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 . Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-11, and 15-17 are amended, claim 19 is canceled and claims 21-22 are newly added. Therefore, claims 1-18 and 21-22 are currently pending and examined below.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domprobst (WO 2019/122695 A1) [disclosed on IDS filed 05/11/2023] in view of Lahti (US 2021/0213948 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Domprobst discloses:
A method of operating an electronic control system to control operation of at least a first vehicle, the method comprising: (Domprobst - electronic control system -> Par. 62-69)
determining a first braking distance to achieve a first target speed of the first vehicle; receiving a second vehicle braking distance to achieve a second target speed of a second vehicle forward of the first vehicle; (Domprobst - minimum following distance in response to first and second braking distance to achieve target speed -> Par. 64, Par. 72-76, Par. 151-158)
determining a minimum following distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle in response to the first braking distance and the second braking distance; and (Domprobst - minimum following distance in response to first and second braking distance to achieve target speed -> Par. 64, Par. 72-76, Par. 151-158)
controlling operation of the first vehicle with an autonomous control system using the minimum following distance. (Domprobst - autonomous control system -> Par. 28-32).
Domprobst does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to the minimum following distance, adjusting one or more powertrain calibrations of the first vehicle, the one or more powertrain calibrations influencing fuel economy of the first vehicle; and controlling operation of the first vehicle using the adjusted one or more powertrain calibrations.
Lahti (US 2021/0213948 A1), in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: in response to the minimum following distance, adjusting one or more powertrain calibrations of the first vehicle, the one or more powertrain calibrations influencing fuel economy of the first vehicle; and controlling operation of the first vehicle using the adjusted one or more powertrain calibrations (Lahti – [0043-0044, 0049, 0061, 0074-0075, 0083] – maximum speed trajectory… following distance profile… wheel torque, engine power output, transmission gear shift… efficient to reduce aerodynamic drag).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lahti into the invention of Domprobst with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving fuel efficiency of the vehicle and improving safety (Lahti – [0003, 0075]).
Regarding claim 2, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein at least one of: the act of determining the first braking distance utilizes one or more tire parameters of the first vehicle, and the act of determining the second vehicle braking distance utilizes one or more tire parameters of the second vehicle. (Domprobst - tire parameters -> Par. 70-72)
Regarding claim 3, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 2 wherein at least one of: the one or more tire parameters of the first vehicle comprise one or more coefficients of friction, and the one or more tire parameters of the second vehicle comprise one or more coefficients of friction. (Domprobst - coefficients of friction -> Par. 70-74)
Regarding claim 4, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the act of determining the first braking distance utilizes at least one of an empirically determined model and a parameterized model. (Domprobst - empirically determined/parameterized model -> Par. 127, Par. 141, Par. 180)
Regarding claim 6, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the act of receiving a second vehicle braking distance comprises one or more of: receiving a vehicle to vehicle transmission from the second vehicle to the first vehicle, receiving a vehicle to infrastructure transmission from the second vehicle to a computing system remote from the second vehicle and the first vehicle, and receiving a vehicle to infrastructure transmission from the first vehicle to the second vehicle. (Domprobst - vehicle to vehicle transmission and vehicle to infrastructure transmission -> Par. 31-32, Par. 63-69)
Regarding claim 7, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the act of determining a minimum following distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle in response to the first braking distance and the second vehicle braking distance comprises comparing the first braking distance and the second vehicle braking distance. (Domprobst - comparison of braking distances of candidate vehicles -> Par. 145, Par. 151)
Regarding claim 8, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the act of controlling operation of the first vehicle with the autonomous control system using the minimum following distance comprises operating at least one of a predictive cruise control system, an adaptive cruise control system, a platoon control system, and a model predictive controller using the minimum following distance. (Domprobst - cruise control, platoon, model prediction -> Par. 26, Par. 32-33)
Regarding claim 9, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein one or both of: the first target speed of the first vehicle is a zero or stopped speed the first vehicle, and the second target speed of the second vehicle is a zero or stopped speed the second vehicle. (Domprobst - zero or stopped speed -> Par. 73-76)
Regarding claims 10-13 and 15-18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-4 and 6-9, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 10-13 and 15-18 do not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1-4 and 6-9; therefore, claims 10-13 and 15-18 are also rejected over the same rationale as the previous claims.
Regarding claim 21, Domprobst does not appear to disclose wherein the adjusting the one or more powertrain calibrations comprise adjusting at least one of a torque curve and a maximum torque of the first vehicle.
Lahti, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the adjusting the one or more powertrain calibrations comprise adjusting at least one of a torque curve and a maximum torque of the first vehicle (Lahti – [0043-0044, 0049, 0061, 0074-0075, 0083] – maximum speed trajectory… following distance profile… wheel torque, engine power output, transmission gear shift).
The motivation to combine Domprobst and Lahti is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Domprobst does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more powertrain calibrations adjusted by the electronic control system includes a transmission shift point.
Lahti, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the one or more powertrain calibrations adjusted by the electronic control system includes a transmission shift point (Lahti – [0043-0044, 0049, 0061, 0074-0075, 0083] – maximum speed trajectory… following distance profile… wheel torque, engine power output, transmission gear shift).
The motivation to combine Domprobst and Lahti is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domprobst in view of Lahti and in further view of Stein (US 2019/0337507 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Domprobst discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 4, but does not disclose:
The method of claim 4 wherein at least one of the empirically determined model and the parameterized model comprises a PMF model.
Stein teaches collision imminent steering control systems and methods, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The method of claim 4 wherein at least one of the empirically determined model and the parameterized model comprises a PMF model. (Stein - PMF model for braking distance -> Par. 10, Par. 42, Par. 47, Par. 76)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the model for determining braking distance to include a PMF model as taught by Stein.
One would be motivated to make this modification to ensure a safe braking distance (Stein – Par. 10). Furthermore, the application of Pacejka’s Magic Formula for vehicle dynamics simulations is well-known in the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Domprobst and Stein.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Domprobst and Stein from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claim 5; therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The rejections under 35 USC 112 and the objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAVID MEHDIZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-7691. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, James Trammell can be reached on (571)-272-6712. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights