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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the election filed 28 July 2025
Claims 1, 3-9 have been amended.
Claims 5-9 are withdrawn for being directed to a non-elected species.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 10-11 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 10-11 have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 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 Accordingly, the objection of claims 1-4 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitations of claim 1-4 were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation and/or has provided arguments that overcome all of the objections and rejections. Accordingly the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4 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 each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP2015217848A, hereinafter “Yamamoto”, provided in the IDS, wherein the citations correspond to the machine translation provided) in view of Haghighat et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0356830, hereinafter “Haghighat”.)
Claim(s) 4 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Haghighat in further view of Armeni et al. (US Pub. No. 20190188467, hereinafter “Armeni”.).
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Without acquiescing to the merits of the rejections, the Yamamoto, Haghighat, and Armeni references do not reasonably suggest the following of claim 1:
...setting a maximum lateral jerk which is allowable at turning, and
wherein calculating the curve limitation travelling speed further comprises
calculating the curve limitation travelling speed such that the lateral acceleration of the own vehicle at traveling on the curved road becomes the maximum lateral acceleration or less, and a lateral jerk of the own vehicle at traveling on the curved road becomes the maximum lateral jerk or less, based on the road shape, the maximum lateral acceleration, and the maximum lateral jerk.
For example, see pages 15-18 of the Office Action citing, in view of deficiencies of Yamamoto, to Haghighat [0050]-[0054], but, even if those portions of the references and the references overall suggested a "maximum acceleration of the steering angle", like asserted at the bottom of page 16 of the Office Action, the references do not reasonably suggest considering any "maximum lateral jerk" in general or at least according to the claimed features noted above.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes that Claim 15 and [0050-0054] were relied upon in Haghighat to teach the claim limitation.
Haghighat teaches the lateral solver module 404 determines the lateral travel plan using inputs including values or settings for the steering rate (e.g., a maximum rate of change for the steering angle, a maximum acceleration of the steering angle, and/or the like), the lateral jerk, and the like (see [0050-0051]). While [0050-0051] does not explicitly state “maximum lateral jerk”, Claim 15 teaches this is based on the maximum lateral jerk (see at least Haghighat Claim 15 and the claims from which claim 15 depends. Haghighat teaches that the motion plan (which includes the speed) is a solution for traversing along the route from the current vehicle pose that maximizes compliance with the plurality of constraints and then teaches that one of the constraints can be maximum lateral jerk, “15. The vehicle of claim 13, wherein the plurality of constraints includes at least one of a maximum steering rate, a maximum steering rate acceleration, a maximum lateral acceleration, and a maximum lateral jerk influencing the rate of vehicle movement laterally.”).
Haghighat further teaches that the longitudinal plan is iteratively determined based on the lateral travel plan, and that the lateral travel plan is iteratively determined based on the longitudinal travel plan. The longitudinal and lateral travel plans are iteratively solved until an optimal combination of longitudinal and lateral travel plans is achieved that maximizes compliance with the users ride preference and cost variables (see [0053],). Finally, Haghighat teaches the longitudinal travel plan 406, including velocity and acceleration commands as well as a lateral travel plan 408 are output to the vehicle control system to control the vehicle to effectuate the longitudinal and lateral plans (see [0054]) . Thus the combination of Yamamoto and Haghighat teach setting a maximum lateral jerk which is allowable at turning and that the travelling speed is determined such that the lateral acceleration of the own vehicle at traveling on the curved road becomes the maximum lateral acceleration or less, and the lateral jerk of the own vehicle at traveling on the curved road becomes the maximum lateral jerk or less, based on the road shape, the maximum lateral acceleration and the maximum lateral jerk. In addition, the examiner points Applicant to [0057] regarding aggressive ride setting discussion regarding maximum values for lateral and longitudinal jerk.
The Applicant does not provide any further argument with respect to dependent claims 2-4, instead relying upon the alleged deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, the phrase “setting the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the front direction and the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the back direction both as ones of positive values” should be replaced with “setting both of the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the front direction and the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the back direction as positive values” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP2015217848A, hereinafter “Yamamoto”, provided in the IDS, wherein the citations correspond to the machine translation provided) in view of Haghighat et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0356830, hereinafter “Haghighat”.)
Yamamoto teaches a vehicle control apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to implement:
acquiring a road shape where an own vehicle travels (see at least Yamamoto [0019-0020] “For example, the vehicle acceleration / deceleration control device 10 may use a road ahead of the vehicle 1 based on image data ahead of the vehicle 1 taken by the camera 4 or map data of the current position of the vehicle 1 acquired by the navigation system 6 and the like. The radius of curvature R is specified, and when the radius of curvature R is 300 m or less, the target acceleration / deceleration setting process is executed assuming that a curve exists in front of the vehicle 1…. As shown in FIG. 3, when the target acceleration / deceleration setting process is started, the curve shape information acquiring unit 14 acquires shape information including the curvature radius of the curve present in front of the vehicle 1 in step S1.”;
setting a maximum lateral acceleration which is allowable at turning (see at least Yamamoto, wherein Gymax is set as the maximum lateral acceleration [0021] “Next, in step S2, the maximum lateral acceleration acquisition unit 12 acquires the maximum lateral acceleration G ymax that can be generated while the vehicle 1 is turning. Specifically, the maximum lateral acceleration acquiring unit 12 acquires the maximum value of the lateral acceleration that can be generated by the vehicle 1 while turning at a constant vehicle speed in the linear region of the friction characteristic of the tire as the maximum lateral acceleration G ymax.”.);
calculating a curve limitation travelling speed which is a travelling speed, at traveling on a curved road, at which a lateral acceleration of the own vehicle becomes the maximum lateral acceleration or less, based on the road shape and the maximum lateral acceleration (see at least Yamamoto Figures 4 and 5 and [0022] “Next, in step S3, the target acceleration / deceleration setting unit 16 determines the curvature radius minimum point (the point C in the example of FIG. 2) where the curvature radius R is the minimum value R min based on the curve shape information acquired in step S1. Is specified, and the target vehicle speed V.sub.min when the lateral acceleration generated on the vehicle 1 is set to the maximum lateral acceleration G.sub.ymax while traveling at this minimum radius of curvature is calculated by G.sub.ymax.apprxeq.V.sub.min2 / R.sub.min.”)
setting a [[maximum]] longitudinal acceleration in a front direction and a maximum longitudinal acceleration in a back direction during traveling on the curved road (see at least Yamamoto [0023-26] See Figures 2 and 5 and specifically [0023] states “Next, in step S4, the target acceleration / deceleration setting unit 16 sets the target acceleration / deceleration G xent in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1 at the start point of the curve to a deceleration equal in magnitude to the maximum lateral acceleration G ymax, and the curvature radius Set the target acceleration / deceleration G xmin in the direction of travel of the vehicle 1 at the minimum point to 0, and set the target acceleration / deceleration G xext in the direction of travel of the vehicle 1 at the end of the curve to an acceleration of the same magnitude as the maximum lateral acceleration G ymax Set That is, assuming that the acceleration in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1 is positive, the target acceleration / deceleration setting unit 16 sets the target acceleration / deceleration G xmin = at the curvature radius minimum point (point C in the example of FIG. 2) as shown in FIG. 0, target acceleration / deceleration G xent = −G ymax at the curve start point (point B in the example of FIG. 2), and target acceleration / deceleration G xext = G ymax at the curve end point (point D in the example of FIG. 2”. The examiner notes that G xent = −G ymax is corresponds to deceleration or maximum longitudinal acceleration in a back direction and G xext = G ymax corresponds to acceleration or the maximum longitudinal acceleration in a front direction. See also Figure 4 and [0026] “Set the target acceleration / deceleration G xmin in the direction of travel of the vehicle 1 to 0, and set the target acceleration / deceleration G xext in the direction of travel of the vehicle 1 at the end of the curve to an acceleration equal in magnitude to the maximum lateral acceleration G ymax There is. That is, the target acceleration / deceleration setting unit 16 sets the acceleration / deceleration control curve so that the magnitude of the synthetic acceleration G xy in the vehicle 1 during turning becomes constant at G ymax.” Thus the maximum of the longitudinal acceleration is set as Gymax and -Gymax. because as Yamamoto teaches the vehicle is set to control based on the target acceleration/deceleration Gxent at the same magnitude as Gymax such that the combination of the magnitude of acceleration in the lateral direction and longitudinal direction is constant. This means when Gy is at Gymax, then Gxent is 0 and when Gy is at 0, then Gxent is Gymax, such that Gymax is Gxmax. Figure 4 shows this maximum.);
correcting the curve limitation travelling speed to a corrected curve limitation travelling sped, so that a composite acceleration of the own vehicle at traveling on the curve road becomes within a limit range which is set according to the maximum lateral acceleration, the [maximum] longitudinal acceleration in the front direction, and the [maximum] longitudinal acceleration in the back direction (see at least Yamamoto Figure 4 and 5, [0035]; “In particular, in the target deceleration setting unit, the magnitude of the combined acceleration G xy of the deceleration G x in the traveling direction and the lateral acceleration G y in the turning vehicle 1 is the maximum that the vehicle 1 can generate while turning. Since the target deceleration G x in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1 between the curve start point and the curvature radius minimum point is set so as to be constant at the magnitude of the lateral acceleration G ymax, the curve from the time of entry into the curve The magnitude of the acceleration felt by the occupant during traveling can be kept constant. As a result, the magnitude of the inertial force acting on the vehicle 1 and the occupant can be kept constant in the traveling process from the entry into the curve to the curve traveling, and the ride quality can be further improved.” See Figure 5 for showing the composite. Further, the examiner notes that Yamamoto initially sets a curve limitation traveling speed to be set at a the velocity at the tightest part of the turn (smallest radius of curvature) and subsequently further teaches updating the curve traveling speed determined based on the composite of the maximum lateral acceleration and maximum longitudinal acceleration as shown in Figure 4 and 5. This curve traveling speed corresponds to a corrected curve limitation travelling speed because the vehicle is subsequently controlled to meet the composite maximum lateral acceleration and maximum longitudinal acceleration as shown in Figure 4 and 5. As best understood from the specification of the instant application Yamamoto reads on the method described in the instant application [0044] and equation 4 wherein the lateral acceleration is corrected from -Gymax to Gymax through the curve and the longitudinal acceleration Gxent is corrected from -Gymax to Gymax and the speed is accordingly updated as well. ); and
controlling the own vehicle according to the corrected curve limitation travelling speed (see at least Yamamoto [0030] “The acceleration / deceleration control unit 18 controls the acceleration / deceleration of the vehicle 1 in accordance with the acceleration / deceleration control curve set in the target acceleration / deceleration setting process. That is, the acceleration / deceleration control unit 18 controls the engine 20 and the brake 22 of the vehicle 1 such that the vehicle speed becomes V 0 and the acceleration / deceleration becomes 0 at the deceleration start point. Next, the engine 20 and the brake 22 of the vehicle 1 are controlled to generate the deceleration of the acceleration / deceleration control curve set in step S6 from the deceleration start point to the curvature radius minimum point. Further, the engine 20 of the vehicle 1 is controlled to generate the acceleration of the acceleration / deceleration control curve set in step S6 from the curvature radius minimum point to the acceleration end point).
While it the examiner notes above that Yamamoto appears to disclose a maximum longitudinal acceleration, does not explicitly teach an acceleration parameter setter that sets a maximum longitudinal acceleration in a front direction and a maximum longitudinal acceleration in a back direction during traveling on the curve road. Further Yamamoto does not explicitly teach
setting a maximum lateral jerk which is allowable at turning, and
wherein the curve limitation speed calculator calculates the curve limitation travelling speed that the lateral acceleration of the own vehicle at traveling on the curve road becomes the maximum lateral acceleration or less, and a lateral jerk of the own vehicle at traveling on the curve road becomes the maximum lateral jerk or less, based on the road shape, the maximum lateral acceleration, and the maximum lateral jerk.
However, Haghighat teaches an acceleration parameter setter that sets a maximum longitudinal acceleration in a front direction and a maximum longitudinal acceleration in a back direction during traveling on the curve road (see at least Haghighat and [0046] “The longitudinal solver module 402 also receives or otherwise obtains longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 which characterizes or otherwise defines the kinematic or physical capabilities of the vehicle for longitudinal movement, such as, for example, the maximum acceleration and the maximum longitudinal jerk, and the like. The longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 may be specific to each particular vehicle and may be obtained from an onboard data storage element 32 or from a networked database or other entity 48, 52, 54. In some embodiments, the longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 may be calculated or otherwise determined dynamically or substantially in real-time based on the current mass of the vehicle, the current amount of fuel onboard the vehicle, historical or recent performance of the vehicle, and/or potentially other factors. In one or more embodiments, the longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 is calculated or determined in relation to the lateral path, the lateral vehicle constraint data 420, and/or determinations made by the lateral solver module 404. For example, the maximum longitudinal speed may be constrained at a particular location by the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration by calculating the maximum longitudinal speed as a function of the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration (which itself be could be constrained by rider preferences or vehicle dynamics). In this regard, at locations where the degree of path curvature is relatively high (e.g., sharp turns), the maximum longitudinal speed may be limited accordingly to maintain comfortable or achievable lateral acceleration along the curve.”)
Further Haghighat teaches
setting a maximum lateral jerk which is allowable at turning (see at least Haghighat Claim 15 “wherein the plurality of constraints includes at least one of a maximum steering rate, a maximum steering rate acceleration, a maximum lateral acceleration, and a maximum lateral jerk influencing the rate of vehicle movement laterally.” and [0050] The lateral solver module 404 also receives or otherwise obtains the user-specific lateral ride preference information 422 which includes, for example, user-specific values or settings for the steering rate (e.g., a maximum rate of change for the steering angle, a maximum acceleration of the steering angle, and/or the like), the lateral jerk, and the like.”), and
wherein the curve limitation speed calculator calculates the curve limitation travelling speed that the lateral acceleration of the own vehicle at traveling on the curve road becomes the maximum lateral acceleration or less, and a lateral jerk of the own vehicle at traveling on the curve road becomes the maximum lateral jerk or less, based on the road shape, the maximum lateral acceleration, and the maximum lateral jerk (see at least Haghighat Claim 15 “maximum lateral jerk” [0051-0054] Using the various inputs 410, 412, 414, 420, 422 to the lateral solver module 404, the lateral solver module 404 calculates or otherwise determines a lateral plan for traveling along the route at future locations within some prediction horizon (e.g., 50 meters) by optimizing some lateral cost variable or combination thereof (e.g., minimizing deviation from the center of the roadway, minimizing the curvature of the path, minimizing lateral jerk, or the like) by varying the steering angle or vehicle wheel angle in a manner that ensures the vehicle complies with the lateral ride preference information 422 to the extent possible while also complying with lane boundaries or other route constraints and avoiding collisions with objects or obstacles.” See also [0053-54] “For example, in some embodiments, the longitudinal solver modules 402, 404 iteratively derive an optimal solution for controlling the vehicle along a future portion of route within a prediction horizon. For example, the lateral solver module 404 may generate an initial lateral travel plan 408 for a lateral prediction horizon based on the current pose 410, the route information 412 and obstacle data 414, the lateral vehicle constraints 420, and the lateral ride preference information 422. Thereafter, the longitudinal solver module 402 may generate an initial longitudinal travel plan 406 for a longitudinal prediction horizon that is optimized for a cost variable based on the current pose 410 (e.g., the current heading and steering angle) and using the initial lateral travel plan 408 for the steering or orientation of the vehicle along the route. Thereafter, lateral solver module 404 may generate an updated lateral travel plan 408 using the initial longitudinal travel plan 406 to inform the vehicle position along the route, and the longitudinal solver module 402 may similarly generate an updated longitudinal travel plan 406 using the updated lateral travel plan 406, and so on, until an optimal combination of longitudinal and lateral travel plans 406, 408 is achieved that maximizes compliance with the user's ride preference information 418, 422. In this regard, the resulting longitudinal and lateral travel plans 406, 408 that are ultimately output by the motion planning module 400 comply with as many of the user's ride preferences 418, 422 as possible while optimizing the cost variable and avoiding collisions by varying one or more of the vehicle's velocity, acceleration/deceleration (longitudinally and/or laterally), jerk (longitudinally and/or laterally), steering angle, and steering angle rate of change… [0054] The longitudinal travel plan 406 output by the motion planning module 400 includes a sequence of planned velocity and acceleration commands with respect to time for operating the vehicle within the longitudinal prediction horizon (e.g., a velocity plan for the next 12 seconds), and similarly, the lateral travel plan 408 output by the motion planning module 400 includes a sequence of planned steering angles and steering rates with respect to distance or position for steering the vehicle within the lateral prediction horizon while operating in accordance with the longitudinal travel plan 406 (e.g., a steering plan for the next 50 meters).” ).
As discussed in response to Applicant’s remarks. Haghighat teaches the lateral solver module 404 determines the lateral travel plan using inputs including values or settings for the steering rate (e.g., a maximum rate of change for the steering angle, a maximum acceleration of the steering angle, and/or the like), the lateral jerk, and the like (see [0050-0051]). While [0050-0051] does not explicitly state “maximum lateral jerk”, Claim 15 teaches this is based on the maximum lateral jerk (see at least Haghighat Claim 15 and the claims from which claim 15 depends. Haghighat teaches that the motion plan (which includes the speed) is a solution for traversing along the route from the current vehicle pose that maximizes compliance with the plurality of constraints and then teaches that one of the constraints can be maximum lateral jerk, “15. The vehicle of claim 13, wherein the plurality of constraints includes at least one of a maximum steering rate, a maximum steering rate acceleration, a maximum lateral acceleration, and a maximum lateral jerk influencing the rate of vehicle movement laterally.”).
Haghighat further teaches that the longitudinal plan is iteratively determined based on the lateral travel plan, and that the lateral travel plan is iteratively determined based on the longitudinal travel plan. The longitudinal and lateral travel plans are iteratively solved until an optimal combination of longitudinal and lateral travel plans is achieved that maximizes compliance with the users ride preference and cost variables (see [0053],). Finally, Haghighat teaches the longitudinal travel plan 406, including velocity and acceleration commands as well as a lateral travel plan 408 are output to the vehicle control system to control the vehicle to effectuate the longitudinal and lateral plans (see [0054])
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 Yamamoto with the teaching of Haghighat, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Haghighat teaches limiting the maximum longitudinal speed in curves ensures a comfortable or achievable lateral acceleration along the curve (see at least [0046]) .
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yamamoto and Haghighat teach the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware processor is further configured to implement:
setting a maximum longitudinal jerk in the front direction and a maximum longitudinal jerk in the back direction during traveling the curved road (see at least Haghighat Claim 14 and [0046] “The longitudinal solver module 402 also receives or otherwise obtains longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 which characterizes or otherwise defines the kinematic or physical capabilities of the vehicle for longitudinal movement, such as, for example, the maximum acceleration and the maximum longitudinal jerk, and the like. The longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 may be specific to each particular vehicle and may be obtained from an onboard data storage element 32 or from a networked database or other entity 48, 52, 54. In some embodiments, the longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 may be calculated or otherwise determined dynamically or substantially in real-time based on the current mass of the vehicle, the current amount of fuel onboard the vehicle, historical or recent performance of the vehicle, and/or potentially other factors. In one or more embodiments, the longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 is calculated or determined in relation to the lateral path, the lateral vehicle constraint data 420, and/or determinations made by the lateral solver module 404. For example, the maximum longitudinal speed may be constrained at a particular location by the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration by calculating the maximum longitudinal speed as a function of the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration (which itself be could be constrained by rider preferences or vehicle dynamics). In this regard, at locations where the degree of path curvature is relatively high (e.g., sharp turns), the maximum longitudinal speed may be limited accordingly to maintain comfortable or achievable lateral acceleration along the curve.” See also [0047] “. In this regard, the longitudinal ride preference information 418 includes user-specific values or settings for the speed or velocity of the vehicle (e.g., a maximum vehicle speed or some other speed target based on the speed limit), the acceleration of the vehicle (e.g., a maximum acceleration), the deceleration of the vehicle (e.g., a maximum deceleration), and the jerk of the vehicle (e.g., maximum jerk in the forward and reverse directions)), and
wherein correcting the curve limitation travelling speed further comprises correcting the curve limitation travelling speed so that a longitudinal jerk of the own vehicle which is generated when traveling at the curve limitation travelling speed becomes within a range of the maximum longitudinal jerk in the front direction and the maximum longitudinal jerk in the back direction (see at least Haghighat Claim 14 and [0046-0048] “Using the various inputs 410, 412, 414, 416, 418 to the longitudinal solver module 402, the longitudinal solver module 402 calculates or otherwise determines a longitudinal plan (e.g., planned speed, acceleration and jerk values in the future as a function of time) for traveling along the route within some prediction horizon (e.g., 12 seconds) by optimizing some longitudinal cost variable or combination thereof (e.g., minimizing travel time, minimizing fuel consumption, minimizing jerk, or the like) by varying the speed or velocity of the vehicle from the current pose 410 in a manner that ensures the vehicle complies with the longitudinal ride preference information 418 to the extent possible while also complying with lane boundaries or other route constraints and avoiding collisions with objects or obstacles. In this regard, in many conditions, the resulting longitudinal plan 406 generated by the longitudinal solver module 402 does not violate the maximum vehicle speed, the maximum vehicle acceleration, the maximum deceleration, and the maximum longitudinal jerk settings associated with the user…”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yamamoto and Haghighat teach the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein setting the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the front direction and the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the back direction during traveling on the curved road comprises setting the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the front direction and the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the back direction based on the maximum lateral acceleration (see at least Haghighat and [0046] “The longitudinal solver module 402 also receives or otherwise obtains longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 which characterizes or otherwise defines the kinematic or physical capabilities of the vehicle for longitudinal movement, such as, for example, the maximum acceleration and the maximum longitudinal jerk, and the like. The longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 may be specific to each particular vehicle and may be obtained from an onboard data storage element 32 or from a networked database or other entity 48, 52, 54. In some embodiments, the longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 may be calculated or otherwise determined dynamically or substantially in real-time based on the current mass of the vehicle, the current amount of fuel onboard the vehicle, historical or recent performance of the vehicle, and/or potentially other factors. In one or more embodiments, the longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 is calculated or determined in relation to the lateral path, the lateral vehicle constraint data 420, and/or determinations made by the lateral solver module 404. For example, the maximum longitudinal speed may be constrained at a particular location by the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration by calculating the maximum longitudinal speed as a function of the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration (which itself be could be constrained by rider preferences or vehicle dynamics). In this regard, at locations where the degree of path curvature is relatively high (e.g., sharp turns), the maximum longitudinal speed may be limited accordingly to maintain comfortable or achievable lateral acceleration along the curve.” .” See also [0047] “. In this regard, the longitudinal ride preference information 418 includes user-specific values or settings for the speed or velocity of the vehicle (e.g., a maximum vehicle speed or some other speed target based on the speed limit), the acceleration of the vehicle (e.g., a maximum acceleration), the deceleration of the vehicle (e.g., a maximum deceleration), and the jerk of the vehicle (e.g., maximum jerk in the forward and reverse directions). See also [0052-0053] for the iterative nature of the process wherein the longitudinal solver updates the longitudinal plan based on the lateral plan until an optimum plan is reached ).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yamamoto and Haghighat teach vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein setting the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the front direction and the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the back direction during traveling on the curved road comprises setting the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the front direction and the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the back direction both as ones of positive values (see at least Haghighat and [0046] “The longitudinal solver module 402 also receives or otherwise obtains longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 which characterizes or otherwise defines the kinematic or physical capabilities of the vehicle for longitudinal movement, such as, for example, the maximum acceleration and the maximum longitudinal jerk, and the like. The longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 may be specific to each particular vehicle and may be obtained from an onboard data storage element 32 or from a networked database or other entity 48, 52, 54. In some embodiments, the longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 may be calculated or otherwise determined dynamically or substantially in real-time based on the current mass of the vehicle, the current amount of fuel onboard the vehicle, historical or recent performance of the vehicle, and/or potentially other factors. In one or more embodiments, the longitudinal vehicle constraint data 416 is calculated or determined in relation to the lateral path, the lateral vehicle constraint data 420, and/or determinations made by the lateral solver module 404. For example, the maximum longitudinal speed may be constrained at a particular location by the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration by calculating the maximum longitudinal speed as a function of the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration (which itself be could be constrained by rider preferences or vehicle dynamics). In this regard, at locations where the degree of path curvature is relatively high (e.g., sharp turns), the maximum longitudinal speed may be limited accordingly to maintain comfortable or achievable lateral acceleration along the curve.” .” See also [0047] “. In this regard, the longitudinal ride preference information 418 includes user-specific values or settings for the speed or velocity of the vehicle (e.g., a maximum vehicle speed or some other speed target based on the speed limit), the acceleration of the vehicle (e.g., a maximum acceleration), the deceleration of the vehicle (e.g., a maximum deceleration), and the jerk of the vehicle (e.g., maximum jerk in the forward and reverse directions). See also [0027] “As described in greater detail below in the context of FIGS. 4-5, the ride preference information may limit or otherwise constrain the speed or velocity of the vehicle 10 longitudinally (e.g., in the general direction of travel along the route), the acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle 10 longitudinally, the longitudinal jerk of the vehicle 10 (e.g., rate of change of the acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle 10 longitudinally), the acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle 10 laterally, and/or the rate of change of the acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle 10 laterally.” The examiner notes that it is common in the art to express deceleration as a positive number or to express deceleration as a negative value of acceleration. In this case, Haghighat expresses a maximum acceleration and a maximum deceleration and thus both numbers are a positive.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Haghighat in further view of Armeni et al. (US Pub. No. 20190188467, hereinafter “Armeni”.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yamamoto and Haghighat teach the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, including wherein the composite acceleration of the own vehicle at traveling on the curve road becomes within a limit range. Specifically Yamamoto teaches that |Gxmax| = |Gymax| and when plotted on a graph would result in a diamond shape having the which would be within the limits of an ellipse as claimed see at least Yamamoto Figure 5 and [0035] ; “In particular, in the target deceleration setting unit, the magnitude of the combined acceleration G xy of the deceleration G x in the traveling direction and the lateral acceleration G y in the turning vehicle 1 is the maximum that the vehicle 1 can generate while turning. Since the target deceleration G x in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1 between the curve start point and the curvature radius minimum point is set so as to be constant at the magnitude of the lateral acceleration G ymax, the curve from the time of entry into the curve The magnitude of the acceleration felt by the occupant during traveling can be kept constant. As a result, the magnitude of the inertial force acting on the vehicle 1 and the occupant can be kept constant in the traveling process from the entry into the curve to the curve traveling, and the ride quality can be further improved.”).
Further the combination of Yamamoto and Haghighat teach determining the maximum lateral acceleration for both the right and left direction, wherein the right and left direction are opposite directions of each other and along the axis of lateral acceleration (see at least Yamamoto [0015], [0021] Figure 2 and Figure 6 which teaches determining the maximum lateral acceleration in the traveling direction including a left and right direction. See Figure 2 and Figure 5 which show both a turn in a left and a right direction and thus determining the maximum lateral acceleration in both travel directions [0015] “The vehicle acceleration / deceleration control device 10 acquires shape information including the curvature radius of the curve existing in front of the vehicle 1 and the maximum lateral acceleration acquiring unit 12 that acquires the maximum lateral acceleration that can be generated while the vehicle 1 is turning. “[0021] “Next, in step S2, the maximum lateral acceleration acquisition unit 12 acquires the maximum lateral acceleration G ymax that can be generated while the vehicle 1 is turning. Specifically, the maximum lateral acceleration acquiring unit 12 acquires the maximum value of the lateral acceleration that can be generated by the vehicle 1 while turning at a constant vehicle speed in the linear region of the friction characteristic of the tire as the maximum lateral acceleration G ymax.” See also Haghighat [0046] “For example, the maximum longitudinal speed may be constrained at a particular location by the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration by calculating the maximum longitudinal speed as a function of the path curvature and the maximum lateral acceleration (which itself be could be constrained by rider preferences or vehicle dynamics). In this regard, at locations where the degree of path curvature is relatively high (e.g., sharp turns), the maximum longitudinal speed may be limited accordingly to maintain comfortable or achievable lateral acceleration along the curve.”), but do not explicitly recite the left and right direction.
Armeni teaches
correcting the curve limitation travelling speed so that the composite acceleration falls within a limit range of an ellipse which passes through the maximum lateral acceleration in the left direction, the maximum lateral acceleration in the right direction, the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the front direction, and the maximum longitudinal acceleration in the back direction, in a coordinate system consisting of an axis of lateral acceleration and an axis of longitudinal acceleration (see at least Armeni Figure 3 wherein lateral acceleration is on the axis and longitudinal accelerations is and [0046-0047] “…in a diagram of a G-G type such as the one shown in FIG. 3, where the axis of the ordinates corresponds to the longitudinal acceleration a.sub.long and the axis of the abscissae corresponds to the lateral acceleration a.sub.lat, within a given surface of the G-G plane. For example if, for a given manoeuvre mvr and for a given longitudinal velocity v.sub.long of the vehicle TV, comprised in a range between a minimum value v.sub.longmin and a maximum value v.sub.longmax and, in the example described, also for a given road and/or environmental condition ERC, the values of lateral and longitudinal acceleration acquired during the manoeuvre mvr identify points that fall within a region S1, which in the example is the region around the origin of the G-G plane distinguished by the lowest values of longitudinal and lateral acceleration, the driving style stl is identified as belonging to class CL1, relaxed driving style. A second region S2, which in FIG. 3 surrounds entirely the region S1, corresponds to class CL2, normal driving style. The outermost region S3, which in turn englobes the region S2 and corresponds to the highest values of acceleration, corresponds to class CL3, sporting driving style. The outermost ellipse identifies the ellipse of adherence EA…. These regions are, in any case, always defined within the ellipse of adherence EA defined by Eqs. (8)-(11) below. Excessive accelerations may cause poor controllability of the vehicle and conditions of unsafe driving. Hence, the method proposed envisages determination of the maximum value of the modulus of the acceleration such that the driving conditions remain safe, i.e., such that the accelerations of the vehicle remain within a so-called ellipse of adherence. On the basis of the aforesaid value of maximum acceleration that guarantees adherence, it is envisaged to estimate the maximum accelerations at each time instant, determining maximum values of accelerations and hence the limits of the surfaces of the manifolds, which are variable as a function of the current vehicle velocity.”) .
Armeni further teaches setting the maximum lateral acceleration comprising setting a maximum lateral acceleration in a left direction and setting a maximum lateral acceleration in a right direction and wherein the right direction and the left direction are opposite directions of each other and are along the axis of lateral acceleration (see at least Armeni Figure 3 and [0030] and [0046-0047]).
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 Yamamoto and Haghighat with the teaching of Armeni, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Armeni teaches this prevents excessive acceleration and improve controllability and safety of the vehicle (see Armeni [0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20170277195-A1 to Frazzoli is cited for teaching determining the driving plan including the consideration of maximum lateral and longitudinal acceleration and jerk. See at least [0143-0149].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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