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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023 before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 18, it lacks adequate written description in regards to the element “…on the basis of a Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree method and/or a Probabilistic Roadmap method”.
While this limitation as grounds in the specification/original claim set (from the original claim 2); the specification only repeats this limitation at an in ipsis verbis level (i.e. just repeats the claim language) or equivalent level of generality.
In the specification there is no details as to how to implement a routine which is based on both a Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree and a Probabilistic Roadmap. Further when searching for these concepts no references in the general were found to teach algorithms/methods which make use of both for path planning.
While both are separately well known concepts in the art for path planning, there are no teachings for implementing both, when taught they are separate concepts used separately.
Given that the applicant’s specification only repeats this limitation on an in ipsis verbis level and there is contemplation of or guidance as to how to implement a path planning method/algorithm which is both a Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree and a Probabilistic Roadmap, nor does such a combined type algorithm appear to be known in the art in general, claim 18 lacks adequate written description for the basis being both a Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree and a Probabilistic Roadmap (I.e. the “and” combination of the “and/or” lacks adequate written description).
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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “A method for operating an adjustment system…” however there is on clear transition from the preamble to the claim body.
The claim recites various physical details of the components the “adjustment system” and how they operate, it is unclear if the operation of these components is the “method” being claimed or if the claimed method some other steps or function “for” an adjustment system that has components which operate in the recited ways.
Additionally claim 1 it literally claiming “a method for operating an adjustment system” however the “path planning routine” is not part of this adjustment system, instead it is a part of the “control arrangement” does this mean that various limitations (routines) of the “control arrangement” of the method claim(s) are not actually claimed?
Claims 2-14 all depend on claim 1 and inherit this same issue in that it unclear what recited functions are the claimed method versus what are steps performed by the device (adjustment system and/or control arrangement) which the method is applied/linked to?
Claims 1-20 are additionally 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the limitation “wherein the control arrangement has an obstacle representation of objects in the interior for collision testing during the adjustment” renders the scope of protection unclear.
It is unclear if this is attempting to claim detecting of a collision during the adjustment process itself (i.e. as the parts are physically moving they are monitored (tested) if they are/have collided) or if the collision testing is part of the planning process (i.e. prior to actual physical adjustments) in that an adjustment path is reviewed/analyzed for potential collisions?
The various dependent claims inherit this lack of clarity concerning the bounds of “for collision testing during the adjustment”
Claims 7-8 and 11 are additionally 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, it recites that interior element(s) are defined as either “independent” or “cooperative”; the issue with this as the definitions for independent and cooperative as currently written are not mutually exclusive however they are as claimed (from “or”) as exclusive.
As such it is unclear if a hypothetical element would be independent or cooperative if over a first portion of an adjustment routine it is independently adjustable but over a second different potion of the adjustment routine if it is jointly adjusted. Would this hypothetical element be defined as both independent and cooperative? (which would meet the definitions of the claim but would go against the “or” of claim). Does the “cooperative” designation overwrite the “independent” designation? (in that if at any point over an adjustment path for an element, if a portion is jointly adjustable then that part is cooperative not independent?). Does an interior element’s classification as cooperative or independent change depending on which section of the adjustment path it is on? It is unclear how to interpret the definitions as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, it depends on claim 7 and does not overcome the issues concerning “independent” and “cooperative” elements as defined in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites in response to a collision in a tested overall adjustment path various “renewed” divisions and/or assignments. The issue with this is that “a renewed division into independent and/or dependent interior elements” and “a renewed assignment of the priorities” lack antecedent basis. Claim 11 depends on claim 6, (which in turn depends on claim 1). Claim 6 (and claim 1) do not introduce a division into independent or dependent interior element (which is introduced in claim 7) nor does claim 6/1 introduce the assignment of priorities to elements (which is introduced in claim 9). As such these two “renewed” elements lack proper antecedent basis in that claim 11 at no point has reference to a initial division into independent/dependent or assignment of priorities in which to “renew”.
Claims 19 and 20 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 19 and 20 make repeated use of “and/or” when claiming their elements such that it is unclear what combinations of elements are or are not required by the claim language.
While “and/or” on its own does not necessarily render a claim indefinite, when it appears multiple times interlinking different combinations/lists of elements within a single claim it renders the scope of protection unclear regarding what combinations of elements are covered (or not covered) by the claim bounds. For clarity purposes instead of using “and/or” when reciting a combination of elements/limitation, the examiner recommends using “at least one of: …” as this makes more clear what elements are group together and how many of each grouping are required by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because: Claim 17’s preamble recites that it is a “computer program product”; this includes purely software “products” as such claim 17 is rejected as software per-se, software does not fall within the four statutory categories for patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
As a note to the applicant regarding claim interpretation and patentable weight, as currently written some of the dependent method claims are only contingent limitations/language, as such prior art needs to teach those limitations only if those limitations are necessarily required to occur during operation. If a method can be practiced without the contingent limitations needing to occur them those limitations are not needed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method (MPEP 2114.04)
Currently claims 11-13 all recite limitations that occur “if there is a collision”, in the context of the current application it is readily apparent that the method/operation of the elements could (and ideally would) occur without a collision occurring, as such all of these “if a collision occurs” limitations are optional under broadest reasonable interpretation in that they are contingent limitations of a method claim where the condition “if there is a collision” does not have to occur in the practice of the method.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 12-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102018204053 A1, “Method For Operating An Interior Of A Motor Vehicle”, Gempel. (While this reference has the same assignee as the current application its publishing date is more than one year prior to the applicant’s effective filing date as such it is valid prior art despite having the same assignee.)
Regarding Claim 1, Gempel teaches “A method for operating an adjustment system for an interior of a motor vehicle, wherein the adjustment system has motor-adjustable interior element,”(Abstract);”which are adjustable between different configurations by respective drive arrangements with actuators via adjustment kinematics”(Page 3, “For example, the interior has a seat which comprises at least one electromotive adjusting drive, forexample a plurality of the electromotive adjusting drives. The Electromotive adjusting drives of theseat differ, for example. The adjustment parts are, for example, the headrest, a backrest or a seatsurface of the seat. Suitably, the motor vehicle has at least one further such a seat, wherein thecorresponding electromotive adjusting drive of the two seats are identical to one another. At least oneof the electromotive adjusting drives, preferably all electromotive adjusting drives, preferably have atransmission which is driven by means of the respective associated electric motor. The gearbox itselfis in operative connection with the adjusting part. The transmission is for example a worm gear, aspindle or at least one of them. Each adjustment is adjustable along a displacement. In other words,an adjustment path is assigned to the adjustment part. In this case, for example, a single adjustmentpart is assigned to a plurality of electromotive adjusting drives, wherein the adjustment paths differbetween the different electromotive adjusting drives. Thus, in particular, an adjusting part with two ofthe electromotive adjusting drives can be adjusted along two different adjustment paths, which are mutually perpendicular, for example. For example, a seat surface of the seat is translational, in particular along the longitudinal axis of the motor vehicle, and rotationally be moved. Thus, when the adjusting part is displaced in a translatory direction, the adjustment path around the rotation axis also changes, since the axis of rotation is likewise displaced in the translatory direction.”);” wherein a control arrangement is provided by which the drive arrangements are activated in an adjustment routine in order to adjust the motor-adjustable interior elements from an initial configuration into an end configuration via the adjustment kinematics”(Page 3, “The transmission is for example a worm gear, aspindle or at least one of them. Each adjustment is adjustable along a displacement. In other words,an adjustment path is assigned to the adjustment part. In this case, for example, a single adjustmentpart is assigned to a plurality of electromotive adjusting drives, wherein the adjustment paths differbetween the different electromotive adjusting drives. Thus, in particular, an adjusting part with two ofthe electromotive adjusting drives can be adjusted along two different adjustment paths, which aremutually perpendicular, for example. For example, a seat surface of the seat is translational, inparticular along the longitudinal axis of the motor vehicle, and rotationally be moved. Thus, when theadjusting part is displaced in a translatory direction, the adjustment path around the rotation axis alsochanges, since the axis of rotation is likewise displaced in the translatory direction” The drive arrangments are given an adjustment path (i.e. from an initial to an end configuration));” wherein the control arrangement has an obstacle representation of objects in the interior for collision testing during the adjustment; wherein a planning routine is carried out by the control arrangement, in which a collision-free adjustment path from the initial configuration into the end configuration is determined on the basis of a kinematics model of the adjustment kinematics and of the obstacle representation and in that the activation in the adjustment routine is carried out by the control arrangement in accordance with the determined, collision-free adjustment path”( Page 4, “Preferably, the 3D sensor is additionally suitable, in particular provided and configured to detect an obstacle. The obstacle is for example a person, in particular an occupant of the interior. Alternatively, the obstacle is an object which is located in the interior, and whose position varies, for example, or which is predetermined by a user of the motor vehicle. The obstacle is for example a piece of luggage or the like. In this case, the obstacle is detected by means of the 3D sensor, and preferably at least one of the adjustment paths is set as a function of the position of the obstacle. In this case, in particular, a movement of one of the adjusting parts, preferably of all adjusting parts, against the obstacle is prevented. For example, all adjustment paths are adjusted such that the obstacle is free of the adjustment paths. In other words, no adjustment path passes through the obstacle. Here, the adjustment paths are expediently shortened accordingly. If an adjustment is not adjustable along only a single predetermined displacement, but, for example, a target position can be achieved over several different adjustment, the adjustment is suitably chosen depending on the position of the obstacle and thus adjusted. In other words, when the obstacle is detected, the adjustment part is expediently adjusted in such a way that the obstacle is bypassed in a bypassing evasive movement.” Here teaches that the sensor detects obstacles (creates an obstacle representation) and the adjustment path is determined/adjusted to avoid these obstacles)
Regarding Claim 3, Gempel teaches “The method according to Claim 1, wherein, as a constraint in the path planning routine, an adjustment parameter to be optimized with the determination of the collision-free adjustment path; in that, as a constraint in the path planning routine, dependencies of the operation of the drive arrangements; and/or in that, as a constraint in the path planning routine, an avoidance of predetermined, safety-critical configurations is specified.”(Page 5, “For example, the interior has an electric motor-adjustable steering wheel, which has at least one electromotive adjusting drive. In particular, the position of a steering wheel rim along a predetermined direction by means of a steering column by means of the electric motor adjustment is adjustable. Thus, the steering wheel rim and / or a part of the steering column form the adjusting part at least partially. Consequently, it is possible to move the steering wheel rim by the electric motor to the user .Suitably, the adjustment path is set as a function of the position of the optionally present electromotive adjustable seat. Therefore, an excessive process of the steering wheel rim is avoided to the seat and consequently to the occupant, especially if the seat is in a comparatively far forward position. Forexample, the height of the steering wheel rim is also adjustable, wherein suitably the steering columnand the steering wheel rim can be pivoted by means of a further electromotive adjustment drive abouta transverse to the longitudinal axis and horizontal pivot axis.” Here teaches the path planning has dependencies between the drives/adjustments of various sparts )
Regarding Claim 5, Gempel teaches “The method according to Claim 1, wherein, in an identification routine by the control arrangement, identification of the interior elements arranged in the interior is carried out, and in that, by the control arrangement, the obstacle representation and/or kinematic model is generated on the basis of the identification”(Page 3, “The interior further comprises a 3D sensor which is spaced from the electromotive “adjustment drives.For example, the 3D sensor has only a single sensor unit positioned at a single location within theinterior. For example, the 3D sensor has a plurality of sensor units, which are spaced from each other.By means of the 3D sensor, it is possible in operation to determine a position of a part in space. Themethod provides that the position of the adjusting parts is detected by means of the 3D sensor. Fromthis, in particular, a configuration of the interior of the motor vehicle is derived. In other words, theposition of the adjusting parts is detected directly by means of the 3D sensor. In particular, thedetection of the position of the adjusting parts takes place without contact.” Here the 3D sensor identifies the current position/layouts of the parts in space (adjustable elements/a kinematic model).)
Regarding Claim 6, Gempel teaches “The method according to claim 1 wherein, in the path planning routine for motor-adjustable interior element, respective individual adjustment paths are determined in a search space, which is related to degrees of freedom of the motor-adjustable interior element, in the configuration space, and/or respective group adjustment paths are determined for element groups of motor-adjustable interior elements belonging to the element group, in the configuration space, and in that the individual adjustment paths and/or group adjustment paths are converged into an overall adjustment path, which is used to determine the collision-free adjustment path.”( Page 5, “For example, the interior has an electric motor-adjustable steering wheel, which has at least one electromotive adjusting drive. In particular, the position of a steering wheel rim along a predetermined direction by means of a steering column by means of the electric motor adjustment is adjustable. Thus, the steering wheel rim and / or a part of the steering column form the adjusting part at least partially. Consequently, it is possible to move the steering wheel rim by the electric motor to the user .Suitably, the adjustment path is set as a function of the position of the optionally present electromotive adjustable seat. Therefore, an excessive process of the steering wheel rim is avoided to the seat and consequently to the occupant, especially if the seat is in a comparatively far forward position. For example, the height of the steering wheel rim is also adjustable, wherein suitably the steering column and the steering wheel rim can be pivoted by means of a further electromotive adjustment drive about a transverse to the longitudinal axis and horizontal pivot axis.” Here teaches the path planning has dependencies between the drives/adjustments of various parts, which teaches the creation of individual adjustment paths (i.e. a electro-motive seat has its path and the steering wheel has its own path which is dependent in part of the electro-motive seat’s position/path) which are implemented into the overall adjustment path.)
Regarding Claim 7, Gempel teaches “The method according to claim 1, wherein the motor-adjustable interior elements are defined as an independent interior element, which is considered to be independently adjustable at least over a portion of the working space in the adjustment routine, or as a cooperative interior element which is considered to be jointly adjusted with another interior element over at least a portion of the working space, and in that individual adjustment paths are determined for the independent interior elements and group adjustment paths are determined for the cooperative interior elements.”(Page 5, “Preferably, the interior has an electromotive adjustable seat, the has at least one of the electromotive adjusting drives. The seat is, for example, a driver's seat or a passenger seat. Alternatively, the seat is part of another row of seats of the interior or a rear seat. Suitably, at least two of the seats of the interior are adjustable by electric motor and thus each have at least one of the electromotive adjusting drives. In particular, the adjusting part is a headrest, a backrest and / or a seat surface of the respective seat. Alternatively, the adjustment is an armrest. Each component of the seat is assigned, for example, at least one of the electromotive adjusting drives. Alternatively, at least one of the components of the seat assigned to a plurality of electromotive adjusting drives, for example, two of the electric motor adjustment drives. …
Alternatively or particularly preferably in combination with this, the interior comprises an electromotively adjustable center console which has at least one of the electromotive adjusting drives. …
For example, the interior has an electric motor-adjustable steering wheel, which has at least one electromotive adjusting drive. …suitably, the adjustment path is set as a function of the position of the optionally present electromotive adjustable seat. Therefore, an excessive process of the steering wheel rim is avoided to the seat and consequently to the occupant, especially if the seat is in a comparatively far forward position. ...” Here teaches that some moveable elements (e.g. the steering wheel) are cooperative elements which move depending on the movement of other moving elements whereas others are independent elements (such as the center console) which have their own moving paths not based on the movement/position of other elements.)
Regarding Claim 12, Gempel teaches “The method according to claim 6, wherein, if there is a collision in the overall adjustment path, an alternative adjustment path around the collision is determined by extending the search space” (This method claim is a conditional “if there is a collision” limitation, it is readily apparent that in the adjustment of interior elements that such an adjustment can (and ideally would) occur without a collision occurring, as such the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 is that none of it is required MPEP 2111.04)
Regarding Claim 13, Gempel teaches “The method according to claim 6, wherein if there is a collision in the overall adjustment path, in order to determine an alternative adjustment path around the collision an individual adjustment path, group adjustment path and/or priority adjustment path of at least one of the interior elements involved in the collision is subject to a time scaling and/or a time offset”(This method claim is a conditional “if there is a collision” limitation, it is readily apparent that in the adjustment of interior elements that such an adjustment can (and ideally would) occur without a collision occurring, as such the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 is that none of it is required MPEP 2111.04).
Regarding Claim 15, it recites a control arrangement which performs the method of claim 1. As such it has the same grounds of rejection as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites a motor vehicle for carrying out the method of claim 1, Gempel as cited in claim 1 is for adjusting the interior layout of a vehicle. As such it teaches a motor vehicle which carry outs the method as cited in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites a computer program product which adjusts (activate the drive arrangments in an adjustment routine) and path plans (under a path planning routine) of claim 15, (which in turn is equivalent to the method of claim 1). As such claim 17 has the same grounds of rejection as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Gempel teaches “The method according to Claim 1, wherein, as a constraint in the path planning routine, an adjustment parameter to be optimized with the determination of the collision-free adjustment path, wherein the adjustment time and/or the adjustment distance, and/or a stipulation of the computing time to be used for the path planning routine is specified; in that, as a constraint in the path planning routine, dependencies of the operation of the drive arrangements, wherein an absence of a simultaneous activation of a predetermined selection of actuators and/or a power limitation when activating actuators, are specified; and/or in that, as a constraint in the path planning routine, an avoidance of predetermined, safety-critical configurations is specified.”(Page 4, “Preferably, the position of afurther of the adjusting parts for determining just this adjustment is additionally used. Preferably, theadjustment is shortened when the further adjustment is in the adjustment. As a result, a movement of the adjustment is prevented against the further adjustment. For example, taking into account the anatomy of occupants of the interior, so that a violation of this is prevented.” Here Gempel teaches optimizing an adjustment distance and/or avoiding a violation that could harm an occupant (i.e. avoiding safety-critical configurations))
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gempel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wikipedia Articles “Probabilistic Roadmap”.
Regarding Claim 2, while Gempel teaches determine an adjustment path it doesn’t explicitly teach a probabilistic path planning as the basis for this planning.
The Wikipedia article “Probabilistic roadmap” teaches a path planning routine which is taught as generally applicable to the field of robotics/actuators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Gempel to implement a Probabilistic roadmap based path planning algorithm for determining the adjustment paths called for in Gempel. One would be motivated to implement a Probabilistic Roadmap as it guarantees that if a valid path exists it can be found. (“Given certain relatively weak conditions on the shape of the free space, PRM is provably probabilistically complete, meaning that as the number of sampled points increases without bound, the probability that the algorithm will not find a path if one exists approaches zero.”) Thus improving the reliability of the device.
Regarding Claim 14, Gempel does not teach “The method according to claim 1, wherein master configurations for the configuration of the adjustment kinematics and master adjustment paths, which indicate an adjustment between master configurations, are stored in the control arrangement, and in that, in the path planning routine, the collision-free adjustment path is determined at least partially on the basis of, in particular at least partially identically to, at least one of the master adjustment paths,”
The probabilistic roadmap Wikipedia articles teaches such (The probabilistic roadmap planner consists of two phases: a construction and a query phase. In the construction phase, a roadmap (graph) is built, approximating the motions that can be made in the environment. First, a random configuration is created. Then, it is connected to some neighbors, typically either the
nearest neighbors or all neighbors less than some predetermined distance. Configurations and connections created to the graph until the roadmap is dense enough. In the query phase, the start and goal configurations are connected to the graph, and the path is obtained by a Dijkstra's shortest path query.” The overall configuration space/graph would be the master configuration(s) with the Dijkstra’s shortest path query selecting adjustment path with is made up of the shortest connected path of the graph between the initial and end state.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Gempel to implement a Probabilistic roadmap based path planning algorithm for determining the adjustment paths called for in Gempel. One would be motivated to implement a Probabilistic Roadmap as it guarantees that if a valid path exists it can be found. (“Given certain relatively weak conditions on the shape of the free space, PRM is provably probabilistically complete, meaning that as the number of sampled points increases without bound,the probability that the algorithm will not find a path if one exists approaches zero.”) Thus improving the reliability of the device.
Regarding Claim 18, while Gempel teaches determine an adjustment path it doesn’t explicitly teach that the path planning is determined on the basis of a Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree method and/or a Probabilistic Roadmap method.
The Wikipedia article “Probabilistic roadmap” teaches a path planning routine which is taught as generally applicable to the field of robotics/actuators. (The probabilistic roadmap planner is a motion planning algorithm in robotics, which solves the problem of determining a path between a starting configuration of the robot and a goal configuration while avoiding collisions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Gempel to implement a Probabilistic roadmap based path planning algorithm for determining the adjustment paths called for in Gempel. One would be motivated to implement a Probabilistic Roadmap as it guarantees that if a valid path exists it can be found. (“Given certain relatively weak conditions on the shape of the free space, PRM is provably probabilistically complete, meaning that as the number of sampled points increases without bound,the probability that the algorithm will not find a path if one exists approaches zero.”) Thus improving the reliability of the device.
Claim(s) 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gempel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the Wikipedia Articles “Rapidly exploring random tree”.
Regarding Claim 2, while Gempel teaches determine an adjustment path it doesn’t explicitly teach a probabilistic path planning as the basis for this planning.
The Wikipedia article “Rapidly Exploring Random Tree” shows that RRTs are a well understood, routine, and conventional type of algorithm for determining a collision free path through a space with application into robotics/actuator control. (“A rapidly exploring random tree (RRT) is an algorithm designed to efficiently search nonconvex, high-dimensional spaces by randomly building a space-filling tree. The tree is constructed incrementally from samples drawn randomly from the search space and is inherently biased to grow towards large unsearched areas of the problem. RRTs were developed by Steven M. LaValle and James J. KuffnerJr. [1] .[2] They easily handle problems with obstacles and differential constraints (nonholonomic and kinodynamic) and have been widely used in autonomous robotic motion planning.”) and in particular an RRT* algorithm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Gempel to utilize a RRT* based algorithm for determining a valid adjustment path. One would be motivated to implement an RRT* which is more guaranteed to converge to an optimal adjustment path. (It has been shown that, under 'mild technical conditions', the cost of the best path in the RRT converges almost surely to a non-optimal value.
For that reason, it is desirable to find variants of the RRT that converges to an optimum, like RRT*. Below follows is a list of RRT*-based methods(starting with RRT* itself). Not all of the derived methods do themselves converge to an optimum, though.
Rapidly-exploring random graph (RRG) and RRT*, a variant of RRT that converges towards an optimal solution)
Regarding Claim 18, while Gempel teaches determine an adjustment path it doesn’t explicitly teach that the path planning is determined on the basis of a Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree method and/or a Probabilistic Roadmap method.
The Wikipedia article “Rapidly Exploring Random Tree” shows that RRTs are a well understood, routine, and conventional type of algorithm for determining a collision free path through a space with application into robotics/actuator control. (“A rapidly exploring random tree (RRT) is an algorithm designed to efficiently search nonconvex, high-dimensional spaces by randomly building a space-filling tree. The tree is constructed incrementally from samples drawn randomly from the search space and is inherently biased to grow towards large unsearched areas of the problem. RRTs were developed by Steven M. LaValle and James J. KuffnerJr. [1] .[2] They easily handle problems with obstacles and differential constraints (nonholonomic and kinodynamic) and have been widely used in autonomous robotic motion planning.”) and in particular an RRT* algorithm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Gempel to utilize a RRT* based algorithm for determining a valid adjustment path. One would be motivated to implement an RRT* which is more likely to converge to an optimal adjustment path. (It has been shown that, under 'mild technical conditions', the cost of the best path in the RRT converges almost surely to a non-optimal value.
For that reason, it is desirable to find variants of the RRT that converges to an optimum, like RRT*. Below follows is a list of RRT*-based methods(starting with RRT* itself). Not all of the derived methods do themselves converge to an optimum, though.
Rapidly-exploring random graph (RRG) and RRT*, a variant of RRT that converges towards an optimal solution)
Claim(s) 4, 9-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gempel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190016235 A1, “Adjustment Device For Automatic Seat Position Change In A Vehicle”, Parida et al
Regarding Claim 4, while Gempel teaches a 3D sensor for detecting obstacles and an obstacle representation and recognizes that there are/can be different types of obstacles such as a person or luggage (Page 4, “Preferably, the 3D sensor is additionally suitable, in particular provided and configured to detect anobstacle. The obstacle is for example a person, in particular an occupant of the interior. Alternatively,the obstacle is an object which is located in the interior, and whose position varies, for example, orwhich is predetermined by a user of the motor vehicle. The obstacle is for example a piece of luggageor the like. In this case, the obstacle is detected by means of the 3D sensor, and preferably at leastone of the adjustment paths is set as a function of the position of the obstacle”); however it does not explicitly teach classifying of obstacles and determining of a geometric model based on that class.
Parida et al teaches a vehicle interior adjustment system which includes detecting and classifying of obstacle(s) (i.e. a person)([0030]) in the vehicle and determining their geometric model (and obstacle representation) based in part on the detected person’s classification. ([0019] It is proposed according to the invention that before the seat setting, an efficiency-oriented adjustment space requirement analysis (“quick space analysis test”, QSA) is carried out. In this case the individual anthropometry of the person is considered (which has been previously measured and/or can be stored by a data set, for example) and the most effective seat kinematic adjustment sequence is computed and started based thereon. In this case, the individual anthropometry can also be classified for simplification, in particular associated with a defined person percentile (for example “5% woman” and “95% man”).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Gempel to include the occupant detection and classification as taught by Parida et al in order to simplify and improve the ability for the system to adapt a wide range of occupants. Parida teaches this improvement in ([0019])
Regarding Claim 9, Gempel does not teach assigning of a priority to the adjustable interior elements.
Parida teaches a vehicle interior adjustment system which includes assigning of a priority (adjustment order) to the various adjustable elements. ([0010]-[0013] Here Parida teaches assignment of priority to the adjustable elements for achieving a given adjustment plan.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Gempel to include the moveable element priority system as taught by Parida. One would be motivated to implement the priority assignment in order to improve the efficiency of operation, reducing the total time and/or power needed to achieve an overall adjustment. Parida teaches this improvement in ([0008])
Regarding Claim 10, as modified in claim 9, modified Gempel teaches assigning of priority based in part on the power consumption of the drive arrangement (Parida [0008] The analysis unit for determining the efficiency-oriented adjustment space requirement is preferably designed such that the most effective kinematic course of the seat-position-dependent adjustable vehicle components in relation to the adjustment duration and/or the power consumption, in particular of the at least one actuator, for the adjustment of the actual position into the target position is determinable thereby depending on the vehicle occupant data and the vehicle interior geometry.” + [0014] “In one preferred embodiment, at most two of the actuators are adjustable simultaneously with respect to an electrical power consumption minimization.”)
Regarding Claim 20, while Gempel teaches a 3D sensor (sensor arrangement) for detecting people, objects, and the interior elements in the cabin and generating a obstacle representation based on that sensor,”( Page 3, “For example, the position of the adjustment parts relative to the 3D sensor is determined by means of the 3D sensor. In other words, the 3D sensor is used as a reference system for determining the position of the adjusting parts.”, + Page 4, “Preferably, the 3D sensor is additionally suitable, in particular provided and configured to detect an obstacle. The obstacle is for example a person, in particular an occupant of the interior. Alternatively, the obstacle is an object which is located in the interior, and whose position varies, for example, or which is predetermined by a user of the motor vehicle. The obstacle is for example a piece of luggage or the like. In this case, the obstacle is detected by means of the 3D sensor, and preferably at least one of the adjustment paths is set as a function of the position of the obstacle”);” it does not explicitly teach classifying of the detects objects wherein object classes with assigned people geometry are specified for individual peple and/or people of different heights…
Parida teaches a vehicle interior adjustment system which includes a internal sensor which detects (measures) a person”([0030] The required vehicle occupant data (for example the individual anthropometry of the person and/or at least a percentile association) can also be measured, however, via an input unit to be operated manually by an operator and/or via vehicle-internal cameras.)” and classifies them into a geometry model which is specified for an individual and/or peoples of different heights. ([0019] It is proposed according to the invention that before the seat setting, an efficiency-oriented adjustment space requirement analysis (“quick space analysis test”, QSA) is carried out. In this case the individual anthropometry of the person is considered (which has been previously measured and/or can be stored by a data set, for example) and the most effective seat kinematic adjustment sequence is computed and started based thereon. In this case, the individual anthropometry can also be classified for simplification, in particular associated with a defined person percentile (for example “5% woman” and “95% man”).)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669