, Hejase et al. (2020/0001920) teaches determining a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of a vehicle via a control unit using the vehicle dynamics limit value (Hejase et al.; see P[0039]-P[0040], P[0098]], P[0112]-P[0114] and P0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Hejase et al., and determining a manipulated variable of a vehicle actuator of the vehicle via the first control unit using the vehicle dynamics limit value, as rendered obvious by Hejase et al., in order to provide for “preventing a jackknife condition in a tractor-trailer system” (Hejase et al.; see Abstract).
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (WO2015178843A1) in view of Hejase et al. (2020/0001920) further in view of Katsuki (2022/0176959).
Regarding Claim 2, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein said second control unit is further configured to predict dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics and to define the driving dynamics limit value on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties.
However, Katsuki (2022/0176959) teaches predicting dynamic properties of a current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics and to define the driving dynamics limit value on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties (Katsuki; “…the driving control system S uses the change amount calculation unit 2 to calculate a difference between the distances…”, see P[0027] and “…the speed limit is set on the basis of the estimated center of gravity position and the estimated loaded weight”, see P[0035]-P[0038], and see P[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Katsuki, and wherein said second control unit is further configured to predict dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics and to define the driving dynamics limit value on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties, as rendered obvious by Katsuki, where it would be obvious to perform the teachings of Katsuki using any available control unit in order to provide for convenient and efficient operation by assigning operations to particular control units, and in order to provide a speed limit that “does not cause a load collapse or a rollover” (Katsuki; see P[0022]).
Regarding Claim 5, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein said first control unit is a virtual driver for the autonomous control of a vehicle; and, said virtual driver is configured to plan a trajectory in order to perform a driving task of the vehicle.
However, Katsuki (2022/0176959) teaches a control unit that is a virtual driver for the autonomous control of a vehicle; and, said virtual driver is configured to plan a trajectory in order to perform a driving task of the vehicle (Katsuki; see P[0023] and P[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Katsuki, and wherein said first control unit is a virtual driver for the autonomous control of a vehicle; and, said virtual driver is configured to plan a trajectory in order to perform a driving task of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Katsuki, where it would be obvious to perform the teachings of Katsuki using any available control unit in order to provide for convenient and efficient operation by assigning operations to particular control units, and in order to provide a speed limit that “does not cause a load collapse or a rollover” (Katsuki; see P[0022]).
Regarding Claim 6, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 5, wherein said first control unit is configured to provide the trajectory on said control system network; and, said second control unit is configured to determine whether the trajectory infringes the driving dynamics limit value.
However, Katsuki (2022/0176959) teaches a control unit that is configured to provide a trajectory on a control system network, and, a control unit configured to determine whether the trajectory infringes the driving dynamics limit value (Katsuki; “…the speed limit setting unit 5 may also be configured to set a speed limit when turning around a curve in which a rollover is likely to occur”, see P[0038], also see P[0023] and P[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Katsuki, and wherein said first control unit is configured to provide the trajectory on said control system network; and, said second control unit is configured to determine whether the trajectory infringes the driving dynamics limit value, as rendered obvious by Katsuki, where it would be obvious to perform the teachings of Katsuki using any available control unit in order to provide for convenient and efficient operation by assigning operations to particular control units, and in order to provide a speed limit that “does not cause a load collapse or a rollover” (Katsuki; see P[0022]).
Regarding Claim 8, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein said second control unit is configured to receive signals that represent a real driving state of the vehicle and to determine whether the driving dynamics limit value is being infringed in the real driving state.
However, Katsuki (2022/0176959) teaches a control unit configured to receive signals that represent a real driving state of the vehicle and to determine whether the driving dynamics limit value is being infringed in the real driving state (Katsuki; “…the driving control unit 6 can perform control to reduce the acceleration in a case in which an acceleration during traveling exceeds the upper limit”, see P[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Katsuki, and wherein said second control unit is configured to receive signals that represent a real driving state of the vehicle and to determine whether the driving dynamics limit value is being infringed in the real driving state, as rendered obvious by Katsuki, where it would be obvious to perform the teachings of Katsuki using any available control unit in order to provide for convenient and efficient operation by assigning operations to particular control units, and in order to provide a speed limit that “does not cause a load collapse or a rollover” (Katsuki; see P[0022]).
Regarding Claim 19, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control method of claim 18, wherein said defining the at least one driving dynamics limit value for the vehicle via the second control unit using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics includes:
predicting dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration via the second control unit using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics; and,
defining the driving dynamics limit value via the second control unit on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties.
However, Katsuki (2022/0176959) teaches predicting dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration via the second control unit using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics; and, defining the driving dynamics limit value via the second control unit on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties (Katsuki; “…the driving control system S uses the change amount calculation unit 2 to calculate a difference between the distances…”, see P[0027] and “…the speed limit is set on the basis of the estimated center of gravity position and the estimated loaded weight”, see P[0035]-P[0038], and see P[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Katsuki, and wherein said defining the at least one driving dynamics limit value for the vehicle via the second control unit using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics includes: predicting dynamic properties of the current vehicle configuration via the second control unit using the two or more geometric characteristics and the two or more load characteristics; and, defining the driving dynamics limit value via the second control unit on a basis of the predicted dynamic properties, as rendered obvious by Katsuki, where it would be obvious to perform the teachings of Katsuki using any available control unit in order to provide for convenient and efficient operation by assigning operations to particular control units, and in order to provide a speed limit that “does not cause a load collapse or a rollover” (Katsuki; see P[0022]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (WO2015178843A1) in view of Hejase et al. (2020/0001920) further in view of Katsuki (2022/0176959), further in view of Choi et al. (KR20050036222A).
Regarding Claim 9, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 8, wherein said second control unit is further configured to provide a warning signal if the driving dynamics limit value is infringed.
However, Choi et al. (KR20050036222A) teaches providing a warning signal if the driving dynamics limit value is infringed (Choi et al.; “…if the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the limit driving speed at which the vehicle does not overturn on a curved road, the control unit (104) determines that there is a risk of the vehicle overturning and proceeds to step (S416) to display the risk of the vehicle overturning as a warning message on the warning unit (102) or on the display unit (108) so that the driver can recognize the risk of the vehicle overturning”, see pages 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Choi et al., and wherein said second control unit is further configured to provide a warning signal if the driving dynamics limit value is infringed, as rendered obvious by Choi et al., in order to provide for “preventing vehicle rollover accidents” (Choi et al.; see page 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 9 further comprising a man-machine interface for outputting the warning signal.
However, Choi et al. (KR20050036222A) teaches a man-machine interface for outputting the warning signal (Choi et al.; “…if the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the limit driving speed at which the vehicle does not overturn on a curved road, the control unit (104) determines that there is a risk of the vehicle overturning and proceeds to step (S416) to display the risk of the vehicle overturning as a warning message on the warning unit (102) or on the display unit (108) so that the driver can recognize the risk of the vehicle overturning”, see pages 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Choi et al., and the vehicle control system of claim 9 further comprising a man-machine interface for outputting the warning signal, as rendered obvious by Choi et al., in order to provide for “preventing vehicle rollover accidents” (Choi et al.; see page 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 9, wherein said second control unit is configured to provide the warning signal on said control system network.
However, Choi et al. (KR20050036222A) teaches providing a warning signal on a control system network (Choi et al.; “The speed sensor (106) detects the current speed (V) of the moving vehicle and applies the control unit (104). The warning unit (102) displays a warning message on the voice or display unit (108)…” and “…if the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the limit driving speed at which the vehicle does not overturn on a curved road, the control unit (104) determines that there is a risk of the vehicle overturning and proceeds to step (S416) to display the risk of the vehicle overturning as a warning message on the warning unit (102) or on the display unit (108) so that the driver can recognize the risk of the vehicle overturning”, see pages 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Choi et al., and wherein said second control unit is configured to provide the warning signal on said control system network, as rendered obvious by Choi et al., in order to provide for “preventing vehicle rollover accidents” (Choi et al.; see page 4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (WO2015178843A1) in view of Hejase et al. (2020/0001920) further in view of Plaehn et al. (2023/0322207).
Regarding Claim 12, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the private network is a brake system network.
However, Plaehn et al. (2023/0322207) teaches wherein the private network is a brake system network (Plaehn et al.; see P[0095] and FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Plaehn et al., and wherein the private network is a brake system network, as rendered obvious by Plaehn et al., in order to provide for “automatically controlling the vehicle based on generated stability variables” (Plaehn et al.; see Abstract).
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (WO2015178843A1) in view of Hejase et al. (2020/0001920) further in view of Viele (2019/0217831).
Regarding Claim 13, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein said second control unit is configured to detect interventions of a stability control system during operation of the vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using dynamic restrictions on the vehicle derivable from the interventions of the stability control system.
However, Viele (2019/0217831) teaches detect interventions of a stability control system during operation of the vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using dynamic restrictions on the vehicle derivable from the interventions of the stability control system (Viele; “…when the head controller 120 through the head IMU 122 detects an excessive backward pitch of the automobile 205, which is indicative of excessive trailer braking, the head unit 116 sends an instruction to the tail unit 118 to apply less braking force to the brakes 255 in the tail braking system 160”, see P[0190]-P[0192]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Viele, and wherein said second control unit is configured to detect interventions of a stability control system during operation of the vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using dynamic restrictions on the vehicle derivable from the interventions of the stability control system, as rendered obvious by Viele, in order to “control braking and reduce the risk of jackknifing” (Viele; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein said second control unit is configured to approximate a current adhesion coefficient for the vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using the current adhesion coefficient.
However, Viele (2019/0217831) teaches approximate a current adhesion for a vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using the current adhesion (Viele; see P[0185]), where defining a “coefficient” or any value to represent “adhesion” is obvious when applying the teachings of Viele to a computer system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Viele, and wherein said second control unit is configured to approximate a current adhesion coefficient for the vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using the current adhesion coefficient, as rendered obvious by Viele, in order to “control braking and reduce the risk of jackknifing” (Viele; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, Andersson et al. teaches the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a vehicle train including a towing vehicle and at least one trailer vehicle (see FIG. 1).
Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
and, said second control unit is configured to be connected to a trailer network of the vehicle in order to receive trailer signals which include at least one of a geometric characteristic and a load characteristic of the current vehicle configuration of the vehicle.
However, Viele (2019/0217831) teaches a control unit configured to be connected to a trailer network of a vehicle in order to receive trailer signals which include at least one of a geometric characteristic and a load characteristic of the current vehicle configuration of the vehicle (Viele; see P[0154] and P[0187]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Viele, and wherein said second control unit is configured to detect interventions of a stability control system during operation of the vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using dynamic restrictions on the vehicle derivable from the interventions of the stability control system, as rendered obvious by Viele, in order to “control braking and reduce the risk of jackknifing” (Viele; see Abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (WO2015178843A1) in view of Hejase et al. (2020/0001920) further in view of Sujan (WO2019152054A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Andersson et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein said second control unit is configured to determine a center of mass height of the vehicle, taking into account signals which represent the rolling behavior of the vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using the determined center of mass height .
However, Sujan (WO2019152054A1) teaches determine a center of mass height of a vehicle, taking into account signals which represent the rolling behavior of the vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using the center of mass height determined (Sujan; see P[0064]-P[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andersson et al. with the teachings of Sujan, and wherein said second control unit is configured to determine a center of mass height of the vehicle, taking into account signals which represent the rolling behavior of the vehicle and to define the driving dynamics limit value using the determined center of mass height, as rendered obvious by Sujan, in order to “slow the vehicle…down” (Sujan; see P[0064]) and in order to provide a “trailer stabilization circuit” (Sujan; see P[0034]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights