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 Claims
Pending
1-2, 4-16, 18-20
Cancelled
3, 17
35 U.S.C. 103
1-2, 4-16, 18-20
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 11/20/2025, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed 08/27/2025. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/18/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 15-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez Gutierrez et al. (US 2020/0133281 A1, “Gomez”) and further in view of Berntorp et al. (US 9,568,915 B1, “Berntorp”).
Regarding claim 1: Gomez teaches: A computer-implemented method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle, the method comprising ([0017], [0019], [0063], [0027], [0028])
estimating a current vehicle state comprising at least velocity and acceleration ([0029], [0047], [0048]),
wherein the estimated current state is associated with a current state uncertainty ([0020], [0021], [0043], [0044], [0071]),
determining the current state uncertainty based on a measurement uncertainty associated with one or more sensor input signals ([0020], [0021], [0067]),
estimating a future vehicle state based on the current vehicle state, and on a predictive motion model of the vehicle ([0063], [0074], [0077]),
wherein the future vehicle state is associated with a future vehicle state uncertainty ([0072], [0074], [0077]),
[. . .]
defining a vehicle control envelope representing an operational limit of the vehicle ([0060], [0080], [0047]),
wherein the vehicle control envelope defines a range of vehicle states ([0060], [0080]),
comparing the estimated future vehicle state, and the associated future vehicle state uncertainty, to the vehicle control envelope ([0079], [0080], [0095]), and,
when a probability that the future vehicle state breaches the control envelope is above a configured threshold value ([0063], [0079]),
controlling the motion of the heavy-duty vehicle by limiting a motion capability of the vehicle ([0041], [0080], [0083], [0084]).
However, Gomez does not explicitly teach: wherein the future vehicle state uncertainty is based on an uncertainty associated with the predictive model such that the future vehicle state uncertainty is increased when the vehicle enters into a current state for which the predictive motion model has decreased accuracy.
Berntorp teaches: wherein the future vehicle state uncertainty is based on an uncertainty associated with the predictive model such that the future vehicle state uncertainty is increased when the vehicle enters into a current state for which the predictive motion model has decreased accuracy (Col. 9: vehicle state evolves dynamically in time according to nonlinear function with discrete time index, state space, inputs to system, noise acting on system, uncertainties including mathematical description, vehicle parameters. Col. 4: probabilistic motion model, account for simplified description of actual motion of vehicle, uncertainties from sensing true vehicle, obstacles, and environment states. FIG. 1A, input and uncertainty region 131a with uncertainty of moving to next state due to model uncertainty. “goodness” of each control input depends on probability of control input to move vehicle into state satisfying constraints on motion of vehicle. higher the probability, better the control input).
Gomez and Berntorp are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle predictive motion modeling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Gomez with the aspects of Berntorp to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a system and method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle wherein the future vehicle state uncertainty is based on an uncertainty associated with the predictive model such that the future vehicle state uncertainty is increased when the vehicle enters into a current state for which the predictive motion model has decreased accuracy. The motivation for modification would have been to determine motion of the vehicle can be achieved by evaluating the quality of the control input taking the vehicle from one state to another, instead of evaluating the entire motion (Berntorp, Col. 2), enabling the system to reduce the number of computations which increases processing efficiency (Berntorp, Col. 16). This motivation for modification is similarly applied to those claims which depend upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle state also comprises any of wheel slip, axle side slip, lateral and/or longitudinal wheel force, and yaw motion (Berntorp: Cols. 7-8: steering controller takes steering angle as input, brake controller takes reference deceleration or wheel slip as input, engine controller takes nominal velocity or acceleration as input, all controllers output torques. torques computed by motion planner can either circumvent vehicle-control system, or torques can be used as zero-level values of vehicle-control system, and steering angle, reference deceleration or wheel slip, and nominal velocity or acceleration are used as references to vehicle-control system). The motivation for modification would have been to determine motion of the vehicle can be achieved by evaluating the quality of the control input taking the vehicle from one state to another, instead of evaluating the entire motion (Berntorp, Col. 2), enabling the system to reduce the number of computations which increases processing efficiency (Berntorp, Col. 16).
Regarding claim 4: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1, comprising determining the future state uncertainty based on an uncertainty associated with the predictive motion model of the vehicle (Gomez: [0063], [0074], [0077]).
Regarding claim 5: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1, comprising determining the future state uncertainty based on a bounded behavior associated with one or more motion support devices (Gomez: [0060], [0063], [0080], [0047]).
Regarding claim 7: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1, comprising estimating the future vehicle state or states at least in part as a Gaussian mixture model probability density function (Berntorp: Col. 9: additive Gaussian PDF with zero mean and covariance matrix. Col. 12: control inputs are generated from the noise source of the dynamical system, with the nominal input as the mean value of the input. chosen as arising from Gaussian distribution, or as a PDF tailored to particular application. additive, Gaussian PDFs. Col. 10: desired motion modeled as probabilistic constraint in form of probability density function (PDF) over state of vehicle). The motivation for modification would have been to determine motion of the vehicle can be achieved by evaluating the quality of the control input taking the vehicle from one state to another, instead of evaluating the entire motion (Berntorp, Col. 2), enabling the system to reduce the number of computations which increases processing efficiency (Berntorp, Col. 16).
Regarding claim 8: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1, comprising estimating the future vehicle state or states between 0.5 to 1.5 seconds ahead in time from the current vehicle state (Gomez: [0043], [0044], [0048], [0063],[0074]). Gomez-Berntorp shows all elements per the claimed invention as explained above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the range “between 0.5 to 1.5 seconds ahead in time”. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Gomez-Berntorp with such a range in time, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 9: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1, comprising limiting a maximum velocity capability of the vehicle (Gomez: [0060], [0074], [0080], [0047]).
Regarding claim 15: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1, comprising performing a corrective action by the vehicle in response to the probability that the future vehicle state breaching the control envelope being above a configured threshold value, wherein the corrective action comprises reducing a desired global force communicated to an motion support device coordination module (Gomez: [0041], [0080], [0048], [0074], [0084]).
Regarding claim 16: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1, comprising controlling the vehicle by requesting wheel slip values and/or wheel speed values from one or more motion support devices of the vehicle (Gomez: [0029], [0041], [0080], [0084]).
Regarding claim 18: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program code is run on a computer or on processing circuitry of a control unit (Gomez: [0027],[0028]).
Regarding claim 19: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: A control unit for determining an allowable vehicle state space of an articulated vehicle, the control unit being configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 (Gomez: [0027], [0028], [0063]).
Regarding claim 20: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: A vehicle comprising a control unit according to claim 19 (Gomez: [0039]-[0041], [0027]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez Gutierrez et al. (US 2020/0133281 A1), Berntorp et al. (US 9,568,915 B1), and further in view of Di Cairano et al. (US 2018/0017971 A1, “Cairano”).
Regarding claim 12: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1. However, Gomez-Berntorp do not explicitly teach: comprising limiting a maximum yaw moment capability of the vehicle.
Cairano teaches: comprising limiting a maximum yaw moment capability of the vehicle ([0045],[0054], [0070], [0097]). Gomez-Berntorp and Cairano are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Gomez-Berntorp with the aspects of Cairano to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the vehicle state also comprises limiting a maximum yaw moment capability of the vehicle. The motivation for modification would have been to improve safety of the system and method, and providing cooperative control of different components of the vehicle having a common objective of moving the vehicle according to a desired trajectory (Cairano, [0004]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez Gutierrez et al. (US 2020/0133281 A1), Berntorp et al. (US 9,568,915 B1), and further in view of Barton-Sweeney et al. (US 2022/0204017 A1, “Barton”).
Regarding claim 10: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1. However, Gomez-Berntorp do not explicitly teach: comprising limiting a maximum acceleration capability of the vehicle.
Barton teaches: comprising limiting a maximum acceleration capability of the vehicle ([0018], [0066]). Gomez-Berntorp and Barton are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Gomez-Berntorp with the aspects of Barton to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the vehicle state also comprises limiting a maximum acceleration capability of the vehicle. The motivation for modification would have been to more effectively stabilize the vehicle during operation, which enables the vehicle faster recovery when in an unsafe state (Barton, [0011])
Claim(s) 11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez Gutierrez et al. (US 2020/0133281 A1), Berntorp et al. (US 9,568,915 B1), and further in view of Mao et al. (US 2017/0137012 A1, “Mao”).
Regarding claim 11: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1. However, Gomez-Berntorp do not explicitly teach: comprising limiting a maximum steering angle capability of the vehicle.
Mao teaches: comprising limiting a maximum steering angle capability of the vehicle ([0034], [0037], [0027]). Gomez-Berntorp and Mao are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Gomez-Berntorp with the aspects of Mao to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises limiting capabilities of specific vehicle parameters, including wheels, axles, and steering angle. The motivation for modification would have been to improve vehicle performance by automatically modifying a torque split between the front and rear drive axles so as to optimally balance powertrain acceleration requirements (Mao, [0005]) while bringing vehicle dynamics performance back within the performance envelope (Mao, [0006]).
Regarding claim 13: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1. However, Gomez-Berntorp do not explicitly teach: comprising limiting a capability of a specific vehicle axle.
Mao teaches: comprising limiting a capability of a specific vehicle axle ([0009], [0034], [0037]-[0038], [0032]). Gomez-Berntorp and Mao are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Gomez-Berntorp with the aspects of Mao to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises limiting capabilities of specific vehicle parameters, including wheels, axles, and steering angle. The motivation for modification would have been to improve vehicle performance by automatically modifying a torque split between the front and rear drive axles so as to optimally balance powertrain acceleration requirements (Mao, [0005]) while bringing vehicle dynamics performance back within the performance envelope (Mao, [0006]).
Regarding claim 14: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1. However, Gomez-Berntorp do not explicitly teach: comprising limiting a capability of a specific vehicle wheel.
Mao teaches: comprising limiting a capability of a specific vehicle wheel ([0009], [0034], [0032]). Gomez-Berntorp and Mao are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Gomez-Berntorp with the aspects of Mao to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises limiting capabilities of specific vehicle parameters, including wheels, axles, and steering angle. The motivation for modification would have been to improve vehicle performance by automatically modifying a torque split between the front and rear drive axles so as to optimally balance powertrain acceleration requirements (Mao, [0005]) while bringing vehicle dynamics performance back within the performance envelope (Mao, [0006]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez Gutierrez et al. (US 2020/0133281 A1), Berntorp et al. (US 9,568,915 B1), and further in view of Nilsson (US 2010/0191421 A1, “Nilsson”).
Regarding claim 6: Gomez-Berntorp further teach: The method according to claim 1. However, Gomez-Berntorp do not explicitly teach: wherein the vehicle is an articulated vehicle comprising a plurality of vehicle units, where the method further comprises estimating the respective future vehicle state separately for each vehicle unit in the plurality of vehicle units.
Nilsson teaches: wherein the vehicle is an articulated vehicle comprising a plurality of vehicle units, where the method further comprises estimating the respective future vehicle state separately for each vehicle unit in the plurality of vehicle units ([0098]-[0099]). Gomez-Berntorp and Nilsson are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Gomez-Berntorp with the aspects of Nilsson to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the vehicle is an articulated vehicle comprising a plurality of vehicle units, where the method further comprises estimating the respective future vehicle state separately for each vehicle unit in the plurality of vehicle units. The motivation for modification would have been to allow for increasing the safety of vehicles, particularly of trucks with attached trailers as well as for increasing the driving comfort (Nilsson, [0168]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-16, 18-20 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
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 MADISON B EMMETT whose telephone number is (303)297-4231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00 ET.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/MADISON B EMMETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658