DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 11-15 are objected to because of the following informality:
There are two claims labeled as claim 11 in the claim set of 28 May 2025. For the purposes of Examination:
The second claim 11 is interpreted as claim 12.
Claim 12 is interpreted as claim 13.
Claim 13 is interpreted as claim 14.
Claim 14 is interpreted as claim 15.
Claim 15 is interpreted as claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feetenby et al. (US Pat No 6,273,522).
In regard to claim 1, Feetenby discloses a method for controlling a vehicle train having a towing vehicle and at least one trailer vehicle (see Claim 19: “method of distributing a braking force between a tractor and a trailer of a motor vehicle”), wherein the towing vehicle includes a continuous deceleration device for performing a continuous deceleration (Col 4, lines 14-17: “for this operation these brakes are boosted in order to generate additional braking forces to retard the trailer at the demanded deceleration level”), the method comprising:
determining a trailer mass (“Mass r” and “Mass t”, aka: “Mr” and “Mt”, see Fig 1) of the at least one trailer vehicle in a prevailing vehicle configuration of the vehicle train;
See Col 4, lines 38-39: “(4) Mr supported & braked by the rear tractor axle/bogie. (5) Mt supported & braked by the trailer rear bogie”
Also see Col 11, lines 8-9: “the trailer mass Mt comprises all that which is supported on the trailer front and rear axles”.
Also see Col 4, lines 40-42: “The mass section Mr, while including the tractor rear elements is made up mainly of the trailer front section and the load carried thereon.”.
Also see Col 7, lines 48-53: “rear axle load is sensed by a load sensor 26 and passed to the main ECU 10 where it is used to generate braking proportional to load being carried and to give a measure of the variable component of mass Mr”.
determining a towing vehicle trailer mass (“Mass f”, aka: “Mf”) of the towing vehicle in the prevailing vehicle configuration;
See Col 4, line 37: “Mf supported & braked by the tractor front axle.”
determining a mass ratio of the prevailing vehicle configuration based on the trailer mass and the towing vehicle mass; and,
See Col 3, lines 7-10: “set in relation to the ratio of mass (Mt) of the rear part of the trailer which is normally braked by the trailer brakes, to the total mass (Mf+Mr) being supported on the towing vehicle axles”.
Also see Col 6, line 67-Col 7, line 1: “The actual percentage used depends on the mass ratio Rm. (31) Rm is given by: Mt/(Mf+Mr).”.
limiting a maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device based on the mass ratio.
See Col 6, lines 62-67: “"Co-ordination" in terms of this present invention is the means whereby the excess deceleration of the tractor braking alone is stored and a percentage of this figure produces an adjustment to the effective braking demand used in the error assessment of the trailer system The actual percentage used depends on the mass ratio Rm.”.
Also see Col 5, lines 56-61: “The mass compensated demand represents a deceleration demand which is lower than a predetermined limit typically lying in the range 0.2-0.3 g yet greater than a lower limit of 0.15 g or thereabouts, below which measurement is unreliable.”.
In regard to claim 2, Feetenby discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power is reduced with an increasing relative proportion of the trailer mass to a total mass of the vehicle train.
See the equations listed in Col 7, lines 1-6. As “Mt” (the trailer rear load, see Fig 1), “RM” increases. As “RM” increases the factor 1/(1+Rm) decreases, which will decrease the factor to be multiplied with the excess deceleration.
In regard to claim 14 (listed as claim 13 in the claim set of 28 May 2025, now interpreted as claim 14, see Claim Objections above), Feetenby discloses a driver assistance system for a commercial vehicle (see the Abstract: “electronic braking system (WBS) suitable for commercial vehicles which tow trailers, which has on the towing vehicle, braking control of all the axles and a device for setting the braking demand for the trailer which is so adjusted as to equalize the utilization of adhesion between said towing vehicle and trailer”), the driver assistance system being configured so as to perform the method of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, above).
In regard to claim 15 (listed as claim 14 in the claim set of 28 May 2025, now interpreted as claim 15, see Claim Objections above), Feetenby discloses a commercial vehicle (see the Abstract) comprising:
a continuous deceleration device (Col 4, lines 14-17: “for this operation these brakes are boosted in order to generate additional braking forces to retard the trailer at the demanded deceleration level”);
a driver assistance system including a processor (Col 7, line 26: “Braking demands are transmitted to the main ECU 10”) and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon (Col 10, line 61: “stored in the system memory”);
said program code being configured, when executed by said processor, to:
determine a trailer mass (“Mass r” and “Mass t”, aka: “Mr” and “Mt”, see Fig 1) of at least one trailer vehicle in a prevailing vehicle configuration of a vehicle train;
See Col 4, lines 38-39: “(4) Mr supported & braked by the rear tractor axle/bogie. (5) Mt supported & braked by the trailer rear bogie”
Also see Col 11, lines 8-9: “the trailer mass Mt comprises all that which is supported on the trailer front and rear axles”.
Also see Col 4, lines 40-42: “The mass section Mr, while including the tractor rear elements is made up mainly of the trailer front section and the load carried thereon.”.
Also see Col 7, lines 48-53: “rear axle load is sensed by a load sensor 26 and passed to the main ECU 10 where it is used to generate braking proportional to load being carried and to give a measure of the variable component of mass Mr”.
determine a towing vehicle trailer mass (“Mass f”, aka: “Mf”) of a towing vehicle in the prevailing vehicle configuration;
See Col 4, line 37: “Mf supported & braked by the tractor front axle.”
determine a mass ratio of the prevailing vehicle configuration based on the trailer mass and the towing vehicle mass; and,
See Col 3, lines 7-10: “set in relation to the ratio of mass (Mt) of the rear part of the trailer which is normally braked by the trailer brakes, to the total mass (Mf+Mr) being supported on the towing vehicle axles”.
Also see Col 6, line 67-Col 7, line 1: “The actual percentage used depends on the mass ratio Rm. (31) Rm is given by: Mt/(Mf+Mr).”.
limit a maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device based on the mass ratio.
See Col 6, lines 62-67: “"Co-ordination" in terms of this present invention is the means whereby the excess deceleration of the tractor braking alone is stored and a percentage of this figure produces an adjustment to the effective braking demand used in the error assessment of the trailer system The actual percentage used depends on the mass ratio Rm.”.
Also see Col 5, lines 56-61: “The mass compensated demand represents a deceleration demand which is lower than a predetermined limit typically lying in the range 0.2-0.3 g yet greater than a lower limit of 0.15 g or thereabouts, below which measurement is unreliable.”.
In regard to claim 16 (listed as claim 15 in the claim set of 28 May 2025, now interpreted as claim 16, see Claim Objections above), Feetenby discloses a computer program product comprising program code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable data carrier (Col 10, line 61: “stored in the system memory”), the program code being configured, when executed by a processor (Col 7, line 26: “Braking demands are transmitted to the main ECU 10”), to:
determine a trailer mass (“Mass r” and “Mass t”, aka: “Mr” and “Mt”, see Fig 1) of at least one trailer vehicle in a prevailing vehicle configuration of a vehicle train;
See Col 4, lines 38-39: “(4) Mr supported & braked by the rear tractor axle/bogie. (5) Mt supported & braked by the trailer rear bogie”
Also see Col 11, lines 8-9: “the trailer mass Mt comprises all that which is supported on the trailer front and rear axles”.
Also see Col 4, lines 40-42: “The mass section Mr, while including the tractor rear elements is made up mainly of the trailer front section and the load carried thereon.”.
Also see Col 7, lines 48-53: “rear axle load is sensed by a load sensor 26 and passed to the main ECU 10 where it is used to generate braking proportional to load being carried and to give a measure of the variable component of mass Mr”.
determine a towing vehicle trailer mass (“Mass f”, aka: “Mf”) of a towing vehicle in the prevailing vehicle configuration;
See Col 4, line 37: “Mf supported & braked by the tractor front axle.”
determine a mass ratio of the prevailing vehicle configuration based on the trailer mass and the towing vehicle mass; and,
See Col 3, lines 7-10: “set in relation to the ratio of mass (Mt) of the rear part of the trailer which is normally braked by the trailer brakes, to the total mass (Mf+Mr) being supported on the towing vehicle axles”.
Also see Col 6, line 67-Col 7, line 1: “The actual percentage used depends on the mass ratio Rm. (31) Rm is given by: Mt/(Mf+Mr).”.
limit a maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device based on the mass ratio.
See Col 6, lines 62-67: “"Co-ordination" in terms of this present invention is the means whereby the excess deceleration of the tractor braking alone is stored and a percentage of this figure produces an adjustment to the effective braking demand used in the error assessment of the trailer system The actual percentage used depends on the mass ratio Rm.”.
Also see Col 5, lines 56-61: “The mass compensated demand represents a deceleration demand which is lower than a predetermined limit typically lying in the range 0.2-0.3 g yet greater than a lower limit of 0.15 g or thereabouts, below which measurement is unreliable.”.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feetenby et al. (US Pat No 6,273,522) in view of Stumpe et al. (US Pat No 6,062,658).
In regard to claim 6,
Feetenby discloses the method of claim 1.
Feetenby does not positively disclose:
determining a bend curvature of a road to be driven on by the vehicle train; and,
limiting the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device additionally based on the determined bend curvature.
However, such practices are known in the art.
Stumpe discloses a method for controlling a brake system in a vehicle (see the Title). Most importantly, Stumpe teaches limiting the braking of a continuous deceleration device (retarder) in curves to improve vehicle stability in the curve (see Col 4, lines 55-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the method of Feetenby to include “determining a bend curvature of a road to be driven on by the vehicle train; and, limiting the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device additionally based on the determined bend curvature” to increase vehicle stability, as taught by Stumpe.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feetenby et al. (US Pat No 6,273,522) in view of Jansson (US Pub No 2006/0025895).
In regard to claim 9,
Feetenby discloses the method of claim 1.
Feetenby does not positively disclose:
determining a prevailing coefficient of friction for the vehicle train; and,
limiting the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device additionally based on the prevailing coefficient of friction.
However, such practices are known in the art.
Jansson discloses a method of controlling a tractor (see the Abstract), including managing continuous deceleration device (retarder) torque based, at least in part, on a coefficient of friction; see Paragraph 0008, especially (emphasis added): “determining a torque limit at the drive wheel tire from at least the axle load and a coefficient of friction between the drive wheel tire and a surface supporting the drive wheel tire; determining at least one of an engine torque limit and a retarder torque limit based on the torque limit at the drive wheel tire; and using at least one of the engine torque limit as an upper limit on torque generated by the vehicle's engine and the retarder torque limit as an upper limit on torque dissipated by the vehicle's retarder, thereby reducing drive wheel tire slip to substantially zero”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the method of Feetenby to include “determining a prevailing coefficient of friction for the vehicle train; and, limiting the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device additionally based on the prevailing coefficient of friction” in order to reduce drive wheel tire slip as taught by Jansson.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feetenby et al. (US Pat No 6,273,522) in view of Uematsu et al. (US Pat No 6,299,263).
In regard to claim 10,
Feetenby discloses the method of claim 1.
Feetenby does not positively disclose:
determining a downhill gradient of a road to be driven on by the vehicle train; and,
limiting the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device additionally based on the determined downhill gradient.
However, such practices are known in the art.
Uematsu discloses controlling a retarder (see the Abstract). Most importantly, Uematsu teaches that use of a continuous deceleration device (retarder) should be limited based on the gradient and length of downhill sections to avoid overheating; see Col 20, lines 35-46, especially (emphasis added): “the maximum vehicle speed Vmax by the retarder 31 are greatly limited by not only the loading weight, but also the gradient and the distance of a downhill road. In the present embodiment, as described below, a control to automatically change the set vehicle speed Vs so that the set vehicle speed Vs does not exceed the maximum vehicle speed Vmax based on the cooling oil temperature T of the retarder 31, which is generated according to the gradient and the distance of the downhill road”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the method of Feetenby to include “determining a downhill gradient of a road to be driven on by the vehicle train; and, limiting the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device additionally based on the determined downhill gradient” to avoid overheating the continuous deceleration device, as taught by Uematsu.
Claim 13 (listed as claim 12 in the claim set of 28 May 2025, now interpreted as claim 13, see Claim Objections above) is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feetenby et al. (US Pat No 6,273,522), alone.
In regard to claim 13,
Feetenby discloses the method of claim 1.
Feetenby does not positively disclose:
emitting a warning signal if the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power is less than a technically possible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it is ubiquitously known throughout the art to utilize an alarm or alert to inform an operator when a requested task cannot be performed, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the method of Feetenby thus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-8, and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 3 (from which claims 4 and 5 depend), Examiner notes, especially, the following limitations (emphasis added): “determining a coupling length for a coupling force which acts during an operation of the vehicle train between the towing vehicle and the at least one trailer vehicle; and, limiting the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device additionally based on the coupling length”.
In regard to claim 7 (from which claim 8 depends), Examiner notes, especially, the following limitations (emphasis added): “determining a jack-knifing angle between the towing vehicle and the at least one trailer vehicle; and, limiting the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device if the jack-knifing angle exceeds a jack-knifing angle limit value”.
In regard to claim 11 (the first of the two listed claim 11 of the claim set of 28 May 2025, see Claim Objections above), Examiner notes, especially, the following limitations (emphasis added): “providing a compensation deceleration power at one of multiple axles of the vehicle train, which are independent of the continuous deceleration device, in order to at least partially compensate for an incorrect deceleration power caused by the limitation of the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power of the continuous deceleration device”.
In regard to claim 12 (listed as the second claim 11 in the claim set of 28 May 2025, see Claim Objections above), Examiner notes, especially, the following limitations (emphasis added): “performing a trailer braking maneuver of the vehicle train via a trailer deceleration device of the at least one trailer vehicle if a continuous deceleration power required for the vehicle train is greater than the maximum permissible continuous deceleration power”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights