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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 March 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7 9 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 7 were objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot each of the objections. Accordingly, the objection of claims 4 and 7 have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner provided claim interpretation for the claim limitations of claim 5, 7, 9, 11. In view of Applicant’s amendments providing clarity, these interpretation are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot most of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,. However, some of the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 4 remain and are repeated below.
Specifically, it still remains unclear in claims 2, 3, 4 what are the requirements for generating the travel path and whether the requirements require (1) generate a travel path wherein a (singular) physical quantity is smaller than a defined value as required by claim 1, (2) generate a travel path based on minimizing a sum of physical quantities as required by claims 2 and 3; (3) generate the travel path in which an evaluation value (equation) is minimized as required by claim 4. For example, it is not clear if in claim 2, the travel path is created when a single physical quantity is smaller and a second, different travel path is generated when the sum of the physical quantities are minimized. Alternatively, if claim 2 is meant to further limit claim such that the travel path is only generated when the sum is minimized then, this contradicts claim 1 which generates based on a single quantity minimized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 13 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, and 11-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Szubbocsev (US Pub. No. 2019/0294173, hereinafter “Szubbocsev”).
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 and 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein US Pub. No. 2022/0204034, herein after “Stein”) in view of Varnhagen et al. US Pub. No. 2018/0215373, hereinafter “Varnhagen).
Claim(s) 4-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein and Varnhagen in further view of KR 19990000242 A.
Claim(s) 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein and Varnhagen in further view of Madas et al. (US Patent No. 10,410,521, hereinafter “Madas”)
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 13 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues:
First, the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest a processor to "predict a first physical quantity related to a first vehicle behavior that occurs when a vehicle maintains a reference route toward a predetermined region on a course and a second physical quantity related
to a second vehicle behavior that occurs when the vehicle shifts to an avoidance route for avoiding the predetermined region," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action only cites paragraph [0008] and [0097]-[0101] of Szubbocsev, and paragraphs [0033], [0034], and [0040]- [0043] of Stein, in combination with paragraphs [0001], [0033], and [0042] of Varnhagen for this purpose. In paragraph [0008] and [0097]-[0101], Szubbocsev merely discusses time-based dynamic routing, i.e., updating a current route time, generating an alternative route set and a qualifying route time for each qualifying route, and then selecting a route having a shortest travel time for re-routing. However, merely mentioning current route time and qualifying route time for selecting a route, as in Szubbocsev, is not the same as, and does not disclose, predicting actual physical quantity related to a vehicle behavior, let alone a first physical quantity for a vehicle behavior when a vehicle maintains a reference route and a second physical quantity for a vehicle behavior when the vehicle shifts to an avoidance route (different from the reference route), e.g., see at least paragraphs [0009] and [0032] of the application as filed. That is, Szubbocsev's route time simply cannot be equated with physical quantity that is related to a vehicle behavior.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes that rejection relied not only on Szubbocsev [0097-0101] but also [0008] and other paragraphs of the reference as well as the Figures of Szubbocsev. As noted in the previous response to arguments, Applicant’s claim are broad enough to encompass simply determining a time to a destination along a reference route and determining a time to destination along an alternative route and comparing that time to a predefined value (the qualifying time or minimum stored time of Szubbocsev) and continuing on the route with the shortest time calculated as applied in the rejection. Applicant’s arguments that “Szubbocsev’s route time simply cannot be equated with the physical quantity that is related to a vehicle behavior is not persuasive because as Applicant’s own physical quantity may be time (see claim 8 of the instant application).
In the previous response the examiner clearly explained their position, stating:
The examiner notes that the first physical quantity (travel time of Szubbocsev) is related to a first vehicle behavior (driving along the reference route of Szubbocsev) occurs when a vehicle maintains a reference route toward a predetermined region . Further, the examiner notes that the second physical quantity (travel time of Szubbocsev) is related to a second vehicle behavior (driving along the avoidance route of Szubbocsev) that occurs when the vehicle shifts to an avoidance route for avoiding the predetermined region See also [0097-0101].);
The examiner maintains that position. To be clear, Szubbocsev discloses predict a first physical quantity (i.e. time) related to a first vehicle behavior (i.e. driving) that occurs when a vehicle maintains a reference route toward a predetermined region on a course (along a reference route to the destination). Applicants argument that Szubbocsev does not teaching “predicting a first physical quantity for a vehicle behavior when a vehicle maintains a reference route and a second physical quantity for a vehicle behavior when the vehicle shifts to an avoidance route” is not persuasive as Szubbocsev predicts the time (a physical quantity) expected to drive along a first route RN (a vehicle behavior, driving, along reference route) and predicts the time (a physical quantity) expected to drive along an alternative route RA (a vehicle behavior, driving, along the avoidance route). The time is a predicted time or an expected time because the vehicle has not yet driven the route. See at least Szubbocsev Figure 1 and [0008] and [0097-0101].); relied upon in the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 13 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combination of Stein and Varnhagen have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to the combination:
Further, the Office Action acknowledges that Stein does not teach or suggest the actual prediction of any physical quantities related to a vehicle, and relies only on the above-reference passages of Varnhagen for this purpose. In paragraphs [0001], [0033], and [0042], Varnhagen
merely discusses predicting acceleration (i.e., lateral, longitudinal, or vertical acceleration) along a predetermined route based on stored road topology, and then causing an action (e.g., suspension actuation or leveling) to adjust an orientation of a vehicle body or an object in the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the route. Although Varnhagen provides a type of prediction, Varnhagen fails to consider any prediction for vehicle behavior physical quantities that occur on different routes such as a first physical quantity for a first vehicle behavior when maintaining a
reference (first) route, and a second physical quantity for a second vehicle behavior when shifting to an avoidance (second) route to avoid a particular region. Instead, Varnhagen's prediction is used for an entirely different purpose and relates to different technical implementation of the present disclosure. For example, Varnhagen only predicts lateral/longitudinal/vertical accelerations along a specific predetermined route to adjust vehicle body orientation or object in the vehicle, without any consideration of different routes, especially an avoidance route for the purposes of avoiding a predetermined region. Hence, Varnhagen certainly cannot contemplate predicting the first physical quantity and the second physical quantity with respect to vehicle traverses of a reference route and an avoidance route, respectively. Thus, the cited references fail to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1 recited above.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Stein teaches determining a first vertical pulse or acceleration (as seen in Figure 2 corresponding to a first physical quantity) when travelling a first trajectory (corresponding to a first vehicle behavior) that occurs when a vehicle maintains a reference route toward a transvers uneven surface Q (corresponding to a predetermined region). Stein further teaches determining another vertical pulse or acceleration (as seen in Figure 3 corresponding to a second physical quantity) when travelling a second trajectory (corresponding to a second vehicle behavior) that occurs when a vehicle shifts to an avoidance route. Further, Stein teaches determining a travel path wherein the first vertical pulse or acceleration or a second vertical pulse or acceleration are smaller than an acceptable level (corresponding to a defined value, See at least Stein [0050] and [0017] “In other words, the speed of the vehicle 1 is reduced to an even greater extent before driving over the transverse uneven surface Q in order to thereby reduce the vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2, in particular to an acceptable level, in particular with regard to occupant comfort, load safety and protection of the vehicle 1.”).
As noted in the rejection, Stein was relied upon for determining or assuming a physical quantit(ies) such as a vertical acceleration (see at least Stein [0033-0034], [0040-0042] , but does not explicitly teach that the physical quantit(ies) are predicted. However, Varnhagen was relied upon for teaching predicting a physical quantity such as acceleration (see at least Varnhagen [0033])
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s argument that Varnhagen’s prediction is used for an entirely different purpose is not persuasive. Varnhagen is relied upon for showing that the acceleration can be predicted rather than determined, and is not relied upon for the use of the predicted quantity.
Applicant further argues:
Second, the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest a process to "generate a travel path according to the reference route or the avoidance route in which at least one of the corresponding first physical quantity or the corresponding second physical quantity is smaller
than a defined value," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action only cites paragraphs [0008] and [0097]-[0101] of Szubbocsev, and paragraphs [0017], [0033], [0034], [0040]-[0043], and [0050] of Stein for this purpose.
With respect to Szubbocsev, the cited passages merely generally disclose generating and selecting routes based on travel time optimization, i.e., generating qualifying route times and selecting the route with the shortest time. The Office Action appears to equate (i) a "shortest time" with a "defined value" or a previously stored shortest temporal path time, and (ii) a "physical quantity" to a "travel time." Applicant respectfully traverses this contention.
As discussed above, Szubbocsev's travel time does not represent an actual physical quantity for any vehicle behavior, and the Office Action does not provide any specific evidence to the contrary. Instead, Szubbocsev only identifies and selects a temporal shortest route,
without any consideration of the physical quantities related to changes in vehicle behaviors along different routes (e.g., for traversing or avoiding a predetermined region), much less actually generating a travel path according to the route with corresponding physical quantity
that is smaller than a defined value. Indeed, Szubbocsev is entirely silent regarding the generation of the travel path according to a reference route (traverses towards a predetermined region) or an avoidance route (avoids the predetermined region).
Regarding Applicant’s argument regarding the Office Actions reliance upon time as the physical quantity for vehicle behavior has been addressed above and will not be repeated. With respect to the argument that Szubbocsev does not discloses generation of the travel path according to the route with the corresponding physical quantity that is smaller than a defined value. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Szubbocsev teaches generating a travel path according to the reference route or the avoidance route in which a least one of the corresponding first physical quantity or the corresponding second physical quantity is smaller than a defined value (see at least Szubbocsev wherein the defined value corresponds to the time to traverse the determined shortest temporal path [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.” See also [0097-0101]. For example, see [0098-0099] for determining the time for the shortest temporal path and comparing the time for alternative paths to the time stored shortest temporal path and updating the path based on the shortest temporal path “The time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is continuously updated and saved by the on-board computer 204 and/or the one or more control system nodes 502… [0099] As described in step 910, in response to the on-board computer 204 determining the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt, the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is compared to the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1. If the time T.sub.Qt for the current geographical position of the ADV is less than the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1, then the on-board computer 204 will set the route R.sub.QT as the new route R.sub.N+2 and automatically re-route the ADV to autonomously navigate the new route R.sub.N+2 as described herein.”).
The route of Szubbocsev is generated as the vehicle is navigated along the route with the shortest time (see at least Szubbocsev [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.).
Applicant argues with respect to the combination of Stein and Varnhagen:
Furthermore, with respect to Stein, the cited passages merely discusses generating a target trajectory for driving over a transverse uneven surface and reducing speed or adjusting angle to reduce vertical pulses to an "acceptable level," for comfort and/or safety. However, at no point does Stein provide any showing that the target trajectory is generated for different routes, for instance, a reference route towards a particular region or an avoidance route to avoid such region, much less consider physical quantities with respect to the different routes. Instead, Stein only automate a vehicle operation on a single route and does not generate a travel path according to the reference route or the avoidance route in which at least one of the physical quantities corresponding to the respective routes is smaller than a defined value. Therefore, the cited references also fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the aforementioned subject matter of claim 1.
Applicants argument with respect to the combination to Stein and Varnhagen is not persuasive. As shown in Stein Figure 2 and 3, there are two separate routes or trajectories, namely a first target trajectory shown in Figure 2 (reference route) in which the vehicle is driven straight over the uneven surface Q and a second target trajectory T shown in Figure 3 (alternative route) in which the vehicle is driven at an angle over the uneven surface Q. The different trajectories of Stein are a different paths the vehicle takes over the uneven surface and is thus considered different routes. Further Stein clearly teaches using a target trajectory to avoiding objects (see at least Stein Figure 2 and Figure 3, wherein the reference route is generated and the alternative path is generated that reduces the vertical acceleration when compared against the reference route and further ensures that the vertical acceleration is smaller than an acceptable vertical acceleration which corresponds to the defined value. See at least [0033-0034] and [0040-0042]. See also [0017] and [0050] for the acceptable vertical acceleration which corresponds to the defined value. Further the examiner notes that Stein also determines the speed should be below a predetermined value (and minimizes the speed reductions) to traverse the uneven service in [0042-0043] “ In addition to the above-described generation of the target trajectory T in such a way that the wheels of each individual axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1 pass over the transverse uneven surface Q with a time delay, it is advantageously provided that the target trajectory T is additionally also generated in such a way that the transverse uneven surface Q is passed over at a speed that is reduced compared to a speed of the vehicle 1 before the transverse uneven surface Q is detected. In other words, the speed is advantageously reduced before reaching and driving over the transverse uneven surface Q in order to further reduce the vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2, and can be increased again afterwards, i.e., after driving over the transverse uneven surface Q with all wheels of the vehicle 1….[0043] For example, it can be provided that the target trajectory T is generated in such a way that the transverse uneven surface Q is travelled over at a fixed, predefined speed for transverse uneven surfaces Q. . In this way, for example, excessive speed reductions can be avoided in the case of small transverse uneven surfaces Q and, for example, very strong vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2, which may lead to severe loss of comfort and/or damage to the load and/or damage to the vehicle 1, can also be avoided in the case of large transverse uneven surfaces Q.” See also [0017] and [0050] wherein the acceptable level of vertical pulses is considered the predefined value “This means that the speed of the vehicle is reduced to an even greater extent before driving over the transverse uneven surface in order to thus reduce the vertical pulses, in particular to an acceptable level, especially with regard to occupant comfort, load safety and protection of the vehicle.” The examiner further notes [0042-0043] for discussing determining the predefined speed for the acceptable level of vertical accelerations based on the shape/height of the transverse uneven surface Q…. See also Figure 4 and [0014] and [0046] regarding an a target trajectory that both avoids an object and a time delay for the wheels of each individual axel of the vehicle).
Applicant does not provide a separate argument for claims 2-3, 7-9 or 11 rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(1) as being anticipated by Szubbocsev, instead relying upon the purported deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant does not provide a separate argument for claims 2-11 rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, instead relying upon the purported deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, as amended, is attempting to claim an embodiment (generates a travel path based on minimizing a sum of physical quantities) which is mutually exclusive from claim 1 (generate a travel path wherein a (singular) physical quantity is smaller than a defined value) and thus, claim 2 contradicts claim 1. Thus, as amended, it is not clear if the travel path is generated based on minimizing the sum of the first and second physical quantities as required by claim 2, or based on the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity smaller than a defined value as required by claim 1, or if it is required for both conditions to be met. Further, the examiner requests Applicant to ensure that combination of claim elements are supported in the originally filed specification.
Claim 3 recites “generate the travel path for maintaining the reference route in a case wherein a sum of the first physical quantities related to the first vehicle behavior that occurs at a time of maintaining the reference route is equal to a sum of second physical quantities related to the second vehicle behavior that occurs at a time of shifting to the avoidance route”. Claim 3 contradicts claim 1. As amended, it is not clear if the travel path is generated (1) based on the sum of the first physical quantities and the sum of the second physical quantities as required by claim 3 or based on the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity being smaller than a defined value (as required by claim 1), or if it is required for all conditions to be met.
Claim 4 recites “generate the travel path in which an evaluation value is minimized as calculated by an evaluation function, wherein the evaluation function uses, as a numerator, the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity predicted according to the corresponding first vehicle behavior or the corresponding second vehicle behavior or the second vehicle behavior.” Claim 4 depends from claim 1, but appears to contradict claim 1. As amended, it is not clear if the travel path is generated based on minimizing the evaluation value calculated by an evaluation function (as required by claim 4); or based on the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity being smaller than a defined value (as required by claim 1), or if it is required for both conditions to be met. Further, the examiner requests Applicant to ensure that combination of claim elements are supported in the originally filed specification (see a least Figure 7 and [0046-0051] and especially [0046] which states “The main difference between FIGS. 7, and 5 and 6 is that the action selection processing is changed from the method of performing the action selection processing based on a sum of physical quantities related to the vehicle behavior calculated from the magnitude relationship between the physical quantity related to the vehicle behavior such as the acceleration and the defined value, the acceleration, and the like to the method of performing the action selection processing based on an evaluation value calculated from the acceleration and the like.”).
Claim 5 recites “wherein when a first evaluation value calculated using the evaluation function at a time maintaining the reference route is equal to a second evaluation value calculated using the evaluation function at a time of shifting to the avoidance route, the processor is configured to: generate the travel path for maintaining the reference route.” The claim is unclear how the vehicle can be both on the maintaining the reference route and shifting to the avoidance route as indicated by the recitation of “at the time”. Further, it is not clear how the evaluation value can be calculated for a route that the travel path has not yet been generated. Finally, as noted above with respect to claims 2-4, claim 5 contradicts claim 1 wherein the travel path is generated according to the reference route or the avoidance route in which at least one of the corresponding first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is smaller than a defined value. It is not clear if claim 5 is a second, different generation of the travel route. it is not clear if the travel path is generated based on the evaluation functions being equal (as required by claim 5); or based on the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity being smaller than a defined value (as required by claim 1), or if it is required for both conditions to be met. Further, the examiner requests Applicant to ensure that combination of claim elements are supported in the originally filed specification
Claim 7 recites “when both the first physical quantity related to the first vehicle behavior that occurs at time of maintaining the reference route and the second physical quantity related to the second vehicle behavior that occurs at time of shifting to the avoidance route are greater than the defined value, subsequent to the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity being smaller than the defined value, the processor is configured to: generate the travel path that passes through the reference route and has a minimum physical quantity” Claim 7 depends from claim 1 which recites “generate a travel path according to the reference route or the avoidance route in which at least one of the corresponding first physical quantity or the corresponding second physical quantity is smaller than a defined value” Claim 7 contradicts claim 1 and is unclear. It is not clear if the travel path of claim 7 is the same travel path as that recited in claim 1. Based on the examiner’s understanding, this is not the same travel path. In claim 1 the travel path is only generated when one of the physical quantities is smaller than the defined value. Claim 7 indicates that after (subsequent to) one of physical values these is smaller, then a travel path is generated and subsequent to that when both physical values is greater to “generate the travel path”. Thus, the examiner believes this travel path must be different than that recited in claim 1, however, the claim, as written is not clear.
Claims 5-6 depend from claim 4 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Szubbocsev US Pub. No. 2019/0294173, hereinafter “Szubbocsev”).
Regarding claim 1, Szubbocsev discloses a control device comprising:
a processor (see at least Szubbocsev, Figure 2, ADV control system/computer) configured to:
predict a first physical quantity related to a first vehicle behavior that occurs when a vehicle maintains a reference route toward a predetermined region on a course and a second physical quantity related to a second vehicle behavior that occurs when the vehicle shifts to an avoidance route for avoiding the predetermined region (see at least Szubbocsev Figure 9 and [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to the determination of a current vehicle location, update the first route time to the current route time that represents the time it will take the vehicle to reach the current destination from the current vehicle location navigating the current route, generate a first alternative route set that represents a set of one or more alternative routes that the vehicle can navigate from the current vehicle location to the current destination that are different from the current route, wherein each of the alternative routes in the first alternative route set includes at least one navigable pathway that is not included in the current route and each of the other alternative routes.” and “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination.” The examiner notes that the first physical quantity (travel time of Szubbocsev) is related to a first vehicle behavior (driving along the reference route of Szubbocsev) occurs when a vehicle maintains a reference route toward a predetermined region . Further, the examiner notes that the second physical quantity (travel time of Szubbocsev) is related to a second vehicle behavior (driving along the avoidance route of Szubbocsev) that occurs when the vehicle shifts to an avoidance route for avoiding the predetermined region To be clear, Szubbocsev discloses predict a first physical quantity (i.e. time) related to a first vehicle behavior (i.e. driving) that occurs when a vehicle maintains a reference route toward a predetermined region on a course (along a reference route to the destination). Szubbocsev predicts the time (a physical quantity) expected to drive along a first route RN (a vehicle behavior, driving, along reference route) and predicts the time (a physical quantity) expected to drive along an alternative route RA (a vehicle behavior, driving, along the avoidance route). The time is a predicted time or an expected time because the vehicle has not yet driven the route. See at least Szubbocsev Figure 1 and [0008] and [0097-0101].);See also [0097-0101].);
generate a travel path according to the reference route or the avoidance route in which at least one of the corresponding first physical quantity or the corresponding second physical quantity is smaller than a defined value (see at least Szubbocsev wherein the defined value corresponds to the time to traverse the shortest temporal path [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.” See also [0097-0101]. For example, see [0098-0099] for determining the time for the shortest temporal path and comparing the time for alternative paths to the time stored shortest temporal path and updating the path based on the shortest temporal path “The time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is continuously updated and saved by the on-board computer 204 and/or the one or more control system nodes 502… [0099] As described in step 910, in response to the on-board computer 204 determining the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt, the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is compared to the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1. If the time T.sub.Qt for the current geographical position of the ADV is less than the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1, then the on-board computer 204 will set the route R.sub.QT as the new route R.sub.N+2 and automatically re-route the ADV to autonomously navigate the new route R.sub.N+2 as described herein.” The examiner notes that the route of Szubbocsev is generated as the vehicle is navigated along the route with the shortest time (see at least Szubbocsev [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.).
execute an action based on the travel path generated according to the reference route or the avoidance route associated with:
the one of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity that is smaller than the defined value based on one of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity being smaller than the defined value (see at least Szubbocsev [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to the identification of a route condition set that represents one or more qualifying route conditions that will be applied to each alternative route in the first alternative route set, apply a route condition set to each alternative route included in the first alternative route set and determine a qualifying route set that includes one or more qualifying routes that meet all of the qualifying conditions. One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.” See also [0097-0101] For example, see [0098-0099] for determining the time for the shortest temporal path and comparing the time for alternative paths to the time stored shortest temporal path and updating the path based on the shortest temporal path “The time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is continuously updated and saved by the on-board computer 204 and/or the one or more control system nodes 502… [0099] As described in step 910, in response to the on-board computer 204 determining the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt, the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is compared to the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1. If the time T.sub.Qt for the current geographical position of the ADV is less than the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1, then the on-board computer 204 will set the route R.sub.QT as the new route R.sub.N+2 and automatically re-route the ADV to autonomously navigate the new route R.sub.N+2 as described herein.”); or
a smaller one of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity based on one of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity being smaller than the defined value (see at least Szubbocsev [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.” See also [0097-0101]. For example, see [0098-0099] for determining the time for the shortest temporal path and comparing the time for alternative paths to the time stored shortest temporal path and updating the path based on the shortest temporal path “The time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is continuously updated and saved by the on-board computer 204 and/or the one or more control system nodes 502… [0099] As described in step 910, in response to the on-board computer 204 determining the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt, the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is compared to the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1. If the time T.sub.Qt for the current geographical position of the ADV is less than the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1, then the on-board computer 204 will set the route R.sub.QT as the new route R.sub.N+2 and automatically re-route the ADV to autonomously navigate the new route R.sub.N+2 as described herein.”) .
Regarding claim 2, Szubbocsev discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the travel path in which a sum of the first physical quantities related to the first vehicle behavior or a sum of second physical quantities related to the second vehicle behavior is minimized, the first physical quantities comprising the first physical quantity and the second physical quantities comprising the second physical quantity (see at least Szubbocsev [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.” See also [0097-0101]. The examiner notes the 112b rejection provided above. Accordingly, the examiner interprets the first sum as the sum of the first physical quantities or the second physical quantities to be minimized. In Szubbocsev, the sum of the time along the path is minimized (shortest time)).
Regarding claim 3, Szubbocsev discloses wherein to generate the travel path the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the travel path for maintaining the reference route in a case where a sum of first physical quantities related to the first vehicle behavior that occurs at a time of maintaining the reference route is equal to a sum of second physical quantities related to the second vehicle behavior that occurs at a time of shifting to the avoidance route , the first physical quantities comprising the first physical quantity and the second physical quantities comprising the second physical quantity (see at least Szubbocsev Figure 9 and [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.”. The examiner notes that Szubbocsev discloses only updating the route when the alternative route is shorter than the current route, thus Szubbocsev teaches when they are the same, the route is not updated and the vehicle continues along the current route) The examiner notes the 112b rejection provided above. As best understood by the examiner the second sum as the sum of the first physical quantities (time along reference route) and the third sum as the sum of the second physical quantities (time along the avoidance route In Szubbocsev, the path (i.e. the reference route or the alternative route) is set that has the shortest time based on the sum of the first physical quantity and the sum of the second physical quantities.)
Regarding claim 7, Szubbocsev discloses wherein, when both the first physical quantity related to the first vehicle behavior that occurs at time of maintaining the reference route and the second physical quantity related to the second vehicle behavior that occurs at time of shifting to the avoidance route are greater than the defined value, subsequent to the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity being smaller than the defined value, the processor is configured to: generate the travel path that passes through the reference route and has a minimum physical quantity (see at least Szubbocsev Figure 9 [0084] “In this manner, if T.sub.RA for one or more of the alternative routes R.sub.A is determined to be out of the range of acceptable temporal values, those one or more offending routes R.sub.A will be discarded from the set of alternative routes R.sub.A.” and [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.”. The examiner notes that Szubbocsev discloses discarding alternative routes that do not fit within the qualifying time and thus without any alternative routes , there will not be an alternative route that is shorter than the current route, and thus the route is not updated and the vehicle continues along the current route. The examiner notes the 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 8, Szubbocsev discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is any one of time, displacement, a speed, an acceleration, a jerk, an angle, an angular velocity, and an angular acceleration (see at least Szubbocsev Figure 9 and [0008] and [0097-0101].) wherein the physical quantity is time.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 12, Szubbocsev discloses the control device of claim 1, wherein to execute the action, the processor is configured to:
set at least one of a target driving force, a braking force, or a steering angle based on the travel path (see at least Szubbocsev [0040] “ FIGS. 2,3A, 3B and 4 are functional block diagrams of an embodiment of an on-board ADV navigation system 200 that can be used to route and navigate an ADV 602 generally shown in FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 2, each embodiment of an ADV described herein has an on-board computer and control system (on-board computer) 204 that operates to autonomously position and control an ADV to navigate the same from a geographical starting point A to a geographical ending point B without requiring an ADV occupant to accelerate, idle, engine-throttle, steer, brake, or warn (e.g., using a vehicle horn, wiper blades, hazard lights, or using a turn signal) another vehicle or pedestrian of an action that may somehow affect the other vehicle or pedestrian. The sensor data generated by the sensors described with reference to FIG. 2 will be processed by the on-board computer 204 described with reference to FIGS. 2,3A, 3B and 4 to autonomously navigate and control the ADV while monitoring and managing a battery stack 402, as described with reference to FIG. 4. The on-board computer 204 operates to among other things, for example, generate, determine and/or monitor 1) routing information that includes, when necessary, re-routing information, 2) navigational information to navigate an ADV from a geographical starting point to a geographical ending destination, and 3) sensor information that digitally describes an ADV's external surroundings, vehicular activities, and the current state of charge (SOC) and state of health (SOH) of a battery stack utilizing battery management system 222 and power management and battery system monitoring system 312. For example, an ADV's driving devices such as, for example, a steering wheel, a brake pedal, a gas pedal, a turn signal, a mirror(s), and a caution horn will be controlled by an ADV device controller 212 pursuant to control signals transmitted by the on-board computer 204 described with reference to FIG. 3A. The on-board computer 204 communicates with the ADV reference sensors 216, the navigation and control sensors 218 and battery management system 222 to receive the associated sensor data and processes the same to autonomously drive the ADV utilizing ADV device controller 212.” and [0079] [0079] If the on-board computer 204 determines that there is enough information at step 706, the on-board computer 204 utilizes the dynamic routing system 308 to generate a route R.sub.N and a time T.sub.RN at step 710 and automatically initiates the route at step 712 to autonomously navigate the ADV to the destination D.sub.N from the ADV's current position.”); and
control at least one of a powertrain system, a brake system, or a steering system to cause the vehicle to follow the travel path (see Szubbocsev [0040] and [0079] as cited above).
Regarding claim 13, Szubbocsev discloses the control device of claim 1, wherein:
when the first physical quantity is smaller than the defined value and the second physical quantity is greater than or equal to the defined value the processor is configured to generate the travel path according to the reference route (see at least Szubbocsev Figure 9 and [0008] wherein the defined value corresponds to the time to traverse the previously stored shortest temporal path. The examiner notes that the process is iterative [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.” See also [0084] which teaches when the second physical quantity is greater than the predefined value, it is not selected; “In this manner, if T.sub.RA for one or more of the alternative routes R.sub.A is determined to be out of the range of acceptable temporal values, those one or more offending routes R.sub.A will be discarded from the set of alternative routes R.sub.A.” See also [0097-0101]. For example, see [0098-0099] for determining the time for the shortest temporal path and comparing the time for alternative paths to the time stored shortest temporal path and updating the path based on the shortest temporal path “The time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is continuously updated and saved by the on-board computer 204 and/or the one or more control system nodes 502… [0099] As described in step 910, in response to the on-board computer 204 determining the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt, the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is compared to the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1. If the time T.sub.Qt for the current geographical position of the ADV is less than the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1, then the on-board computer 204 will set the route R.sub.QT as the new route R.sub.N+2 and automatically re-route the ADV to autonomously navigate the new route R.sub.N+2 as described herein….. Thereafter, the dynamic routing algorithm using artificial intelligence, as described herein, will automatically navigate the ADV by continuously generating alternative routes R.sub.A in real-time to determine if any of those generated alternative routes represent a shorter temporal route as compared to the current route the ADV is autonomously navigating, and automatically redirect the autonomous vehicle to navigate another alternative route (e.g., new route R.sub.N+3 if the preceding route was route R.sub.N+2 and the current destination was D.sub.N+1) if the new route meets predetermined conditions and is a shorter temporal route than the current route the ADV is navigating.” See also [0084] which teaches when the second physical quantity is greater than the predefined value, it is not selected; “In this manner, if T.sub.RA for one or more of the alternative routes R.sub.A is determined to be out of the range of acceptable temporal values, those one or more offending routes R.sub.A will be discarded from the set of alternative routes R.sub.A.”) OR
when the second physical quantity is smaller than the defined value and the first physical quantity is greater than or equal to the defined value, the processor is configured to generate the travel path according to the avoidance route (see at least Szubbocsev wherein the defined value corresponds to the time to traverse the shortest temporal path [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.” See also [0084] which teaches when the first physical quantity is greater than the predefined value, it is not selected; “In this manner, if T.sub.RA for one or more of the alternative routes R.sub.A is determined to be out of the range of acceptable temporal values, those one or more offending routes R.sub.A will be discarded from the set of alternative routes R.sub.A.”) See also [0097-0101]. For example, see [0098-0099] for determining the time for the shortest temporal path and comparing the time for alternative paths to the time stored shortest temporal path and updating the path based on the shortest temporal path “The time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is continuously updated and saved by the on-board computer 204 and/or the one or more control system nodes 502… [0099] As described in step 910, in response to the on-board computer 204 determining the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt, the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is compared to the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1. If the time T.sub.Qt for the current geographical position of the ADV is less than the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1, then the on-board computer 204 will set the route R.sub.QT as the new route R.sub.N+2 and automatically re-route the ADV to autonomously navigate the new route R.sub.N+2 as described herein….. Thereafter, the dynamic routing algorithm using artificial intelligence, as described herein, will automatically navigate the ADV by continuously generating alternative routes R.sub.A in real-time to determine if any of those generated alternative routes represent a shorter temporal route as compared to the current route the ADV is autonomously navigating, and automatically redirect the autonomous vehicle to navigate another alternative route (e.g., new route R.sub.N+3 if the preceding route was route R.sub.N+2 and the current destination was D.sub.N+1) if the new route meets predetermined conditions and is a shorter temporal route than the current route the ADV is navigating.”).
Regarding claim 14, Szubbocsev discloses the control device of claim 1, wherein:
when the first physical quantity and the second physical quantity are smaller than the defined value, and the first physical quantity is smaller than the second physical quantity the processor is configured to: generate the travel path according to the reference route (see at least Szubbocsev [0008] wherein the defined value corresponds to the time to traverse the shortest temporal path. The examiner notes that the process is iterative. [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.” See also [0097-0101] which teaches select the route that has the shortest time, which is the reference route in this circumstance. For example, see [0098-0099] for determining the time for the shortest temporal path and comparing the time for alternative paths to the time stored shortest temporal path and updating the path based on the shortest temporal path “The time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is continuously updated and saved by the on-board computer 204 and/or the one or more control system nodes 502… [0099] As described in step 910, in response to the on-board computer 204 determining the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt, the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is compared to the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1. If the time T.sub.Qt for the current geographical position of the ADV is less than the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1, then the on-board computer 204 will set the route R.sub.QT as the new route R.sub.N+2 and automatically re-route the ADV to autonomously navigate the new route R.sub.N+2 as described herein….. Thereafter, the dynamic routing algorithm using artificial intelligence, as described herein, will automatically navigate the ADV by continuously generating alternative routes R.sub.A in real-time to determine if any of those generated alternative routes represent a shorter temporal route as compared to the current route the ADV is autonomously navigating, and automatically redirect the autonomous vehicle to navigate another alternative route (e.g., new route R.sub.N+3 if the preceding route was route R.sub.N+2 and the current destination was D.sub.N+1) if the new route meets predetermined conditions and is a shorter temporal route than the current route the ADV is navigating.”), OR
when the first physical quantity and the second physical quantity are smaller than the defined value, and the second physical quantity is smaller than the first physical quantity, the processor is configured to: generate the travel path according to the avoidance route (see at least Szubbocsev wherein the defined value corresponds to the time to traverse the shortest temporal path and the process is performed iteratively [0008] “One or more embodiments of an ADV, in response to no route condition set being identified, set an alternative route set as the qualifying route set, analyze information concerning the one or more navigable pathways included in each qualifying route included in the qualifying route set and generate a qualifying route time for each qualifying route that represents a time that it will take the vehicle from its current location to navigate the qualifying route to reach the current destination. One or more embodiments of an ADV determine, from a current route time and each qualifying route time, a shortest time, and in response to the shortest time being shorter than the current route time, automatically set a qualifying route associated with the shortest time as a new current route and navigate the vehicle along the new current route to reach the current destination.” See also [0097-0101] which teaches select the route that has the shortest time which is the avoidance route in this circumstance. For example, see [0098-0099] for determining the time for the shortest temporal path and comparing the time for alternative paths to the time stored shortest temporal path and updating the path based on the shortest temporal path “The time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is continuously updated and saved by the on-board computer 204 and/or the one or more control system nodes 502… [0099] As described in step 910, in response to the on-board computer 204 determining the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt, the time T.sub.Qt for the shortest temporal path R.sub.Qt is compared to the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1. If the time T.sub.Qt for the current geographical position of the ADV is less than the time T.sub.RN+1 for the new route R.sub.N+1, then the on-board computer 204 will set the route R.sub.QT as the new route R.sub.N+2 and automatically re-route the ADV to autonomously navigate the new route R.sub.N+2 as described herein….. Thereafter, the dynamic routing algorithm using artificial intelligence, as described herein, will automatically navigate the ADV by continuously generating alternative routes R.sub.A in real-time to determine if any of those generated alternative routes represent a shorter temporal route as compared to the current route the ADV is autonomously navigating, and automatically redirect the autonomous vehicle to navigate another alternative route (e.g., new route R.sub.N+3 if the preceding route was route R.sub.N+2 and the current destination was D.sub.N+1) if the new route meets predetermined conditions and is a shorter temporal route than the current route the ADV is navigating.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein US Pub. No. 2022/0204034, herein after “Stein”) in view of Varnhagen et al. US Pub. No. 2018/0215373, hereinafter “Varnhagen).
Regarding claim 1, Stein teaches a control device comprising:
a processor configured to (see at least Stein Figure 5, processing unit 4 and [0032] “The vehicle 1 additionally has a processing unit 4, in particular a computing unit. Advantageously, the method or at least components of the method are carried out in this processing unit 4, as will be described in more detail below. In particular, sensor data SD of the environment detection sensor system 2 and/or data of the position determination device 3, in particular in combination with the digital map, are evaluated by means of this processing unit 4 in order to detect the transverse uneven surface Q and then to initiate appropriate measures, which will be described in more detail below.”):
[[predict]] a first physical quantity related to a first vehicle behavior that occurs when a vehicle maintains a reference route toward a predetermined region on a course and a second physical quantity related to a second vehicle behavior that occurs when the vehicle shifts to an avoidance route for avoiding the predetermined region (see at least Stein Figure 2 and Figure 3, wherein the vertical acceleration and speed determined or assumed when the vehicle traverses the uneven surface Q straight (reference route) or at an angle (avoidance route). See at least [0033-0034] and [0040-0042]. Further the examiner notes that Stein also determines the speed (and speed reductions) to traverse the uneven service in [0043]);;
generate a travel path according to the reference route or the avoidance route in which at least one of the corresponding first physical quantity or the corresponding second physical quantity is smaller than a defined value (see at least Stein Figure 2 and Figure 3, wherein the reference route is generated and the alternative path is generated that reduces the vertical acceleration when compared against the reference route and further ensures that the vertical acceleration is smaller than an acceptable vertical acceleration which corresponds to the defined value. As shown in Stein Figure 2 and 3, there are two separate routes or trajectories, namely a first target trajectory shown in Figure 2 (reference route) in which the vehicle is driven straight over the uneven surface Q and a second target trajectory T shown in Figure 3 (alternative route) in which the vehicle is driven at an angle over the uneven surface Q. The different trajectories of Stein are different paths the vehicle takes over the uneven surface and is thus considered different routes. Further Stein also teaches using a target trajectory to avoid objects. For example see at least Stein [0033-0034] and [0040-0042]. See also [0017] and [0050] for the acceptable vertical acceleration which corresponds to the defined value. Further the examiner notes that Stein also determines the speed should be below a predetermined value (and minimizes the speed reductions) to traverse the uneven service in [0042-0043] “ In addition to the above-described generation of the target trajectory T in such a way that the wheels of each individual axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1 pass over the transverse uneven surface Q with a time delay, it is advantageously provided that the target trajectory T is additionally also generated in such a way that the transverse uneven surface Q is passed over at a speed that is reduced compared to a speed of the vehicle 1 before the transverse uneven surface Q is detected. In other words, the speed is advantageously reduced before reaching and driving over the transverse uneven surface Q in order to further reduce the vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2, and can be increased again afterwards, i.e., after driving over the transverse uneven surface Q with all wheels of the vehicle 1….[0043] For example, it can be provided that the target trajectory T is generated in such a way that the transverse uneven surface Q is travelled over at a fixed, predefined speed for transverse uneven surfaces Q. . In this way, for example, excessive speed reductions can be avoided in the case of small transverse uneven surfaces Q and, for example, very strong vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2, which may lead to severe loss of comfort and/or damage to the load and/or damage to the vehicle 1, can also be avoided in the case of large transverse uneven surfaces Q.” See also [0017] wherein the acceptable level of vertical pulses is considered the predefined value “This means that the speed of the vehicle is reduced to an even greater extent before driving over the transverse uneven surface in order to thus reduce the vertical pulses, in particular to an acceptable level, especially with regard to occupant comfort, load safety and protection of the vehicle.” The examiner further notes [0042-0043] for discussing determining the predefined speed for the acceptable level of vertical accelerations based on the shape/height of the transverse uneven surface Q. See also Figure 4 and [0014] and [0046] regarding an a target trajectory that both avoids an object and a time delay for the wheels of each individual axel of the vehicle ); and
execute an action based on the travel path generated according to the reference route or the avoidance route associated with:
the one of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity that is smaller than the defined value based on one of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity being smaller than the defined value (see at least Stein [0041] “FIG. 3 also shows a vertical acceleration a—time t graph with the vertical pulses 11.1 for the front axle 1.1 and vertical pulses 11.2 for the rear axle 1.2 of the vehicle 1 caused by this driving over the transverse uneven surface Q at an angle, in particular at a slight angle, and a resulting curve of the vertical acceleration a. It can be seen that the number of vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2 is now doubled compared to the example according to FIG. 2, but their respective amplitudes are significantly reduced, advantageously halved, compared to FIG. 2. This results from the fact that both wheels of each axle 1.1, 1.2 now do not drive over the transverse uneven surface Q at the same time in each case, whereby a single pulse 11.1, 11.2 with a large amplitude is generated per axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1, as shown in FIG. 2, and instead the transverse uneven surface Q is now driven over with each wheel individually, while the other wheels in each case remain in a common plane on the route F. This results in a separate pulse 11.1, 11.2 for each wheel as it passes over the transverse uneven surface Q, and thus in two pulses 11.1, 11.2 per axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1, but each with a significantly lower amplitude. Due to these thus significantly lower vertical excitations, i.e., due to these now significantly lower vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2 and thus vertical accelerations a, the adverse effect on the comfort of the vehicle occupants and/or the safety of the load as well as the load quality are considerably reduced or substantially avoided.” [0050] “ In this case, however, it is advantageously provided that the target trajectory T is planned in such a way that the transverse uneven surface Q is driven over at a further reduced speed compared to the above-described driving over at an angle. In other words, the speed of the vehicle 1 is reduced to an even greater extent before driving over the transverse uneven surface Q in order to thereby reduce the vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2, in particular to an acceptable level, in particular with regard to occupant comfort, load safety and protection of the vehicle 1.”); or
a smaller one of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity based on one of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity being smaller than the defined value (see at least Stein [0041] “FIG. 3 also shows a vertical acceleration a—time t graph with the vertical pulses 11.1 for the front axle 1.1 and vertical pulses 11.2 for the rear axle 1.2 of the vehicle 1 caused by this driving over the transverse uneven surface Q at an angle, in particular at a slight angle, and a resulting curve of the vertical acceleration a. It can be seen that the number of vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2 is now doubled compared to the example according to FIG. 2, but their respective amplitudes are significantly reduced, advantageously halved, compared to FIG. 2. This results from the fact that both wheels of each axle 1.1, 1.2 now do not drive over the transverse uneven surface Q at the same time in each case, whereby a single pulse 11.1, 11.2 with a large amplitude is generated per axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1, as shown in FIG. 2, and instead the transverse uneven surface Q is now driven over with each wheel individually, while the other wheels in each case remain in a common plane on the route F. This results in a separate pulse 11.1, 11.2 for each wheel as it passes over the transverse uneven surface Q, and thus in two pulses 11.1, 11.2 per axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1, but each with a significantly lower amplitude. Due to these thus significantly lower vertical excitations, i.e., due to these now significantly lower vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2 and thus vertical accelerations a, the adverse effect on the comfort of the vehicle occupants and/or the safety of the load as well as the load quality are considerably reduced or substantially avoided.” [0050] “ In this case, however, it is advantageously provided that the target trajectory T is planned in such a way that the transverse uneven surface Q is driven over at a further reduced speed compared to the above-described driving over at an angle. In other words, the speed of the vehicle 1 is reduced to an even greater extent before driving over the transverse uneven surface Q in order to thereby reduce the vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2, in particular to an acceptable level, in particular with regard to occupant comfort, load safety and protection of the vehicle 1.” ).
Stein discloses determining or assuming a physical quantity such as a vertical acceleration (see at least Stein [0033-0034], [0040-0042] , but does not explicitly teach that the physical quantity is predicted.
However, Varnhagen teaches predicting a physical quantity including a vertical acceleration (see at least Varnhagen [0033] “Additionally or alternatively, the vehicle 100 computer 110 may predict a lateral, longitudinal, and/or vertical acceleration a.sub.Lat, a.sub.Long, a.sub.Ver based on the predetermined road 205 topology of the vehicle 100 route. For example, the computer 110 may predict a lateral acceleration a.sub.Lat caused by negotiating a road 205 curvature based on the curvature coordinates, the road 205 lateral slope, etc. In another example, the computer 110 may predict a vertical acceleration a.sub.Ver caused by driving over a bump based on data included in the road 205 topology, e.g., a location, a size, a shape of the bump. In another example, in addition to the road 205 topology, the computer 110 may predict an acceleration based on the determined vehicle 100 operation. For example, the computer 110 may predict an acceleration of the vehicle 100 body 105 caused by, e.g., driving over a bump, based on the determined speed of the vehicle 100 when reaching the bump.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stein with the teaching of Varnhagen, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Varnhagen teaches, predicting the lateral, longitudinal, or vertical acceleration can assist with predicting the vehicle’s behaviors such as a change in pitch and vertical position of the vehicle and can be used to control and adjust the vehicles body with respect to an object (see at least abstract [0033], [0001] and [0042])
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Stein and Varnhagen teach the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the travel path in which a sum of the first physical quantities related to the first vehicle behavior or a sum of second physical quantities related to the second vehicle behavior is minimized, the first physical quantities comprising the first physical quantity and the second physical quantities comprising the second physical quantity (see at least Stein Figure 2 and Figure 3, wherein the alternative path is generated such that the sum at each time (the amplitude) is minimized. See at least [0033-0034] and [0040-0042]. “This results in a separate pulse 11.1, 11.2 for each wheel as it passes over the transverse uneven surface Q, and thus in two pulses 11.1, 11.2 per axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1, but each with a significantly lower amplitude. Due to these thus significantly lower vertical excitations, i.e., due to these now significantly lower vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2 and thus vertical accelerations a, the adverse effect on the comfort of the vehicle occupants and/or the safety of the load as well as the load quality are considerably reduced or substantially avoided.” The examiner notes the 112b rejection causing a lack of clarity)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Stein and Varnhagen teach the control device according to claim 1,wherein the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is any one of time, displacement, a speed, an acceleration, a jerk, an angle, an angular velocity, and an angular acceleration (see at least Stein Figure 2 and Figure 3, and [0033-0034] and [0040-0042] showing the amplitude of vertical accelerations).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Stein and Varnhagen teach the vehicle motion control device according to claim 8, wherein the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is the acceleration, and the acceleration is any one of a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, and a vertical acceleration (see at least Stein Figure 2 and Figure 3, and [0033-0034] and [0040-0042] showing the amplitude of vertical accelerations).
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Stein and Varnhagen teach the control device of claim 1, wherein to execute the action, the processor is configured to:
set at least one of a target driving force, a braking force, or a steering angle based on the travel path (see at least Stein [0052] “The processing unit 4 generates, in particular, the target trajectory T in the manner described above. The output value of this processing unit 4 is thus, in particular, the generated target trajectory T, which is fed to an actuator system 5 of the vehicle 1, i.e., which is used in particular for automated, in particular highly automated, or autonomous open- and/or closed-loop control of the lateral guidance and longitudinal guidance of the vehicle 1. In other words, the actuator system 5, comprising, in particular, a steering device, a drive train, and a braking device of the vehicle 1, is controlled in an open-loop and/or closed-loop fashion as a function of this target trajectory T.”); and
control at least one of a powertrain system, a brake system, or a steering system to cause the vehicle to follow the travel path (see at least Stein [0052] “ The processing unit 4 generates, in particular, the target trajectory T in the manner described above. The output value of this processing unit 4 is thus, in particular, the generated target trajectory T, which is fed to an actuator system 5 of the vehicle 1, i.e., which is used in particular for automated, in particular highly automated, or autonomous open- and/or closed-loop control of the lateral guidance and longitudinal guidance of the vehicle 1. In other words, the actuator system 5, comprising, in particular, a steering device, a drive train, and a braking device of the vehicle 1, is controlled in an open-loop and/or closed-loop fashion as a function of this target trajectory T.”. See also [0004] “In a method for carrying out an automated, in particular highly automated, or autonomous driving operation of a vehicle, in particular a two-track vehicle, a target trajectory is generated along a route and the vehicle is guided as a function of the generated target trajectory, in particular guided along the route, in particular by an automated, in particular highly automated, or autonomous open- and/or closed-loop control of a lateral guidance and, for example, also a longitudinal guidance of the vehicle. If an uneven surface is detected along the route, the target trajectory is generated as a function of the detected uneven surface.” See also [0008] and [0037]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Stein and Varnhagen teach wherein when the first physical quantity is smaller than the defined value and the second physical quantity is greater than or equal to the defined value, the processor is configured to: generate the travel path according to the reference route, OR when the second physical quantity is smaller than the defined value and the first physical quantity is greater than or equal to the defined value, the processor is configured to: generate the travel path according to the avoidance route (see at least Stein Figure 2 and Figure 3, wherein the reference route is generated and the alternative path is generated that reduces the vertical acceleration when compared against the reference route and further ensures that the vertical acceleration is smaller than an acceptable vertical acceleration which corresponds to the defined value. As shown in Stein Figure 2 and 3, there are two separate routes or trajectories, namely a first target trajectory shown in Figure 2 (reference route) in which the vehicle is driven straight over the uneven surface Q and a second target trajectory T shown in Figure 3 (alternative route) in which the vehicle is driven at an angle over the uneven surface Q. See also [0017] and [0050] for the acceptable vertical acceleration which corresponds to the defined value. Further the examiner notes that Stein also determines the speed should be below a predetermined value (and minimizes the speed reductions) to traverse the uneven service in [0042-0043]. See also at least Stein [0041] “FIG. 3 also shows a vertical acceleration a—time t graph with the vertical pulses 11.1 for the front axle 1.1 and vertical pulses 11.2 for the rear axle 1.2 of the vehicle 1 caused by this driving over the transverse uneven surface Q at an angle, in particular at a slight angle, and a resulting curve of the vertical acceleration a. It can be seen that the number of vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2 is now doubled compared to the example according to FIG. 2, but their respective amplitudes are significantly reduced, advantageously halved, compared to FIG. 2. This results from the fact that both wheels of each axle 1.1, 1.2 now do not drive over the transverse uneven surface Q at the same time in each case, whereby a single pulse 11.1, 11.2 with a large amplitude is generated per axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1, as shown in FIG. 2, and instead the transverse uneven surface Q is now driven over with each wheel individually, while the other wheels in each case remain in a common plane on the route F. This results in a separate pulse 11.1, 11.2 for each wheel as it passes over the transverse uneven surface Q, and thus in two pulses 11.1, 11.2 per axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1, but each with a significantly lower amplitude. Due to these thus significantly lower vertical excitations, i.e., due to these now significantly lower vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2 and thus vertical accelerations a, the adverse effect on the comfort of the vehicle occupants and/or the safety of the load as well as the load quality are considerably reduced or substantially avoided.” [0050] “ In this case, however, it is advantageously provided that the target trajectory T is planned in such a way that the transverse uneven surface Q is driven over at a further reduced speed compared to the above-described driving over at an angle. In other words, the speed of the vehicle 1 is reduced to an even greater extent before driving over the transverse uneven surface Q in order to thereby reduce the vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2, in particular to an acceptable level, in particular with regard to occupant comfort, load safety and protection of the vehicle 1.”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Stein and Varnhagen teach wherein when the first physical quantity and the second physical quantity are smaller than the defined value, and the first physical quantity is smaller than the second physical quantity the processor is configured to: generate the travel path according to the reference route OR when the first physical quantity and the second physical quantity are smaller than the defined value, and the second physical quantity is smaller than the first physical quantity, the processor is configured to: generate the travel path according to the avoidance route (see at least Stein Figure 2 and Figure 3, wherein the reference route is generated and the alternative path is generated that reduces the vertical acceleration when compared against the reference route and further ensures that the vertical acceleration is smaller than an acceptable vertical acceleration which corresponds to the defined value. As shown in Stein Figure 2 and 3, there are two separate routes or trajectories, namely a first target trajectory shown in Figure 2 (reference route) in which the vehicle is driven straight over the uneven surface Q and a second target trajectory T shown in Figure 3 (alternative route) in which the vehicle is driven at an angle over the uneven surface Q. See also [0017] and [0050] for the acceptable vertical acceleration which corresponds to the defined value. Further the examiner notes that Stein also determines the speed should be below a predetermined value (and minimizes the speed reductions) to traverse the uneven service in [0042-0043]. See also at least Stein [0041] “FIG. 3 also shows a vertical acceleration a—time t graph with the vertical pulses 11.1 for the front axle 1.1 and vertical pulses 11.2 for the rear axle 1.2 of the vehicle 1 caused by this driving over the transverse uneven surface Q at an angle, in particular at a slight angle, and a resulting curve of the vertical acceleration a. It can be seen that the number of vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2 is now doubled compared to the example according to FIG. 2, but their respective amplitudes are significantly reduced, advantageously halved, compared to FIG. 2. This results from the fact that both wheels of each axle 1.1, 1.2 now do not drive over the transverse uneven surface Q at the same time in each case, whereby a single pulse 11.1, 11.2 with a large amplitude is generated per axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1, as shown in FIG. 2, and instead the transverse uneven surface Q is now driven over with each wheel individually, while the other wheels in each case remain in a common plane on the route F. This results in a separate pulse 11.1, 11.2 for each wheel as it passes over the transverse uneven surface Q, and thus in two pulses 11.1, 11.2 per axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle 1, but each with a significantly lower amplitude. Due to these thus significantly lower vertical excitations, i.e., due to these now significantly lower vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2 and thus vertical accelerations a, the adverse effect on the comfort of the vehicle occupants and/or the safety of the load as well as the load quality are considerably reduced or substantially avoided.” [0050] “ In this case, however, it is advantageously provided that the target trajectory T is planned in such a way that the transverse uneven surface Q is driven over at a further reduced speed compared to the above-described driving over at an angle. In other words, the speed of the vehicle 1 is reduced to an even greater extent before driving over the transverse uneven surface Q in order to thereby reduce the vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2, in particular to an acceptable level, in particular with regard to occupant comfort, load safety and protection of the vehicle 1.”)
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein and Varnhagen in further view of KR 19990000242 A.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Stein and Varnhagen teach the vehicle motion control device according to claim 1, but do not teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the travel path in which an evaluation value is minimized as calculated by an evaluation function, wherein the evaluation function uses, as a numerator, the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity predicted according to the corresponding first vehicle behavior or the corresponding second vehicle behavior, and uses, as a denominator, a coefficient related to the first vehicle behavior or a second vehicle behavior.
KR 19990000242 A teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the travel path in which an evaluation value is minimized as calculated by an evaluation function, wherein the evaluation function uses, as a numerator, the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity predicted according to the corresponding first vehicle behavior or the corresponding second vehicle behavior, and uses, as a denominator, a coefficient related to the first vehicle behavior or a second vehicle behavior (The examiner notes the 112b rejection of claim 4 and has made a best-effort rejection accordingly. See at least KR 19990000242 A wherein the first or second physical quantity corresponds to the lateral acceleration, and wherein the lateral acceleration is part of the numerator as seen in Equation 1 below. Further, wherein the coefficient related to a vehicle behavior, can be considered any one of the steering angle (at steady state) δ , the damping coefficient, ζ, and the natural frequency of the vehicle, Wn which are all shown in the denominator of Equation 1 below. See at least KR19990000242A Page 3-4 of translation provided 16 July 2025. “Next, the first lateral acceleration calculation block 130 calculates a steady state lateral acceleration based on the detected steering angle signal and the vehicle speed signal provided from the steering angle sensor 112 and the vehicle speed sensor 116, respectively….That is, using a two-degree-of-freedom vehicle model that takes into account the rotational (yaw) motion and slip (slip angle) motion of the vehicle, the transfer function of the lateral acceleration for the detected steering angle input can be obtained using the following equation….[Equation 1]….In the equation (1), δ denotes an input steering angle, a .sub.δ denotes a lateral acceleration, T .sub.1 and T .sub.2 denote time constants, ζ denotes a damping coefficient, and Wn denotes a natural frequency of the vehicle. It can be calculated through the specifications of the car….In the equation (1), (a .sub.隆 / 隆) ss represents the lateral acceleration gain in the steady state. In the first lateral acceleration calculation block 130, the steering angle signal and the vehicle speed signal The lateral acceleration calculated in the steady state is provided to the lateral acceleration comparison block 170, which will be described later, via the line L11.” Further, Kr 19990000242 teaches minimizing the rolling motion of the vehicle using the evaluation. “In addition, in the lateral acceleration comparison block 170, the damping coefficient of the front shock absorber and the rear shock shock absorber are appropriately distributed using the maximum lateral acceleration obtained through the above equation, and the front wheel and rear wheel shock absorbers The damping coefficient is provided to the damping coefficient determination block 190 of the next stage. That is, when the absolute value of the lateral acceleration is large, the damping coefficient is distributed so that the damping coefficient of each shock absorber can be increased so as to suppress the rolling motion of the vehicle, thereby ensuring the stability of the vehicle.” Thus, the lateral acceleration or rolling motion is minimized by adjusting the damping coefficient.)
The examiner notes that equation 1 of KR 19990000242 A is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Stein and Varnhagen with the teaching of KR 19990000242 A, with a reasonable expectation of success because as KR 19990000242 A teaches, this improves the running stability and ride comfort of the automobile (see at least the abstract).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Stein, Varnhagen and KR 19990000242 teach the vehicle motion control device according to claim 4, wherein when a first evaluation value calculated using the evaluation function at a time maintaining the reference route is equal to a second evaluation value calculated using the evaluation function at a time of shifting to the avoidance route, the processor is configured to: generate the travel path for maintaining the reference route (See at least KR 19990000242 “If it is determined that the absolute value of the lateral acceleration is relatively small, it is determined that the vehicle is not an emergency steering for risk avoidance in an unexpected situation, so that the shock absorber damping coefficients of the front wheel and the rear wheel are determined to be the same, The damping coefficient of the front wheel and the rear wheel shock absorber is determined to be equal to the steering characteristic (step 214), and the front wheel and the rear wheel shock absorber are controlled according to the determined damping coefficient (step 218)….On the other hand, if it is determined in step 212 that the absolute value of the lateral acceleration is relatively large, it is determined that the vehicle is an emergency steering for risk avoidance in an unexpected situation, and the shock absorber damping coefficient of the rear wheel is made larger than the damping coefficient of the front wheel (Step 216). By making the damping coefficient thus determined oversteer the inherent steering characteristic of the automobile, the adjustment in the emergency situation is smoothly improved (step 218).” The examiner notes the 112(b) rejection above.)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Stein, Varnhagen and KR 19990000242 disclose the vehicle motion control device according to claim 4, wherein the coefficient is associated with at least one of a traveling road surface state, a vehicle state, and ride comfort (see at least KR 19990000242 A, (see at least KR 19990000242 A “Next, the first lateral acceleration calculation block 130 calculates a steady state lateral acceleration based on the detected steering angle signal and the vehicle speed signal provided from the steering angle sensor 112 and the vehicle speed sensor 116, respectively….That is, using a two-degree-of-freedom vehicle model that takes into account the rotational (yaw) motion and slip (slip angle) motion of the vehicle, the transfer function of the lateral acceleration for the detected steering angle input can be obtained using the following equation….[Equation 1]….In the equation (1), δ denotes an input steering angle, a .sub.δ denotes a lateral acceleration, T .sub.1 and T .sub.2 denote time constants, ζ denotes a damping coefficient, and Wn denotes a natural frequency of the vehicle. It can be calculated through the specifications of the car….In the equation (1), (a .sub.隆 / 隆) ss represents the lateral acceleration gain in the steady state. In the first lateral acceleration calculation block 130, the steering angle signal and the vehicle speed signal The lateral acceleration calculated in the steady state is provided to the lateral acceleration comparison block 170, which will be described later, via the line L11.” See also abstract “ And technical means for adaptively determining respective damping coefficients of the front wheel shock absorber and the rear wheel shock absorber based on the respective damping coefficients of the front wheel shock absorber and the rear wheel shock absorber and the calculated absolute difference of lateral acceleration, It is possible to improve the running stability, the adjustment stability and the ride comfort of the automobile.”)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein and Varnhagen in further view of Madas et al. (US Patent No. 10,410,521, hereinafter “Madas”)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Stein and Varnhagen disclose the vehicle motion control device according to claim 8, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is a maximum value or an integral value. However Madas teaches wherein the physical quantity is a maximum value or an integral value (see at least Madas at least Figure 3, wherein jmax is the maximum jerk).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Stein and Varnhagen with the teaching of Madas, because as Madas teaches that any one maximum lateral jerk, maximum lateral acceleration or sum of lateral movement could be used as the cost function to ensure comfort of the occupants (see at least Madas col. 6, lines 45-60).
Conclusion
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 JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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 on (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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights