DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 1/20/2026 after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 13-15, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Replace “an adjusted vehicle command” in the last limitation of each of these claims with “the adjusted vehicle command” for proper antecedent basis support.
Replace “maintaining recovery stability from exceeding the extended stability handling envelope” in the last limitation of each of these claims with “maintaining recovery stability within the extended stability handling envelope”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a vehicle command module to determine a vehicle command …; an unsafe command prediction module to predict …; an adjusted vehicle command module to adjust …; and a controller to control …. in claim 17, the unsafe command prediction module is further configured to analyze … in claim 18, the controller is further configured to operate… in claim 19, and the controller is further configured to provide haptic feedback … in claim 20.
As per Applicant’s specifications the vehicle command module, the unsafe command prediction, the adjusted vehicle command module, and the controller are all included in the shared vehicle controller 310. The specifications further teaches that the controller 310 is implemented using a non-linear model predictive control (NMPC) framework (see [0063] and [0081] of the specifications, as filed). The specifications further teaches that “(t)he functions described may be implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination thereof. If implemented in hardware, an example hardware configuration may comprise a processing system in a device” (see [0120]). Additional description of the NMPC is given in at least [0082]-[0093] of the specifications and figs. 5-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 8-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaseck et al., US PGPUB 2020/0216090 A1 (hereinafter as Zaseck) in view of “Beal, Craig E., Carrie G. Bobier, and J. Christian Gerdes. "Controlling vehicle instability through stable handling envelopes." Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. Vol. 54761. 2011” (hereinafter as DSCC-2011).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zaseck teaches a method for a shared control, dynamic driving system [see e.g. the title, figs. 1-4, and [0004]], the method comprising:
determining a vehicle command requested by a vehicle operator of an ego vehicle [note e.g. in [0016] that the driver is initially controlling the vehicle up until a certain control input from the driver meets a certain criteria];
predicting the ego vehicle entering an unstable, uncontrollable operating range oi the vehicle command is performed [again, see [0016] and note the identification of a future state of the vehicle according to the control input of concern, wherein that future state violates a state constraint; see also [0031]-[0034] describing the prediction of the future state; see also [0037] and note the identification of a potentially unsafe operating condition of the vehicle; see also [0029]];
adjusting the vehicle command to maintain control of the ego vehicle in an unstable, controllable operating range of an extended stability handling region; and controlling the ego vehicle according to the adjusted vehicle command to autonomously operate the ego vehicle in the extended stability handling region of the unstable, controllable operating range while maintaining recovery stability within the extended stability handling region [note step 460 in fig. 4 indicating adjustment to the initially identified input by modifying a target path; note the modifying step 320 in fig. 3; note steps 460 and 470 in fig. 4 as well as [0037] and note transitioning the vehicle to a safe operating range; note also the controller 340 in fig. 3; note also [0052] indicating selective intervention; note in [0016] indicating abiding by a state constraint including a certain stability handling region (within certain constraints such as a lane defined by certain boundaries) for safety; see also in [0055] modifying the control to a certain extent (an extended stability handling region) to avoid violating state constraints, i.e. extensions applied to the control range, as also seen in fig. 5 by comparing the top and bottom figs, noting extending the control range; note the autonomous operation in [0057]; note the selective intervention in [0014] and [0028]].
Zaseck does not explicitly teach that the predicted unstable, uncontrollable operating range is outside of an extended stability handling envelope. Neither does it teach adjusting the vehicle command to maintain control of the ego vehicle in an unstable, controllable operating range of the extended stability handling envelope.
It also does not teach that controlling the ego vehicle according to the adjusted vehicle command is to operate the ego vehicle in the extended stability handling envelope of the unstable, controllable operating range, outside of a stability handling envelope while maintaining recovery stability within the extended stability handling envelope.
DSCC-2011 teaches a stability handling envelope for vehicle control [note the stable handling envelope described in the last paragraph of p. 6 and shown in fig. 8 ] as well as operating a vehicle in a range of an extended stability handling envelope whose operating range is outside of the stability handling envelope, while maintaining recovery stability within the extended stability handling envelope [note the alternative extended stability handling envelope shown in fig. 11 and described in the 2 paragraphs before the figure and the portion beneath the figure; note by comparing the coordinates that the handling envelope variant shown in fig. 11 is an extended alternative for the one of fig. 8, i.e. there are portions in the operating range of the envelope of fig. 11 that are outside the range of the envelope of fig. 8 but are still capable of maintaining recovery stability; especially note in the first paragraph under “Alterative Envelopes” on p. 7 adjusting/extending the boundaries of the stable handling envelope].
DSCC-2011 also teaches an uncontrollable range outside the extended stability handling envelope [note from the abstract loss of control outside the handling envelopes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Zaseck and DSCC-2011 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the safety control ranges utilizing the extending stability handling envelope taught by DSCC-2011to Zaseck’s interventional vehicle control thus specifying controlling the ego vehicle according to the adjusted vehicle command to operate the ego vehicle in the extended stability handling envelope of the unstable, controllable operating range, outside of a stability handling envelope while maintaining recovery stability within the extended stability handling envelope, as per the combined teachings of Zaseck and DSCC-2011. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow drifting by extending the control envelope thus providing experienced drivers a more natural and less intrusive feeling, as suggested by DSCC-2011 [see e.g. the 2 paragraphs before fig. 11 and the portion beneath the figure].
Independent claims 9 and 17 are rejected analogous to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 9, Zaseck also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon [see e.g. [0085] and [0007]] for a shared control, dynamic driving system [see e.g. the title, figs. 1-4, and [0004]], the program code being executed by a processor [see e.g. [0077]] and comprising program code for performing the operations of claim 1 [see the rejection of claim 1].
Regarding independent claim 17, Zaseck also teaches a system for a shared control, dynamic driving system [see e.g. the title, figs.1-4, and [0004]], the system comprising: a vehicle command module; an unsafe command prediction module; an adjusted vehicle command module; and a controller [note the processor 110 shown as part of the control system 170 in fig 2] to perform the operations of claim 1 [see the rejection of claim 1].
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are respectively incorporated.
Zaseck further teaches that predicting the ego vehicle entering the unstable, uncontrollable operating range comprises analyzing a cost associated with performing the vehicle command to predict whether the ego vehicle will enter the unstable, uncontrollable operating range [see e.g. [0051] and note the cost function implemented by the model predictive control (MPC) routine that minimizes deviations from the state constraint, i.e. quantifies the degree of separation between stable and unstable regions in the controllable operating range].
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 are respectively incorporated.
Zaseck further teaches that predicting comprises determining the vehicle command is a violation of a safety constraint [again, see [0016] and note the identification of a future state of the vehicle according to the control input of concern, wherein that future state violates a state constraint; see also [0037] indicating that the state constraints are related to safety tolerances; see also the second half of [0005]; of [0015]; and of [0052]].
Regarding claims 4 and 12 the rejection of claims 3 and 11 are respectively incorporated.
Zaseck further teaches that the safety constraint violation comprises a spin-out and/or a track bounds violation [note the first half of [0028] indicating lateral boundaries (such as edges of a road/driveway/etc.. ) of a trajectory that are associated with state constraints].
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 are respectively incorporated.
Zaseck doesn’t explicitly teach that the adjusted vehicle command comprises an adjusted steering and/or engine torque of the ego vehicle.
DSCC-2011 further teaches an adjusted vehicle command that comprises an adjusted steering and/or engine torque of an ego vehicle [see e.g. the last paragraph in the section entitled “A Stable Handling Envelope” and note the steering augmentation by the controller].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Zaseck and DSCC-2011 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaseck’s interventional vehicle control by explicitly specifying that the adjusted vehicle command comprises an adjusted steering and/or engine torque of the ego vehicle, as per the teachings of DSCC-2011. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing system-based control interventions that cause operation of the vehicle in a manner that augments the control of the human driver to avoid accidents due to loss of control, as suggested by DSCC-2011 [the last paragraph in the section entitled “A Stable Handling Envelope” and note the steering augmentation by the controller as well as the abstract].
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of independent claim 17 is fully incorporated.
Zaseck doesn’t explicitly teach that the controller is further configured to operate the ego vehicle in performing a drifting maneuver.
DSCC-2011 further teaches an adjustment that operates an ego vehicle in performing a drifting maneuver [see e.g. the end of the first paragraph under “Alternative Envelopes” indicating allowing drifting of the vehicle by the control mechanism].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Zaseck and DSCC-2011 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaseck’s interventional vehicle control by explicitly specifying operating the ego vehicle in performing a drifting maneuver, as per the teachings of DSCC-2011. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing system-based control interventions that cause operation of the vehicle in a manner that augments the control of the human driver to avoid accidents due to loss of control, as suggested by DSCC-2011 [the last paragraph in the section entitled “A Stable Handling Envelope” and note the steering augmentation by the controller; see also the end of the first paragraph under “Alternative Envelopes” as well as the abstract].
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaseck in view of DSCC-2011 (as applied to claim 1 (for claims 5 and 6) and claim 9 (for claims 13 and 14) above), and further in view of “Erlien, Stephen M., Susumu Fujita, and Joseph Christian Gerdes. "Shared steering control using safe envelopes for obstacle avoidance and vehicle stability." IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 17.2 (2015): 441-451” (hereinafter as IEEE-2015).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 are respectively incorporated.
The previously combined art doesn’t explicitly teach that the controlling comprises operating the ego vehicle in an extreme and/or unstable domain of the extended stability handling envelope.
IEEE-2015 teaches operating an ego vehicle in an extreme and/or unstable domain of an extended stability handling envelope [see e.g. fig. 10 and especially note the portion of the domain between instance 4 and instance 5; note in the last paragraph on the left column of p. 10 that the vehicle is operating briefly outside the stability handling envelope; note that at instance 5 the vehicle is re-stabilized by a large steering augmentation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and IEEE-2015, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zaseck’s interventional vehicle control that has been modified by use of the stability handling envelope and the extended stability handling envelope framework taught by DSCC-2011 by explicitly specifying that the controlling comprises operating the ego vehicle in an extreme and/or unstable domain of the extended stability handling envelope, as per the teachings of IEEE-2015. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow trading-off between vehicle stability and other factors such as obstacle avoidance in real time, as suggested by IEEE-2015 [see the last paragraph on the left column of p. 10].
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the rejection of claims 5 and 13 are respectively incorporated.
IEEE-2015 further teaches that the operating in the extreme and/or unstable domain comprises performing a drifting maneuver by the ego vehicle [again, see in the last paragraph on the left column of p. 10 that the vehicle is operating briefly outside the stability handling envelope; note also the large steering augmentation to restabilize the vehicle].
See the rejections of claims 5 and 13 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaseck in view of DSCC-2011 (as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, respectively), and further in view of Fields et al., US PGPUB 2021/0394767 A1 (hereinafter as Fields).
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 20, the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are respectively incorporated.
The previously combined art doesn’t explicitly teach that the controlling comprises providing haptic feedback to a driver of the ego vehicle during the controlling of the ego vehicle according to the adjusted vehicle command.
Fields teaches providing haptic feedback to a driver of an ego vehicle during the controlling of the ego vehicle according to an autonomously-adjusted or initiated vehicle command [see e.g. [0036] indicating the incorporation of haptic feedback as a notification to the human operator in the event of a change to the autonomous capabilities of the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Fields, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zaseck’s performing of the adjusted vehicle command by explicitly specifying providing haptic feedback to a driver of the ego vehicle during the controlling of the ego vehicle according to the adjusted vehicle command, as per the teachings of Fields. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable providing an intrusive notification to the human operator which may help them re-focus on the notification and/or road or vehicle conditions that require attention, as suggested by Fields [see e.g. [0052]].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the previously presented claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, these objections have been withdrawn. Applicant is, however, referred to the claim objections newly presented above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully reiterates that while this application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” they are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been accordingly reasserted above.
Regarding the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s amendments to explicitly indicate controlling the ego vehicle according to the adjusted vehicle command to operate the vehicle within a specific operating range of an extending handling envelope, in conjunction with the other limitations, serve to overcome the rejections. The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have thus been respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes the following cited prior art:
Yavrucuk, Ilkay, J. V. R. Prasad, and Suraj Unnikrishnan. "Envelope protection for autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles." Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics 32.1 (2009): 248-261, which teaches an envelope protection system to be used during aggressive maneuvering [see e.g. abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172