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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Withdrawn from consideration:
Objected To: 7
Allowed: 21
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (), hereinafter “” in view of Berntorp (US 2020/0290577), hereinafter “Berntorp”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A prediction system comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (¶¶0033)
adjust parameters of a prediction model using friction estimates and sideslip costs associated with a projected trajectory of a vehicle (¶¶);
scale, using the prediction model, handling limits of the vehicle for the projected trajectory according to a friction circle (¶¶);
generate, by the prediction model, vehicle dynamics using a load transfer and a brake distribution, the vehicle dynamics being associated with estimated road conditions and the handling limits (¶¶); and
output, by the prediction model using the vehicle dynamics, a driving command to a vehicle system for the projected trajectory (¶¶).
fail to explicitly disclose:
adjust parameters of a prediction model using friction estimates and sideslip costs associated with a tire characteristic derived by a tire model for the vehicle, the friction estimates being derived from Kalman filtering.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of in order to evaluate and update the tire friction function in a probabilistic environment of the motion data. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to evaluate and update the tire friction function in a probabilistic environment of the motion data. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the prediction model executes in a processing layer separate from controllers of a chassis and the prediction model implements a non-linear model predictive control (NMPC) that generates commands at the handling limits (: ¶¶).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the vehicle dynamics are first-order dynamics and the load transfer is a longitudinal load transfer caused by tire force available at different tires of the vehicle (: ¶¶0010, 0033,0100-0108).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further including instructions to:
compute the projected trajectory by an automated driving system (ADS) according to the handling limits and prior commands generated by the prediction model, wherein the vehicle utilizes the ADS and the prediction model to avoid an object by moving in a reduced distance at the handling limits using the projected trajectory (: ¶¶0026-0031, 0042-0046, 0096-0104).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to (¶¶0033):
adjust parameters of a prediction model using friction estimates and sideslip costs associated with a projected trajectory of a vehicle (¶¶);
scale, using the prediction model, handling limits of the vehicle for the projected trajectory according to a friction circle (¶¶);
generate, by the prediction model, vehicle dynamics using a load transfer and a brake distribution, the vehicle dynamics being associated with estimated road conditions and the handling limits (¶¶); and
output, by the prediction model using the vehicle dynamics, a driving command to a vehicle system for the projected trajectory (¶¶).
fail to explicitly disclose:
adjust parameters of a prediction model using friction estimates and sideslip costs associated with a tire characteristic derived by a tire model for the vehicle, the friction estimates being derived from Kalman filtering.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of in order to evaluate and update the tire friction function in a probabilistic environment of the motion data. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to evaluate and update the tire friction function in a probabilistic environment of the motion data. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and Berntorp as applied above and further in view of (), hereinafter “”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the handling limits are associated with force saturation for coupled tires of the vehicle that the prediction model processes.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (¶¶0049-0061) in order to maintain vehicle stability (¶¶).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to order to maintain vehicle stability (¶¶) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claim 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights