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 .
Response to Arguments
Drawings:
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Specification:
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/25/2025, with respect to the title of the invention is not being descriptive has been fully considered and are persuasive. The title has been amended indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (i.e. Motor Vehicle Control System). The objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendment to claims 13-15 and 23-24 corrects the informalities. The objection of claims 13-15 and 23-24 due to informalities has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation:
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendment to claims 12, 14, 15-17 and 23-24 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph for claims 12, 14, 15-17 and 23-24 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a):
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendment to independent claim 12 overcomes the rejection for failing to comply with the written description requirement. The rejection for claims 12-24 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b):
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendment to independent claim 12 overcomes the rejection for 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 The rejection for claims 12-24 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Independent claim 12 is directed to a system to affect performance, efficiency and
stability of a vehicle and has been amended herein to recite, among other features, "the controller is configured to check availability and limitations of the brake actuator, the drive actuator, and the steering actuator, to determine a torque distribution between the brake actuator, drive actuator, and steering actuator based on the availability and limitations of the brake actuator, the drive actuator, and the steering actuator, and to execute a control algorithm that manages the brake actuator, the drive actuator or the steering actuator based on the determined torque distribution" (emphasis added). The cited references fail to teach or suggest such features. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Adding the features of cancelled dependent claims 13, 18 and 20 to independent claim 12 does not overcome the rejection. Hu et al. (US 20220258723 A1; hereafter Hu) is directed to a torque
distribution control strategy to affect performance, efficiency and stability of a vehicle [0025]. Fig 1 shows a system with a main controller, the brake actuator, the drive actuator, and the steering actuator.
[AltContent: textbox (Main Controller - 50)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (Brake Actuator - 26)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Steering Actuator - 25)][AltContent: textbox (Drive (Differential) Actuator -30 )][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
531
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hu discloses the main controller 50 is configured to check availability and limitations of the brake actuator, the drive actuator, and the steering actuator by determining for example, ([0051] external limits…to protect the structural integrity of the various components of the eAWD propulsion system 11, such as…torque, acceleration, or other suitable thresholds, as well as dynamic limits
accounting for stability, traction, or other performance restriction). Hu further discloses a process for optimization/arbitration to determine an optimum torque distribution [0037]. The torque distribution optimization strategy incorporates longitudinal torque and lateral motion control objectives [0005] executed by the main controller in communication with the actuator-level controls, for example, ([0038] the main controller 50 is in communication with local controllers of a plurality of torque actuators, including…including the brake actuators 26 and/or the steering actuators 25, the electronically-controllable differentials 30….previously programmed with a calibrated set of constraints, is configured to receive the set of vehicle inputs (arrow CC.sub.I of FIG. 1) indicative of a total longitudinal motion request of the motor vehicle 10, exemplified as a total requested torque).
The main controller executes a control algorithm (i.e. dynamic model) that executes a control algorithm that manages the brake actuator, the drive actuator or the steering actuator based on the determined torque distribution by using a dynamic model that optimizes the torque distribution based the vehicle dynamic states (e.g. [0043] the dynamic model used for optimization provides the dynamic relationship between the manipulated actuators, e.g., torque distribution…may use such a dynamic model to predict an expected vehicle response from actuator setpoints, and then select appropriate actuator setpoint). For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 20220258723 A1; hereafter Hu) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210380099 A1; hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Hu teaches a system to affect performance, efficiency and stability of a vehicle ([0051] an electronic stability control or traction control module) comprising: a controller containing a data processing apparatus having a processor and a memory (see at least, [0035] The controller 50 includes application-specific amounts of the memory (M) and one or more of the processor(s) (P), e.g., microprocessors or central processing units), and including a cost function device (see at least, [0013] The cost optimization function executed by the main controller), a dynamic model device (see at least, [0043] cost function-based optimization strategies abound in which dynamic models in the form of mathematical equations are used to optimize a given outcome in the presence of competing values and constraints), a summing device (see at least, [0017] receiving the set of vehicle inputs via the main controller, with the vehicle inputs indicative of a total longitudinal motion request and a total lateral motion request of the motor vehicle), a brake actuator (see at least, [0029] the front road wheels 15F and the rear road wheels 15R may be independently slowed via a corresponding brake actuator 26), a drive actuator (see at least, [0004] The eAWD propulsion system…includes multiple drive axles, with each drive axle being independently coupled to and actuated by a corresponding torque actuator in the form of, at least, a rotary electric machine), a steering actuator (see at least, [0029] the front road wheels 15F and the rear road wheels 15R may be independently-steerable via a corresponding steering actuator 26), wherein the controller is configured to check availability and limitations of the brake actuator, the drive actuator, and the steering actuator, to determine a torque distribution between the brake actuator, drive actuator, and steering actuator based on the availability and limitations of the brake actuator, the drive actuator, and the steering actuator (see at least, [0043] dynamic models in the form of mathematical equations are used to optimize a given outcome in the presence of competing values and constraints…used for optimization provides the dynamic relationship between the manipulated actuators, e.g., torque distribution, friction brake torques, rear steering) , and to execute a control algorithm that manages the brake actuator device, the drive actuator or the steering actuator based on the determined torque distribution (see at least, [0043] the dynamic model used for optimization provides the dynamic relationship between the manipulated actuators, e.g., torque distribution, friction brake torques, rear steering…use such a dynamic model to predict an expected vehicle response from actuator setpoints, and then select appropriate actuator setpoints that collectively optimize the cost function 51 for the predicted trajectories).
Hu does not explicitly teach comprising: a reference trajectory device and a multiplexer. However, Lee teaches this limitation.
Lee teaches a reference trajectory device and a multiplexer (see at least, [0045] the candidate path manager…may generate an initial path; [0116] configuration circuitry, a controller, and a multiplexer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hu to include a reference trajectory device and a multiplexer as taught by Lee so that process may be repeated until a suitable path (e.g., a path that satisfies constraints) is generated (Lee, [0045).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hu and Lee teaches the system of claim 12. Hu further teaches wherein: the trajectory device contains a trajectory data output, or the cost function device contains an input or a kinematics reference model data output, or the dynamic model device contains an input or a vehicle force data reference output, or the summing device contains a + input, a input, or an output, or the controller contains a first input, a second input, a brake actuator output, a drive actuator output or a steering actuator output, or the brake actuator contains an input, a torque data output or a status data output, or the drive actuator contains an input, a torque data output or a status data output, or -the steering actuator contains an input, a torque data output or a status data output, or the multiplexer contains a first input, a second input, a third input or an output, or the vehicle contains a first input, a second input, a third input or a vehicle status data output (see at least, [0041] estimating the present
state of the motor vehicle, e.g., present velocity, attitude…the present states of various propulsors…
The present state of the motor vehicle…is therefore fed into the cost optimization function).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hu and Lee teaches the system of claim 12. Hu further teaches wherein: the trajectory data output of the reference trajectory device is connected to the input of the cost function device, or the kinematics reference model data output of the cost function device is connected to the input of the dynamic model device, or -the vehicle force data reference output of the dynamic model device is connected to the + input of the summing device, or the output of the summing device is connected to the first input of the controller, or the brake actuator output of the controller is connected to the input of the brake actuator, or the drive actuator output of the controller is connected to the input of the drive actuator, or the steering actuator output of the controller is connected to the input of the steering actuator, or the status data output of the brake actuator is connected to the first input of the multiplexer, or the status data output of the drive actuator is connected to the second input of the multiplexer, or the status data output of the steering actuator is connected to the third input of the multiplexer, or the output of the multiplexer is connected to the second input of the controller, or the torque data output of the brake actuator is connected to the first input of the vehicle, or the torque data output of the drive actuator is connected to the second input of the vehicle, or the torque data output of the steering actuator is connected to the third input of the vehicle, or the vehicle status data output of the vehicle is connected to the input of the summing device (see at least, [0030] The steering
actuators…and the brake actuators…are respectively responsive to pressure or travel of an accelerator pedal…and brake pedal…which generates a corresponding accelerator request signal…and braking request signal…An operator of the motor vehicle…may, using a steering wheel…impact a steering angle…which is read by the main controller…as part of a set of input signals…along with the accelerator request signal…and braking request signal).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hu and Lee teaches the system of claim 12. Lee further teaches wherein a reference trajectory, calculated from the driver's inputs or from an external source, including time and position horizons, is available in the reference trajectory device (see at least, [0053] candidate path manager 116 may be used to select a path from the candidate paths that are generated…two path candidates can be generated at each time step).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hu to include a reference trajectory, calculated from the driver's inputs or from an external source, including time and position horizons, is available in the reference trajectory device as taught by Lee so that process may be repeated until a suitable path (e.g., a path that satisfies constraints) is generated (Lee, [0045).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hu and Lee teaches the system of claim 12. Hu further teaches wherein a cost function is available within the cost function device (see at least, [0013] The cost
optimization function executed by the main controller), including a reference vehicle status in terms of the reference trajectory, as a series of kinematic states, a vehicle speed profile, a yaw profile, an acceleration profile or a jolt profile (see at least, [0041] state estimation…the present states of various propulsors (e.g., the electric machines 114E, the engine 200, etc.)…current or impending wheel slip…Using trajectories of such values, the main controller…is able to predict the state of the motor vehicle…at a future instant in time), determined in particular by passenger comfort and/or traffic rules (see at least, [0046] if a driver selects “sport mode”, lateral performance objectives, such as meeting a driver-desired yaw rate, may be prioritized over factors such as powertrain efficiency).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hu and Lee teaches the system of claim 17. Hu further teaches wherein the controller, is configured to determine the required vehicle forces, based on a dynamic model for the realization of the cost function (see at least, [0043] Optimization as performed…may use such a dynamic model to predict an expected vehicle response from actuator setpoints, and then select appropriate actuator setpoints that collectively optimize the cost function…for the predicted trajectories. To implement the cost optimization function).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hu and Lee teaches the system of claim 12. Hu further teaches wherein the controller, is configured for torque actuation (see at least, [0038] the main controller 50 is in communication with local controllers of a plurality of torque actuators).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hu and Lee teaches the system of claim 12. Hu further teaches wherein the controller, is configured for estimating/measuring the actuator and vehicle status and providing feedback (see at least, [0043] the dynamic model used for optimization provides the dynamic relationship between the manipulated actuators, e.g., torque distribution, friction brake torques, rear steering, etc., and vehicle dynamic states such as longitudinal velocity/acceleration, lateral velocity/
acceleration, yaw rate, wheels speeds…predict an expected vehicle response from actuator setpoints, and then select appropriate actuator setpoints that collectively optimize the cost function…for the predicted trajectories).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hu and Lee teaches system of claim 12. Hu further teaches wherein: the cost function device (see at least, [0013] The cost optimization function executed by the main controller) contains an input and a kinematics reference model data output (see at least, [0042] the main controller…using the cost optimization function, a torque vector…for allocating the total longitudinal torque request and/or the total longitudinal speed request, the yaw rate request, and the lateral velocity request), and the dynamic model device contains an input (see at least, [0043] dynamic models in the form of mathematical equations are used to optimize a given outcome in the presence of competing values and constraints) and a vehicle force data reference output (see at least, [0048] vehicle dynamics model used by the optimization function…some potential torque distributions would result in unacceptable wheel slip at some of the road wheels), and the summing device contains a + input, a – input (see at least, [0017] receiving the set of vehicle inputs via the main controller, with the vehicle inputs indicative of a total longitudinal motion request and a total lateral motion request of the motor vehicle), and an output (see at least, [0018] calculating, using the set of vehicle inputs, a total longitudinal torque request...and a lateral velocity request of the motor vehicle), and the controller contains a first input, a second input (see at least, [0007] The main controller is configured to receive a set of vehicle inputs indicative of a total longitudinal motion request and a total lateral motion request of the motor vehicle), a brake actuator output (see at least, [0030] the brake actuators
…are…responsive to pressure or travel…brake pedal…which generates a corresponding… braking request signal), a drive actuator output (see at least, [0004] The eAWD propulsion system…each drive axle being independently coupled to and actuated by a corresponding torque actuator in the form of, at least, a rotary electric machine) and a steering actuator output (see at least, [0030] The steering
actuators…are respectively responsive to pressure or travel of an accelerator pedal…which generates a corresponding accelerator request signal), and the brake actuator contains an input (see at least, [0030] the brake actuators…are…responsive to pressure or travel…brake pedal), a torque data output (see at least, [0029] brake actuator…some level of torque control is still possible via the brake
actuators) and a status data output (see at least, [0043] the dynamic model used for optimization provides the dynamic relationship between the manipulated actuators, e.g., torque distribution, friction brake torques) and the drive actuator (see at least, [0004] The eAWD propulsion system…
actuated by a corresponding torque actuator) contains an input(see at least, [0013] The cost optimization function could also be configured to optimize the torque vector for propulsion efficiency of the motor vehicle), a torque data output (see at least, [0029] torque from propulsion actuators such as the electric machines) and a status data output), and the steering actuator contains an input(see at least, [0030] The steering actuators…are respectively responsive to pressure or travel of an accelerator pedal), a torque data output (see at least, [0060] a given local controller could be programmed with the ability to deliver a yaw rate based on the steering angle command and the torque vectoring) and a status data output (see at least, [0043] dynamic model…provides the dynamic relationship between the manipulated actuators, e.g., torque distribution…rear steering), and the vehicle contains a first input, a second input, a third input (see at least, [0030] motor vehicle…using a steering wheel…impact a steering angle…which is read by the main controller…as part of a set of input signals …along with the accelerator request signal…and braking request signal) and a vehicle status data output (see at least, [0041] the main controller…is able to predict the state of the motor vehicle…at a future instant in time).
Lee further teaches the trajectory device contains a trajectory data output (see at least, [0043] the candidate path manager…may generate any number of candidate paths) and the multiplexer (Fig 8C, [0116]Each pair of memory blocks may include an advanced peripheral bus (APB) interface, configuration circuitry, a controller, and a multiplexer) contains a first input, a second input, a third input and an output (see at least,Fig 8C, (0080] Controller(s) 836, which may include one or more system on chips (SoCs) 804 (FIG. 8C)…may send signals to operate the vehicle brakes via one or more brake actuators 848, to operate the steering system 854 via one or more steering actuators 856, to operate the propulsion system 850 via one or more throttle/accelerators 852).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hu to include the trajectory device contains a trajectory data output and the multiplexer contains a first input, a second input, a third input and an output as taught by Lee so that process may be repeated until a suitable path (e.g., a path that satisfies constraints) is generated (Lee, [0045).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Hu and Lee teaches system of claim 12. Hu further teaches wherein: the kinematics reference model data output of the cost function device (see at least, [0042] the main controller…using the cost optimization function, a torque vector…for allocating the total longitudinal torque request and/or the total longitudinal speed request, the yaw rate request, and the lateral velocity request) is connected to the input of the dynamic model device(see at least, [0043] dynamic models in the form of mathematical equations are used to optimize a given outcome in the presence of competing values and constraints), and the vehicle force data reference output of the dynamic model device (see at least, [0048] vehicle dynamics model used by the optimization function…some potential torque distributions would result in unacceptable wheel slip at some of the road wheels) is connected to the + input of the summing device (see at least, [0017] receiving the set of vehicle inputs via the main controller, with the vehicle inputs indicative of a total longitudinal motion request and a total lateral motion request of the motor vehicle), and the output of the summing device is connected to the first input of the controller (see at least, [0018] calculating, using the set of vehicle inputs, a total longitudinal torque request...and a lateral velocity request of the motor vehicle), and the brake actuator output of the controller is connected to the input of the brake actuator (see at least, [0030] the brake actuators…are…responsive to pressure or travel…brake pedal…which generates a corresponding… braking request signal), and the drive actuator output of the controller is connected to the input of the drive actuator (see at least, [0004] The eAWD propulsion system…each drive axle being independently coupled to and actuated by a corresponding torque actuator in the form of, at least, a rotary electric machine), and the steering actuator output of the controller is connected to the input of the steering actuator (see at least, [0030] The steering actuators…are respectively responsive to pressure or travel of an accelerator pedal…which generates a corresponding accelerator request signal), and the torque data output of the brake actuator is connected to the first input of the vehicle, and the torque data output of the drive actuator is connected to the second input of the vehicle, and the torque data output of the steering actuator is connected to the third input of the vehicle (see at least, [0030] motor vehicle…using a steering wheel…impact a steering angle…which is read by the main controller…as part of a set of input signals …along with the accelerator request signal…and braking request signal), and the vehicle status data output of the vehicle is connected to the input of the summing device (see at least, [0041] the main controller…is able to predict the state of the motor vehicle…at a future instant in time).
Lee further teaches the trajectory data output of the reference trajectory (see at least, [0043] the candidate path manager…may generate any number of candidate paths) is connected to the input of the cost function device (see at least, Fig 1, Uncertainty Representation Generator; [0073] computing
costs for each of the plurality of candidate paths), and the status data output of the brake actuator d is connected to the first input of the multiplexer, and the status data output of the drive actuator is connected to the second input of the multiplexer, and the status data output of the steering actuator is connected to the third input of the multiplexer, and the output of the multiplexer is connected to the second input of the controller (see at least, Fig 8C, (0080] Controller(s) 836, which may include one or more system on chips (SoCs) 804 (FIG. 8C)…may send signals to operate the vehicle brakes via one or more brake actuators 848, to operate the steering system 854 via one or more steering actuators 856, to operate the propulsion system 850 via one or more throttle/accelerators
852).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hu to include the trajectory data output of the reference trajectory device is connected to the input of the cost function device, and the status data output of the brake actuator device is connected to the first input of the multiplexer, and the status data output of the drive actuator device is connected to the second input of the multiplexer, and the status data output of the steering actuator device is connected to the third input of the multiplexer, and the output of the multiplexer is connected to the second input of the controller as taught by Lee so that process may be repeated until a suitable path (e.g., a path that satisfies constraints) is generated (Lee, [0045).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoedt et al. (US 20210188256 A1) discloses a reference trajectory device (e.g. [0012] an evaluation device, which is configured to determine a target trajectory to be traveled by the motor vehicle).
Lambert et al. (US 20210334630 A1) discloses a cost function device (e.g. Fig 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Examiner, Art Unit 3662