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 the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on December 12, 2025. Claim(s)s 1, 5, 9-10, 12 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-14 remain pending. This communication is the fourth Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant has amended to include:
in real-time, determining a real-time longitudinal force
in real-time… predicting a set of vehicle kinematic parameters changing as a function of time;
in real-time… determining a vehicle command
These limitations are not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, and is considered new matter. Corrective action is required.
A search of Applicant disclosure yields the following:
[0068] states “In a second variant, the vehicle model can include a kinematic model and/or kinematic linearization of vehicle dynamics, which can be used to estimate the vehicle state and/or trajectory (e.g., in real time or substantially in real time, etc.).” However, estimating a vehicle state and/or trajectory is not determining a real-time longitudinal force, predicting a set of vehicle kinematic parameters changing as a function of time, or determining a vehicle command, as amended.
[0071] states “The vehicle state and/or a trajectory thereof can be determined: continuously (e.g., in real time)” However, similar to [0068] above, this does not provide explicit support for these actions being performed in real-time.
In order to overcome the new matter rejections above, the Examiner requires applicant to cancel or remove the cited new matter, or to traverse this rejection with a detailed explanation of their position, including paragraph citations and/or drawing figures of how the cited limitations are fully supported by applicant‘s original disclosure.
Dependent claims of the rejected claims above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) at least due to dependency on these claims.
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 1-14 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1: Applicant claims in real-time, with a first dynamic vehicle model and based on the real-time longitudinal force, dynamically predicting a set of vehicle kinematic parameters changing as a function of time;
While one of ordinary skill would understand what a dynamic vehicle model is (i.e. modeling a vehicle has it moves or is in motion), dynamically predicting a set of vehicle kinematic parameters, as amended, is considered unclear and indefinite in view of Applicant disclosure because it is unclear exactly what portion of the claimed “predicting” step is dynamic in nature. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Applicant disclosure [0068] states:
In a fourth variant, the vehicle model can be used to dynamically predict or simulate the trajectory as a function of time. In a specific example, the vehicle model can include an adaptive vehicle model (e.g., an adaptive observer), wherein the dynamic model is configured to update the adaptive observer based on a dynamic model error (e.g., based on a vehicle state estimation and a road grade estimate).
Although not explicitly connected (and therefore still indefinite), in view of [0068] it is postulated that Applicant intends dynamically predicting to mean adaptively updating the dynamic model during operation based on a vehicle state estimation or a road grade estimate. Accordingly, this is the interpretation made for the remainder of this examination. Applicant is reminded that the metes and bounds of dynamically predicting is still considered indefinite in view of this interpretation because this interpretation still does not make it clear what portion of the predicting is “dynamic” in nature, because the predicting (action) is performed on/by said model, (structure) and updating a model does not inherently make the predicting dynamic in nature.
In regards to claim 11: Applicant claims the first dynamic model comprises a robust controller. However, Applicant disclosure does not provide meaningful metes and bounds as to what differentiates the claimed robust controller as compared to a controller that is not robust. Therefore the term is considered subjective and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required
All dependent claims of the indefinite claim 1 outlined above are also considered indefinite at least due to dependency on the claims above.
In regards to claim 14: Applicant claims with a force sensor of the autonomous electric vehicle, determining an observed longitudinal force at the fifth wheel coupling
While one of ordinary skill may understand that a sensor “observes” the forces sensed by said sensor, Applicant disclosure is silent with regards to what makes the determined longitudinal force at the fifth wheel coupling explicitly an observed longitudinal force. At best, the addition of this term is verbose and unnecessary. At worst, the metes and bounds of the term are unclear and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 3-8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield et al. (US 20220041069 A1) herein “Layfield 069” in view of Chen et al. (US 20160068165 A1) herein Chen.
In regards to Claim 1, Layfield 069 discloses the following:
1. A method for a combination roadway vehicle, (see at least Fig. 1) the combination roadway vehicle comprising an autonomous electric vehicle coupled to a tractor at a fifth wheel coupling, (see at least Fig. 1 and Fig 2a and [0053] “a towing vehicle 13, such as a tractor, cab or truck that pulls a pair of trailers 12 (seen as a primary or first trailer 12a and a secondary or second trailer 12b) that are connected to each other via an active convertor dolly apparatus 14” and [0058] “coupling plate 15, commonly referred to as a fifth wheel coupling”)
the method comprising:
in real-time, determining a real-time longitudinal force at the fifth wheel coupling with a sensor of the autonomous electric vehicle; (see at least [0083] “force sensors 80 such as strain gauges are incorporated into the pintle hook or hitch 26 forming the first trailer connector assembly 7. These force sensors 80 are configured to detect compression and tension in the hitch 26, corresponding generally to braking (deceleration) and acceleration of the tractor-trailer 10”; see also Fig. 5b, steps 1000, 1002, 1004 and [0107] “sensors may also collect sensor information associated with various dolly characteristics such as listed above. Other information may include road grade information, map information or any real-time information and the like.”)
As best understood, Layfield 069 does not explicitly disclose the following, which is more explicitly taught by Chen:
in real-time, with a first dynamic vehicle model and based on the real-time longitudinal force, dynamically predicting a set of vehicle kinematic parameters changing as a function of time; (see at least [007] “a vehicle to estimate vehicle pitch angle and road grade angle, in real time and generally simultaneously, comprising a sensor configured to measure vehicle pitch rate”, [0041] “an algorithm using a virtual observer to process sensor data in estimating road and vehicle angle.”, [0044] “system obtains data from the sensor for a present time.”, [0105] “an observer, or state observer, is a module that provides an estimate of a state of a given real plant using measurements of system inputs and outputs. In the present use, the real plant is the dynamic vehicle.”, demonstrating real-time kinematic parameters changing as a function of time, and [0106] “The resulting representation, or model, of the plant, i.e., vehicle, can be adjusted in an ongoing manner, using successive measured values of input and outputs in iterations of operation, in effort to focus or converge the representation to the actual state of the vehicle being evaluated. For the Luenberger observer, adjustments to an initial model are made, include (i) subtracting an output of the observer from observed output of the vehicle, (ii) then multiplying the result by a factor, such as by a matrix, and (iii) then adding the result to equations for the state of the observer to produce the Luenberger observer.”, demonstrating dynamically predicting a set of vehicle kinematic parameters [with] a first dynamic vehicle model and based on the real-time longitudinal force, as claimed, and updating the dynamic model based on a vehicle state estimation and a road grade estimate, as best understood.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Chen with the invention of Layfield 069, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing advanced autonomous driving systems with the ability to properly determine what proportion of the measured pitch-direction movement is due to vehicle pitch as opposed to road grade. (Chen, [0002]-[0005])
Layfield 069 discloses the following:
in real-time with a model of an autonomous controller, determining a vehicle command based on the set of vehicle kinematic parameters, (see at least [0131] “based on the prediction that regenerative braking will soon recharge the SOC of the batteries on the downhill portions following the uphill portions.”)
wherein the real-time longitudinal force and the vehicle command are each determined onboard the autonomous electric vehicle; (see at least [0076] “The motor-generator 36 controls the movement of the wheels 22 via the axle 37 based on signals transmitted from a dolly controller 502”, demonstrated to be onboard the autonomous vehicle per Fig. 5a.)
and facilitating control of a set of actuators of the autonomous electric vehicle based on the vehicle command. (see at least [0131] “based on the prediction that regenerative braking will soon recharge the SOC of the batteries on the downhill portions following the uphill portions.”).
In regards to Claim 3, Layfield 069 suggests the following:
3. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the tractor, a brake light signal comprising a binary state, wherein the vehicle command is determined based on the binary state. (see at least [0083] “braking of the tractor-trailer vehicle 10 is detected through the brake lines and/or the electrical connection 72 from the towing vehicle 13 to the dolly apparatus 14.”)
Layfield 069 is non-specific regarding a brake signal binary state. However, it is further noted that Layfield discloses a dolly controller 502 (see at least Fig. 2b and [0093]) understood to be one or more processors with associated computer components that inherently require a binary brake signal and/or a binary signal conversion in order to function.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a binary brake command with the dolly of Layfield 069, with predictable results, with the motivation of providing a computer-readable signal to the dolly. Further, the results of such modification would have been predictable.
In regards to Claim 4, Layfield 069 discloses the following:
4. The method of Claim 3, wherein the set of actuators comprises a traction motor, (see at least Fig. 2b and [0076], “one or more electric motor-generators 36”) wherein facilitating control of the set of actuators comprises regeneratively braking with the traction motor. (see at least [0083] “regenerative braking mode”)
In regards to Claim 5, Layfield 069 discloses the following:
5. The method of Claim 4, wherein the set of actuators further comprises a set of independent brakes of the autonomous electric vehicle, wherein the vehicle command comprises a blended braking command associated with the traction motor and the set of independent brakes, (see at least Fig. 8 and [0122] “when the brake pedal is depressed, parallel regenerative braking is actuated. Depending on vehicle speed and consequently, the generator's rotational speed, for approximately 10-20% of initial brake pedal travel, the friction brakes are not engaged and only regenerative braking is applied.”)
wherein determining the vehicle command based on the set of vehicle kinematic parameters comprises: determining the blended braking command based on the real-time longitudinal force satisfying a compression threshold. (see at least [0122] “harder braking”, inherent of the described functionality of [0144] to require a specific threshold indicated as “harder braking” where blended braking is applied. See also previous citations regarding braking control based on longitudinal force.)
In regards to Claim 6, Layfield 069 discloses the following:
6. The method of Claim 5, wherein the compression threshold comprises a dynamic threshold associated with the first dynamic model. (see at least at [0083] “PID coefficients”)
In regards to Claim 7, Layfield discloses the following:
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle command comprises a velocity reference. (see at least[0094] “wheel speed(s)”)
In regards to Claim 8, Layfield discloses the following:
8. The method of Claim 1, wherein the dynamic model comprises a road grade estimate. (see at least [0100] “The intelligent controller 502 is also connected to a database 510 including road grade information 512 which can be stored within a database or based on sensor information, or real time road information by connecting the dolly intelligent controller 502 to wireless network.”)
In regards to Claim 11, Layfield 069 suggests the following:
11. The method of Claim 1, wherein the first dynamic model comprises a robust controller. (see at least [0083] “close-loop PID controller”)
The controller of Layfield 069 is not explicitly a “robust controller”, however robust controllers are well-known in the art, as admitted by Applicant during interviews and Applicant arguments filed 27 June 2025. Accordingly, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a robust controller as the controller of Layfield 069, with predictable results, with the motivation of providing reliable operation across a range of possible conditions. Further, the results of such modification would have been predictable.
In regards to Claim 13, Layfield discloses the following:
13. The method of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle command comprises a force reference. (see at least previous citations to claim 1.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield 069 in view of Chen, as applied, in view of R. Escarela-Perez et al. "Effective Nonlinear Surface Impedance of Conductive Magnetic Slabs," in IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1-12, May 2017, herein “Escarela-Perez”.
In regards to Claim 2, Layfield discloses the following:
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the autonomous controller comprises an autonomous admittance controller associated with a nonlinear effective impedance. (see at least [0115] “The apparatus control system 500 includes an intelligent controller 502 which is, in some embodiments, implemented within a central processing unit (CPU).”)
Layfield discloses use of force sensors that may be strain gauges and/or load cells to sense the pull/push forces that inherently include detection of changes in resistance, impedance and/or electrical conductivity. However, Layfield is silent regarding any specific association with a [measured] nonlinear effective impedance. However, this I known in the art as taught by Escarela-Perez. (see at least title, page 2, Columns 1 and 2.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Escarela-Perez with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing accuracy by accounting for impedance nonlinearity of conductive magnetic materials. (Escarela-Perez, page 2, Column 1, second paragraph.)
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield 069 in view of Chen, as applied, in further view of Siehorst (US 20170015163 A1) herein “Siehorst”, and in the alternative, in further view of Ghandriz et al. (US 20230415746 A1) herein “Ghandriz”.
In regards to Claim 9, Layfield 069 discloses the following:
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the first dynamic model comprises a first set of invariant intrinsic parameters and a second set of invariant extrinsic parameters; (see at least at [0083] “PID coefficients”) wherein the method further comprises:
Layfield 069 suggests the following:
autonomously detecting a vehicle trip with a sensor suite of the autonomous electric vehicle; (see at least [0130] “customized optimization algorithms trained to make predictions that are specific to a given driver on a given route.”, [0131] “In a first example… if the route is very hilly, the algorithm 2130 may instruct the motor-generators to apply large amounts of torque on the uphill portions, even if it means draining the SOC of the batteries, based on the prediction that regenerative braking will soon recharge the SOC of the batteries on the downhill portions following the uphill portions.”)
In order to perform the algorithm 2130, Layfield 069 must inherently include detection of the trip. However, this process is not explicitly performed autonomously. However, Layfield 069 does include a plurality of autonomous and automatic functionality. (see above citations, see also [0069], [0138], [0172]) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to enable autonomous/automatic detection of a vehicle trip by the dolly of Layfield 069, with predictable results, with the motivation of increasing fuel efficiency and fuel economy of the tractor-trailer vehicle. (Layfield 069, Abstract, [0090]) Further, the results of such modification would have been predictable.
Layfield does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Siehorst:
and estimating values of each invariant extrinsic parameter of the second set of invariant extrinsic parameters for the vehicle trip based on the real-time longitudinal force. (see at least [0033]-[0045] “evaluation device is expediently configured for determining the trailer mass value on the basis of a comparison between a progression over time of the force signal measured on the basis of the sensor arrangement, or the determined force signal, and a force progression over time determined on the basis of a mathematical model.” and claim 7.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Siehorst with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling trailer mass to be determined more exactly. (Siehorst, [0003])
In regards to Claim 10, Layfield 069 discloses the following:
10. The method of Claim 1, wherein the set of vehicle kinematic parameters comprises a vehicle trajectory, (see at least previous citations, see also [0083] “force vector will provide left or right direction vector information in addition to knowing whether the converter dolly is being “pulled” or “pushed”.”)
the vehicle trajectory comprising a feedforward estimate of vehicle state parameters. (see at least previous citations, see also [0179] “If the controller detects at step 2002 that the dolly is turning (i.e. that a jack-knifing condition is present”)
It should be noted that Layfield 069 does not explicitly disclose using a vehicle trajectory determination in combination with the vehicle commands of claim 1.
However, determination of a vehicle trajectory using a model based on measured force between a coupling and a chassis is known in the art, as taught by Siehorst. (see at least [0033] “mathematical model”, [0041] “trailer acceleration value ahmod, in the model is simultaneously the quotient of the force fxmod acting in the x direction and determined on the basis of the model and a mass of the trailer mhmod adopted in the mode”, [0073] “status signal 56 is converted by the signal evaluation unit 64 into a force signal fx which represents the force acting on the trailer coupling 30 in the x direction, in other words a traction force and/or thrust force Fx therefore.”, and [0080] “The evaluation device 60 has a model generator 65 which generates a model force progression fxmod on the basis of the acceleration afzg of the towing vehicle 10 and a spring parameter c and the above formulae (4) and (5), with the damping d optionally also being considered”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Siehorst with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling trailer mass to be determined more exactly. (Siehorst, [0003])
For the sake of compact prosecution, in the alternative, determination of a trajectory of a combination roadway vehicle using a model based on measured forces is also further known in the art, as taught by Ghandriz. (see at least [0009] “a model of vehicle dynamics describing dynamics of the multi-trailer heavy duty vehicle [includes] determining respective force trajectories for two or more axles of the vehicle as a solution to a non-linear optimal control problem (NOCP)”, [0019] ‘Given the actual trajectory or the (desired trajectory) of the COG of the 1st unit, the desired trajectories of the other units can be determined” and [0107] “An example NOCP in mathematical form can be defined as follows. The cost function is a convex quadratic cost of deviation of the vehicle path from a given trajectory or the trajectory of the towed units from the path of the towing unit”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ghandriz with the invention of Layfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing off-tracking or trailer over-shooting, a problem that may occur with multi-trailer vehicles is that trailer units may veer off track during abrupt turns such as in evasive manoeuvres. (Ghandriz, [0004])
In regards to Claim 12, Layfield 069 (as modified above) discloses the following:
12. The method of Claim 1, wherein the set of vehicle kinematic parameters are a vehicle trajectory. (see at least previous citations, obviousness statements and motivations to combine in claim 10, above.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield et al. (US 20220041069 A1) herein “Layfield 069” in view of Ghandriz et al. (US 20230415746 A1) herein “Ghandriz”.
In regards to Claim 14, Layfield 069 discloses the following:
14. A method for a combination roadway vehicle, the combination roadway vehicle comprising an autonomous electric vehicle coupled to a tractor at a fifth wheel coupling, (see at least Fig. 1 and Fig 2a and [0053] “a towing vehicle 13, such as a tractor, cab or truck that pulls a pair of trailers 12 (seen as a primary or first trailer 12a and a secondary or second trailer 12b) that are connected to each other via an active convertor dolly apparatus 14” and [0058] “coupling plate 15, commonly referred to as a fifth wheel coupling”) the method comprising:
with a force sensor of the autonomous electric vehicle, determining an observed longitudinal force at the fifth wheel coupling; (see at least [0083] “force sensors 80 such as strain gauges are incorporated into the pintle hook or hitch 26 forming the first trailer connector assembly 7. These force sensors 80 are configured to detect compression and tension in the hitch 26, corresponding generally to braking (deceleration) and acceleration of the tractor-trailer 10”)
with a first dynamic vehicle model, predicting a set of vehicle parameters, (see at least [0129] “driving session data may be used as training data by a machine learning algorithm, such as a neural network… to generate a trained algorithm capable of making predictions about when to apply torque and/or regenerative braking to the motor-generators of the dolly 14”, [0130] “customized optimization algorithms trained to make predictions that are specific to a given driver on a given route.”, [0131] “In a first example… if the route is very hilly, the algorithm 2130 may instruct the motor-generators to apply large amounts of torque on the uphill portions, even if it means draining the SOC of the batteries, based on the prediction that regenerative braking will soon recharge the SOC of the batteries on the downhill portions following the uphill portions.” See also [0100] “The intelligent controller 502 is also connected to a database 510 including road grade information 512 which can be stored within a database or based on sensor information, or real time road information by connecting the dolly intelligent controller 502 to wireless network.” demonstrating that this prediction is also performed based on the force sensor data, as claimed.)
Layfield 069 does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Ghandriz:
wherein predicting the set of vehicle parameters comprises a forward simulation of vehicle dynamics based on the observed longitudinal force; (see at least [0067] “S1 a model of vehicle dynamics describing dynamics of the multi-trailer heavy duty vehicle 100”, [0068] “model is based on Lagrangian dynamics”, “Start simulation”, “End simulation” and [0088] “The longitudinal forces act as inputs (decision variables) to the NOCP. By solving the NOCP, with the objective of minimizing the off-tracking, the optimal trajectories of the longitudinal forces are found throughout the manoeuvre. These longitudinal forces are then converted to torque requests that are met by the braking and propulsion actuators”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ghandriz with the invention of Layfield with the motivation of reducing off-tracking or trailer over-shooting, a problem that may occur with multi-trailer vehicles is that trailer units may veer off track during abrupt turns such as in evasive manoeuvres. (Ghandriz, [0004])
Layfield 069 (as modified by Ghandriz) discloses the following:
with a model of an autonomous controller, determining a vehicle command based on the set of vehicle parameters; (see at least [0131] “based on the prediction that regenerative braking will soon recharge the SOC of the batteries on the downhill portions following the uphill portions.”)
and facilitating control of a set of actuators of the autonomous electric vehicle based on the vehicle command. (see at least [0131] “based on the prediction that regenerative braking will soon recharge the SOC of the batteries on the downhill portions following the uphill portions.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, applicant has amended independent claim 1, and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application, and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection, outlined above. Therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to arguments on pages 9 and 10 of 13 that Ghandriz does not teach or suggest a forward simulation based on an observed longitudinal force, per claim 14, the Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that primary reference Layfield 069 discloses the use of observed (i.e. sensed, as best understood) longitudinal force sensors 80 that are used to operate the drive mode and generator mode of the motor-generators 36 (see [0083]) according to a trained machine learning algorithm. (see [0021]-[0022]) Therefore, the teaching or suggestion requirements of Ghandriz are merely the use of a longitudinal force term in a “forward simulation”, which is more explicitly taught by Ghandriz. Because this is not a requirement of Ghandriz, this argument is not persuasive.
In response to arguments on page 11 of 13 regarding whether robust controllers are well-known in the art and previous admissions made during an Interview, because Applicant contends that this agreement was never made, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of the term has been reinstated. See above rejections for details.
Applicant is reminded that, regardless of whether Applicant agreed to the terms, the Applicant’s disclosure remains silent with regards to what makes a controller robust. Therefore, the Applicant must choose one or the other:
The position that the term “robust controller” is not well known, and therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The position that the term is well-known, and therefore not indefinite, and represents a well-known, well-understood structure of the art.
Applicant does not get to “ride the fence” with regard to the metes and bounds of this term. Further, as this rejection has been previously provided, and is returning due to Applicant arguments, it is not considered to be new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
March 12, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669