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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on July 08, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/remarks filed July 08, 2025, with respect to claims 2-6 and 8-12 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, said claims 2-6 and 8-12 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed July 08, 2025, with respect to claims 2-6 and 10-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Accordingly, claims 2-6 and 10-12 are objected as allowable subject matter.
Applicant's arguments/remarks filed July 08, 2025, with respect to claims 1, 7-9 and 13-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as explained below.
Applicant respectfully asserts with respect to claims 1 and 17 the following:
The cited prior art fails to meet the limitations “…determine a steering angle error based on a difference between an estimated turning rate based on signals from the odometry system over a period of time and an actual turning rate based on signals from the steering ground truth system over the period of time…”.
The Examiner respectfully submits with respect to claims 1 and 17 the following:
The language of claims 1 and 17 only specifies “over a period of time”, it does not establish which period of time (instantaneous, previous time, future time, a time step, etc.). Moreover, all the data/computations passing thru yaw prediction module 240 will also pass thru vehicle yaw rate correction module 228 and vehicle heading calculating module 234, as shown in Yunus Figure 3.
Applicant respectfully asserts with respect to claims 14 and 18 the following:
The cited prior art fails to meet the limitations “…wherein the steering controller is configured to output a notification in response to a difference of at least 10% between the estimated turning rate and the actual turning rate…”.
The Examiner respectfully submits with respect to claims 14 and 18 the following:
The language of claims 14 and 18 does not specifies what type of notification is outputted. More specifically, it does not provide/specifies if the notification is sent to a Human Interface Device (display, speaker, lights, etc.) or any other output means. Accordingly, the Examiner is interpreted the “…wherein the steering controller is configured to output a notification in response to a difference of at least 10% between the estimated turning rate and the actual turning rate…” as if the notification is just code written in the controller when performing the error calculations which Yunus inherently do.
Applicant respectfully asserts with respect to claim 7 the following:
The cited prior art fails to meet the limitations “…wherein the steering controller is configured to determine the steering angle error based on a Gaussian optimization function for a period of time…”.
The Examiner respectfully submits with respect to claim 7 the following:
"Gaussian optimization" includes at least Gaussian processes for optimizing functions and geometry optimization.
Further on, MADSEN teaches on Figures 17-18 the use of Gaussian probabilities based on GPS signal strength, where the data is use for steering angles of the wheels on vehicle 100 that will determine the heading errors as shown in MADSEN Figure 19.
Applicant respectfully asserts with respect to claims 8-9 the following:
The cited prior art fails to meet the limitations “…wherein the steering controller is configured to pause determination of the steering angle error or the output of the control signals in response to signals from the speed sensor indicating a speed of less than or equal to 5 m/s…” and “…wherein the steering controller is configured to pause determination of the steering angle error or the output of the control signals in response to signals from the speed sensor indicating a speed of less than or equal to 1 m/s…”.
The Examiner respectfully submits with respect to claims 8-9 the following:
In both claims 8-9, the pause in the determination of the steering angle error is made when the speed sensor indicates a speed less than 5m/s in claim 8 and a speed less than 1m/s in claim 9.
Accordingly, in both claims 8-9, speed of zero m/s is included in the threshold which inherently means the vehicle is not moving and Yunus inherently discloses that when the speed is zero the determination will be paused.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 2-6 and 10-12 are objected as allowable subject matter.
Claims 1, 7-9 and 13-20 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (Yunus – US 2021/0170947 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yunus discloses:
A steering angle error monitoring system (trailer assist system 12 including vehicle sensors 210, vehicle control 250 and algorithms/control-blocks {200a, 200b, 300}: Figs. 1, 2A, 2B and 3) comprising:
a steering ground truth system (trailer assist system 12 uses {{{a high precision and accuracy measurement systems such as a RTK GNSS/INS measurement system to get the ground truth of vehicle/trailer states}}} during the maneuvers of interest for various surfaces, inclinations, and surface conditions (e.g., roughness, friction, etc.) : Fig. 3 and [0016, 0045, 0051]) for a vehicle (vehicle 10 and trailer 16: Fig. 1);
an odometry system (vehicle sensors 210: Fig. 3 and [0020, 0027]) for the vehicle (vehicle 10 and trailer 16: Fig. 1), the odometry system (vehicle sensors 210: Fig. 3 and [0020, 0027]) comprising:
a steering angle sensor (steering wheel angle sensor: Fig. 3 and [0020-0022, 0027, 0028, 0035]); and
a speed sensor (one or more wheel speed sensors: Fig. 3 and [0020-0022, 0031, 0036]); and
a steering controller (vehicle control 250: Fig. 3 and [0010, 0015, 0053-0054]) configured to:
determine a steering angle error based on a difference between an estimated turning rate (Figs. 2A-3 and [0021-0022, 0036-0037, 0048]: “Vehicle sensors 210 are used to obtain an estimated yaw rate, tire radius/ circumference estimation module 224, and velocity estimation module 226 for the vehicle control 250”) based on signals from the odometry system (Figs. 2A-3 and [0043-0045]: “yaw rate estimate accuracy is based on sensor 210 resolution sensitivities”) over a period of time (Figs. 2A-3 and [0026, 0027]: “time t [Wingdings font/0xE0] time step t+1 in yaw prediction module 240”) and an actual turning rate (Figs. 2A-3 and [0043-0048]: “tire radius/circumference estimation module 224 passes estimated yaw angle/turn rate to yaw rate correction module 228, through prediction module 240, correction module 228 then determines the angle error and corrects based on estimated and actual vehicle yaw rates”) based on signals from the steering ground truth system (trailer assist system 12 uses {{{a high precision and accuracy measurement systems such as a RTK GNSS/INS measurement system to get the ground truth of vehicle/trailer states}}} during the maneuvers of interest for various surfaces, inclinations, and surface conditions (e.g., roughness, friction, etc.) : Fig. 3 and [0016, 0045, 0051]) over the period of time (Figs. 2A-3 and [0026, 0027]: “time t [Wingdings font/0xE0] time step t+1 in yaw prediction module 240”); and
output control signals to output a notification or adjust a steering routine based on the steering angle error (Figs. 2A-3 and [0051, 0052, 0053]: “vehicle calculating module 234 that receives corrected vehicle yaw rates and calculates vehicle heading and position and passes heading and position information to vehicle control 250 to adjust vehicle heading and yaw rate at time t”).
Regarding claim 17, Yunus discloses:
A vehicle (vehicle 10 and trailer 16: Fig. 1) comprising:
a steering ground truth system (trailer assist system 12 uses {{{a high precision and accuracy measurement systems such as a RTK GNSS/INS measurement system to get the ground truth of vehicle/trailer states}}} during the maneuvers of interest for various surfaces, inclinations, and surface conditions (e.g., roughness, friction, etc.) : Fig. 3 and [0016, 0045, 0051]);
an odometry system (vehicle sensors 210: Fig. 3 and [0020, 0027]) comprising:
a steering angle sensor (steering wheel angle sensor: Fig. 3 and [0020-0022, 0027, 0028, 0035]); and
a speed sensor (one or more wheel speed sensors: Fig. 3 and [0020-0022, 0031, 0036]); and
a steering controller (vehicle control 250: Fig. 3 and [0010, 0015, 0053-0054]) configured to:
determine a steering angle error based on a difference between an estimated turning rate (Figs. 2A-3 and [0021-0022, 0036-0037, 0048]: “Vehicle sensors 210 are used to obtain an estimated yaw rate, tire radius/ circumference estimation module 224, and velocity estimation module 226 for the vehicle control 250”) based on signals from the odometry system (Figs. 2A-3 and [0043-0045]: “yaw rate estimate accuracy is based on sensor 210 resolution sensitivities”) over a period of time (Figs. 2A-3 and [0026, 0027]: “time t [Wingdings font/0xE0] time step t+1 in yaw prediction module 240”) and an actual turning rate (Figs. 2A-3 and [0043-0048]: “tire radius/circumference estimation module 224 passes estimated yaw angle/turn rate to yaw rate correction module 228, through prediction module 240, correction module 228 then determines the angle error and corrects based on estimated and actual vehicle yaw rates”) based on signals from the steering ground truth system (trailer assist system 12 uses {{{a high precision and accuracy measurement systems such as a RTK GNSS/INS measurement system to get the ground truth of vehicle/trailer states}}} during the maneuvers of interest for various surfaces, inclinations, and surface conditions (e.g., roughness, friction, etc.) : Fig. 3 and [0016, 0045, 0051]) over the period of time (Figs. 2A-3 and [0026, 0027]: “time t [Wingdings font/0xE0] time step t+1 in yaw prediction module 240”); and
output control signals to output a notification based on the steering angle error (Figs. 2A-3 and [0051, 0052, 0053]: “vehicle calculating module 234 that receives corrected vehicle yaw rates and calculates vehicle heading and position and passes heading and position information to vehicle control 250 to adjust vehicle heading and yaw rate at time t”).
Regarding claim 13, Yunus discloses the steering angle error monitoring system according to claim 1, and further on Yunus also discloses:
wherein the steering controller is configured to continuously determine a particular steering angle error and output the control signals at all times other than during a pause (Yunus [0026-0032, 0036-0039, 0043-0045, 0048, 0051-0054]).
Regarding claim 14, Yunus discloses the steering angle error monitoring system according to claim 1, and further on Yunus also discloses:
wherein the steering controller (vehicle control 250: Fig. 3 and [0010, 0015, 0053-0054]) is configured to output a notification in response to a difference of at least 10% between the estimated turning rate and the actual turning rate (Yunus [0026-0032, 0036-0039, 0043-0045, 0048, 0051-0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Yunus discloses the steering angle error monitoring system according to claim 1, and further on Yunus also discloses:
wherein the steering controller (vehicle control 250: Fig. 3 and [0010, 0015, 0053-0054]) is configured to periodically determine a steering angle error and to periodically output the control signals as the vehicle travels during a life of the vehicle (Yunus [0026-0032, 0036-0039, 0043-0045, 0048, 0051-0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Yunus discloses the steering angle error monitoring system according to claim 1, and further on Yunus also discloses:
wherein the steering controller (vehicle control 250: Fig. 3 and [0010, 0015, 0053-0054]) is configured to automatically determine the steering angle error and to automatically periodically output the control signals based on the steering angle in response to a turning of the vehicle (Yunus [0026-0032, 0036-0039, 0043-0045, 0048, 0051-0054]).
Regarding claim 18, Yunus discloses the vehicle according to claim 17, and further on Yunus also discloses:
wherein the speed controller (vehicle control 250: Fig. 3 and [0010, 0015, 0053-0054]) is configured to output the notification in response to the steering angle error comprising a difference of at least 10% between the estimated turning rate and the actual turning rate (Yunus [0026-0032, 0036-0039, 0043-0045, 0048, 0051-0054]).
Regarding claim 19, Yunus discloses the vehicle according to claim 17, and further on Yunus also discloses:
wherein the steering ground truth system (trailer assist system 12 uses {{{a high precision and accuracy measurement systems such as a RTK GNSS/INS measurement system to get the ground truth of vehicle/trailer states}}} during the maneuvers of interest for various surfaces, inclinations, and surface conditions (e.g., roughness, friction, etc.) : Fig. 3 and [0016, 0045, 0051]) comprises at least one of a global positioning satellite (GPS) system, a camera and a gyroscope (Fig. 3 and [0017, 0020]: “global positioning system (GPS) sensor”, “one or more cameras on the vehicle and/or trailer” and “a gyroscope”).
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.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Yunus – US 2021/0170947 A1), in view of (MADSEN – US 2018/0373264 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yunus discloses the steering angle error monitoring system according to claim 1.
But Yunus does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the steering controller is configured to determine the steering angle error based on a Gaussian optimization function for a period of time.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, MADSEN discloses/teaches the following:
Controlling a vehicle by steering the vehicle along a desired path (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0026-0033]) and also teaches that control system 108 uses global navigation system, GNSS receiver 104, camera 102, and inertial system 106 to more accurately control movement of vehicle 100) and teaches determining the steering angle error based on a Gaussian optimization function for a period of time (Figs. 17-18 and Paragraphs [0088-0092], control system 108 can continuously determine probabilities 270, 272, and 274 based on GPS signal strength, known visual odometry signal drift, and other probability distributions based on repeated passes through rows 182 or terrain that cause errors or uncertainty in collected sensory information.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of MADSEN into Yunus for the purpose of avoiding a collision by taking control of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the steering control system of Yunus incorporating additional controller programming instructions as taught by MADSEN for the purpose of avoiding a collision by taking control of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Yunus discloses the steering angle error monitoring system according to claim 1.
But Yunus does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the steering controller is configured to pause determination of a first steering angle or the output of the control signals in response to signals from the speed sensor indicating a speed of less than or equal to 5 m/s.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, MADSEN discloses/teaches the following:
Controlling a vehicle by steering the vehicle along a desired path (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0026-0033]) and also teaches that control system 108 uses global navigation system, GNSS receiver 104, camera 102, and inertial system 106 to more accurately control movement of vehicle 100) and teaches pausing the output of the control in response to signals from the speed sensor indicating a speed of less than or equal to 5 m/s (Paragraphs [0060-0062]), control system 108 recalibrates vehicle odometry based on global navigation system GNSS to account for velocity drift and position errors, however control system 108 will stop vehicle when errors accumulate and it's no longer possible to determine heading and position based on erroneous visual optometry data, from, for example, velocity drift at low speeds or sensor dead zones that cause loss in confidence of data.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of MADSEN into Yunus for the purpose of avoiding a collision by taking control of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the steering control system of Yunus incorporating additional controller programming instructions as taught by MADSEN for the purpose of avoiding a collision by taking control of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Yunus discloses the steering angle error monitoring system according to claim 1.
But Yunus does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the steering controller is configured to pause determination of a first steering angle or the output of the control signals in response to signals from the speed sensor indicating a speed of less than or equal to 1 m/s.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, MADSEN discloses/teaches the following:
Controlling a vehicle by steering the vehicle along a desired path (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0026-0033]) and also teaches pausing the output ( stopping vehicle 100) of the control signals (Paragraph [0092], after reaching a threshold/limit by the control system 108 of driving into headlands or limited vehicle turnaround path) in response to the actual turning rate exceeding two degrees per second (Fig. 18, turning rate is 90 degrees; Paragraphs [0061, 0075-0078, 0090-0092 and 0104]), control system 108 stops the vehicle 100 and alerts a remote operator to check the state of the system.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of MADSEN into Yunus for the purpose of avoiding a collision by taking control of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the steering control system of Yunus incorporating additional controller programming instructions as taught by MADSEN for the purpose of avoiding a collision by taking control of the vehicle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Yunus – US 2021/0170947 A1), in view of an Examiner’s Official Notice.
Regarding claim 20, Yunus discloses the vehicle according to claim 17.
But Yunus does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the steering angle sensor comprises a potentiometer and wherein the speed sensor comprises a wheel encoder.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it’s well-known is the art to have steering angle sensors that are potentiometers and also to have speed sensors that are wheel encoders, because steering angle sensors usually use a potentiometer setup providing a simple yet effective way to measure steering input, and also speed sensors usually use wheel encoders providing precise vehicle speed and position data, crucial for various safety and convenience features like ABS and traction control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vehicle steering control system of Yunus incorporating steering angle sensors that are potentiometers and also to have speed sensors that are wheel encoders as taught by Common Knowledge because steering angle sensors usually use a potentiometer setup providing a simple yet effective way to measure steering input, and also speed sensors usually use wheel encoders providing precise vehicle speed and position data, crucial for various safety and convenience features like ABS and traction control.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. 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.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747