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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 12/5/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the §112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. Claims are no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of RU2301439C1 Stepanovich et al ("Stepanovich", English machine translation provided).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20080103639A1 Troy et al ("Troy") in view of RU2301439C1 Stepanovich et al ("Stepanovich", English machine translation provided) and US20220283602A1 Battlogg ("Battlogg").
As per claims 1, 18, and 20 Troy teaches the limitations of the vehicle, method, and non-transitory medium:
A vehicle (Troy at least FIG. 1) comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled with the transceiver (Troy at least [0031], [0022-0023]: “couples the proxy object to the teleoperable device…haptic teleoperation…force input…”)
wherein the transceiver is configured to: obtain information associated with one or more friction forces acting on the vehicle; (Troy at least [0029]: “headwinds”)
obtain a value representing information associated with a virtual vehicle mass, wherein the virtual vehicle mass is less than an actual vehicle mass; (Troy at least FIG. 1, [0029]: “increased mass…felt as an increased vertical resistance”, [0034]: “mass may be assigned to the dynamic object…apparent mass of the dynamic object that a user may feel at the haptic device”, [0023]: “forces can be scaled so that larger…vehicles can be controlled by the same type of haptic interface”)
determine a target vehicle velocity based on the first signal, the virtual vehicle mass and the information associated with one or more friction forces; and control a vehicle movement based on the target vehicle velocity. (Troy at least [0005]: “differences…velocity…for feedback control”, [0078]: “the measured position and derived velocity data may also be sent to a virtual simulation environment (416) for use in haptic force generation”, [0073]: ” to controllably adjust (or maintain) the positions and velocities of the teleoperable device 110 in its desired positions or along its desired headings at the desired rates of movement”)
Troy does not explicitly disclose: obtain information associated with a desired virtual vehicle mass.
Battlogg teaches the aforementioned limitation (Battlogg at least [0169]: “setting of the pressure point and of the forces. The adjusting force (pressure point) etc. can be adapted in accordance with the customer or the customer demand. This is also possible in a manner dependent on the external state, that is to say in the presence of a slippery underlying surface under a vehicle: lower moments/forces. This reduces the operator control force and user fatigue.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Battlogg with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow an operator to reduce operator fatigue.
Troy does not disclose:
an external interface comprising a sensor configured to measure force, wherein the external interface is configured to be removably attached to the vehicle a transceiver configured to receive a first signal indicative of a magnitude of force applied by a user on the external interface.
Stepanovich discloses the aforementioned limitation (Stepanovich at least “The speed and direction of rotation of the object is changed, respectively, by changing the magnitude and direction of the torque applied to the control handle of the three-dimensional micro-joystick”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Stepanovich with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the joystick of Troy with the strain gauge joystick of Stepanovich to reduce wear and tear on moving joystick components and increase control sensitivity.
As per claim 2, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy additionally teaches:
a memory configured to store the information associated with the desired virtual vehicle mass, wherein the processor obtains the information associated with the desired virtual vehicle mass from the memory. (Troy at least [0029], [0034], [0080])
As per claim 3 and 19, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy additionally teaches:
the desired virtual vehicle mass is indicative of a virtual mass associated with the vehicle configured to be felt by the user when the user applies the force on the external interface to enable the vehicle movement. (Troy at least [0022-0023])
As per claim 17, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy additionally teaches:
the external interface is configured to be removably attached to an external vehicle portion, and wherein the transceiver receives the first signal from the external interface. (Troy at least FIGs. 2-4)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy, Stepanovich, and Battlogg in view of KR20150093039A Kim ("Kim").
Regarding claim 4, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy teaches factoring in friction (Troy [0029) and utilizing land-based vehicles (Troy abstract), however Troy does not disclose:
the one or more friction forces comprise a Coulomb friction, a viscous friction, or a Stribeck friction.
Kim teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kim at least FIGs 1-4: "step (S100) of obtaining the static friction…Stribeck speed…Coulomb speed…").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve accuracy of driving an object (Kim abstract).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy, Stepanovich, and Battlogg in view of US20070106475A1 Kondoh ("Kondoh").
Regarding claim 5, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
a vehicle sensory system configured to detect a presence of an obstacle in proximity to the vehicle.
Kondoh teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kondoh at least the abstract, [0142]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kondoh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to prevent a collision with an object.
Regarding claim 6, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
obtain inputs from the vehicle sensory system; determine an obstacle presence in proximity to the vehicle and an obstacle distance from the vehicle based on the inputs; determine an amount of repulsive force configured to be applied to the external interface based on the obstacle distance responsive to determining the obstacle presence, wherein the amount of repulsive force is inversely proportional to the obstacle distance; and transmit a second signal to the external interface, wherein the second signal is indicative of the amount of repulsive force.
Kondoh teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kondoh at least FIG. 14, [0064], [0093-0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kondoh with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
determine the target vehicle velocity based on the amount of repulsive force.
Kondoh teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kondoh at least FIG. 14, FIG. 38). *Examiner’s note: the accelerator pedal reaction force can influence the pedal depression amount, which further changes the driving force (and thus velocity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kondoh with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
stop the vehicle movement when the obstacle distance is less than a predefined threshold.
Kondoh teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kondoh at least [0065]: "TTC…following distance becomes zero", [0239]: “substantially constant following distance”). *Examiner’s note: Kondoh describes a typical ACC system with a following radar where the vehicle will attempt to maintain a minimum non-contact distance if the preceding object stops motion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kondoh with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 5.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy, Stepanovich, and Battlogg in view of US20170197619A1 Kelly ("Kelly").
Regarding claim 9, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
determine an actual velocity of the vehicle; compare the actual velocity with the target vehicle velocity; determine, based on comparing the actual velocity with the target vehicle velocity, a torque to be applied to one or more vehicle wheels; and control the vehicle movement based on the torque.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0011-0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve a driving experience (Kelly [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
determine the torque based on a torque profile applied to the vehicle to overcome an initial stiction associated with the vehicle.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
determine the torque based on a maximum permissible vehicle velocity threshold, and wherein the torque causes the vehicle to move at a velocity less than or equivalent to the maximum permissible vehicle velocity threshold.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
determine the torque based on a maximum permissible rate of change of vehicle velocity threshold, and wherein the torque causes a rate of change of vehicle velocity to be less than or equivalent to the maximum permissible rate of change of vehicle velocity threshold.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0115-0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
update the torque to an updated torque when the processor determines that the vehicle is moving in a wrong direction, and wherein the updated torque is based on a vehicle velocity in the wrong direction.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0141-0142]). *Examiner’s note: a wheel slip event (especially when the vehicle is crawling offroad on a steep uphill gradient) would cause a rearward (wrong direction) motion capable of being detected by sensors indicative of the vehicles speed over the ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
update the torque to an updated torque when the processor determines that the vehicle is not moving when the torque is applied to the one or more vehicle wheels, and wherein the updated torque causes the vehicle to move when the updated torque is applied to the one or more vehicle wheels.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0133-0134]: “in the case of launch from rest”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
update the torque to an updated torque based on a vehicle steering angle.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0107-0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, Troy in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Troy does not disclose:
update the torque to an updated torque based on an inclination angle or a grade of a road on which the vehicle is travelling.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0088], [0107], [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Troy with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US6115030A pertains to the Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint strain gauge based mouse joystick.
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669