Powered Running Board Alarm Control for Adaptive Theft Deterrence

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current vehicle alarm systems lack the ability to operate in multiple modes based on the level of detected theft activity and are limited in their control over vehicle components, failing to effectively deter theft through varied and adaptive means.

Innovation Solution

Incorporating a powered running board and side mirror that can be moved in predetermined patterns based on position and speed, controlled by an electronic unit that processes sensor data to detect unauthorized events, allowing for adaptive alarm responses.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If traditional alarm systems activate horn and lights, then theft detection capability is provided, but adaptability to different theft activity levels is insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveadaptability to different theft activity levelsVSAvoideffectiveness of theft deterrence
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The alarm system transitions from static to dynamic operation by implementing multiple operational modes (normal mode and deterrent mode) that adapt based on detected theft activity levels. The system dynamically adjusts its response intensity and selected vehicle components based on sensor data analyzing theft attempt severity, allowing reliable deterrence across varying threat levels while maintaining adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes operational parameters by switching between different alarm routines with varying intensities. In normal mode, standard alarm actions are taken, while in deterrent mode, enhanced actions including operating multiple vehicle components (lights, horn, windows, doors, running boards, mirrors) in coordinated patterns are activated based on the level of theft activity detected, providing reliable deterrence adapted to specific threat levels.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Adaptability or versatility

If limited vehicle components are operated in restricted manner, then system complexity is reduced, but versatility of alarm responses is insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveversatility of alarm responsesVSAvoidcomplexity of controlling multiple vehicle components
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The alarm system achieves versatility by making the electronic control unit capable of controlling multiple different vehicle components (lights, horn, windows, doors, running boards, mirrors) with a single unified control architecture. This multi-functional approach allows diverse alarm responses using existing vehicle components, providing versatile theft deterrence without proportionally increasing system complexity, as the control logic integrates coordination of all components through centralized management.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The system merges the control of multiple vehicle components into a coordinated alarm routine. Instead of treating each component separately, the electronic control unit combines their operation into integrated deterrent patterns (e.g., coordinated movement of running boards with lights and horn activation), achieving versatile alarm responses while managing complexity through unified control logic that orchestrates all components working together.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

3Reliability

If single alarm mode is used, then ease of operation is maintained, but effectiveness against varying theft threats is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveeffectiveness against varying theft threatsVSAvoidsimplicity of alarm system operation
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The alarm system operates autonomously by automatically selecting between normal mode and deterrent mode based on sensor-detected theft activity levels. The electronic control unit self-determines the appropriate response intensity and selected vehicle components without requiring user input or manual mode selection, maintaining ease of operation while providing reliable, adaptive deterrence against varying theft threats through automated decision-making.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system incorporates feedback mechanisms where sensors continuously monitor theft activity around the vehicle and feed this information to the electronic control unit. Based on this feedback regarding theft attempt severity, the system automatically adjusts its operational mode and selected components, maintaining simplicity of operation while ensuring effective response to varying threat levels through continuous monitoring and adaptive response.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS11987207B2Vehicles and vehicle systems for operating powered running boards in an alarm deterrent mode
Publication Date: 2024.05.21 TOYOTA JIDOSHA KK
  • US11987207B2 patent drawing
  • US11987207B2 patent drawing
  • US11987207B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A vehicle including a powered running board, a motor for positioning the powered running board between a stowed position and a deployed position, a sensor configured to capture data of activity around the vehicle, and an electronic control unit configured to process the data captured by the sensor to detect an unauthorized event around the vehicle, and operate the motor to repeatedly move the powered running board in a predetermined pattern based on at least one of position and a speed in response to the sensor detecting an unauthorized event around the vehicle.