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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following is an office action in response to the communication filed on 07/23/2026.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 16-17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims currently recite “. . . wherein the heading condition variable is indicates . . .” which the examiner notes appears to contain a typographical error and recommends updating to “. . . wherein the heading condition variable indicates . . .” to avoid redundant verb issues. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (US 9996986 B2; hereinafter Tan) in view of Naka et al. (JP 2003276635 A; hereinafter Naka) and further in view of Grip et al. (Grip, H. F., Imsland, L., Johansen, T. A., Kalkkuhl, J. C., & Suissa, A. (2009, June). Estimation of road inclination and bank angle in automotive vehicles. In 2009 American control conference (pp. 426-432). IEEE.; hereinafter Grip).
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
A method for calibrating a sensor of a vehicle moving on a road section (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if . . . the vehicle is travelling on a straight or substantially straight road . . .”), comprising:
determining a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line (see Tan at least pg. 8, col. 9, lines 22-41 “. . . some of the vehicle status data 110 is analyzed to determine whether the vehicle is driving straight . . . the analyzed vehicle status data 110 may include information obtained from the inertial measurement unit, the steering angle sensor, and/or at least some of the four wheel speed sensors [(i.e., control condition variables indicative of trajectory with respect to a straight line)].”; pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . .”);
determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 11, lines 49-67 “The bank of a road is usually expressed as a banking angle [(i.e., bank angle)] and, therefore, a one or two degree banking angle may be considered to be within tolerance for purposes of the process 300. If the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on, or will soon be travelling on, a road having more than a negligible amount of banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition)] . . .”) . . .
determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . . (3) the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on a road having zero or substantially zero banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition variable)] . . .”); and
calibrating the sensor when the vehicle is in the straight-line condition (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line; . . . (3) the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on a road having zero or substantially zero banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition variable)] . . .”).
While Tan discloses determining a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line, determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section, and determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable and the bank angle condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line, it does not appear to explicitly disclose the wherein the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity, nor determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle.
Naka teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle (see Naka at least pg. 3, paragraph 1 “When the vehicle is straight ahead, the operating member is not operated and the steering torque at this time is almost zero . . . If . . . the steering torque is substantially zero [(i.e., torque condition variable)], it is possible to determine that the vehicle is in a straight traveling state . . .”); . . .
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determination various condition variables indicative of a trajectory or motion of a vehicle with respect to a straight line and subsequently determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle based on at least one of those variables of Tan with the determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of a vehicle with respect to a straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle as taught by Naka to determine a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of a vehicle with respect to a straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle. Doing so would provide an additional input means for later determining whether or not a vehicle is traveling in a straight line and subsequently enabling future calibration efforts, as recognized by Naka (see Naka at least pg. 3, paragraph 1 “If . . . the steering torque is substantially zero, it is possible to determine that the vehicle is in a straight traveling state and set the steering angle of the steering mechanism at this time to the neutral position.”).
While Tan and Naka disclose determining a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line, determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section, determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle, and determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable and the bank angle condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line, they do not appear to explicitly disclose the wherein the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity.
Grip teaches the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity (see Grip at least pg. 2, col. 2, paragraph 5 “To calculate the reference velocity, we use the four wheel speeds, the steering wheel angle, and the yaw [(i.e., heading)] rate to obtain four separate estimates of the longitudinal velocity. The reference velocity is calculated as a weighted average of these four velocity estimates . . .”; pg. 3, col. 1, paragraph 2 “The estimate ây . . . is formed by using the nonlinear friction model for each wheel, where the measurements of the steering wheel angle, yaw [(i.e., heading)] rate, and wheel speeds, . . . are used as inputs.”; “. . .
θ
^
b is therefore considered an estimate of the bank angle.”; Equation 2- reference velocity used to estimate the longitudinal velocity; Equation 10- ây used for determining bank angle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section of Tan and Naka with the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity as taught by Grip to have the bank angle condition variable be determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity. Doing so would allow the bank angle determination to use nonlinear road-tire friction models, as recognized by Grip (see Grip at least pg. 2, col. 1, paragraph 2 “A key component of the design presented in this paper is a road-tire friction model. The road-tire friction model takes measurements and observer estimates as inputs, and returns estimates of the road-tire friction forces. To account for the nonlinearity of the road-tire friction forces for large tire slips, a fully nonlinear model is needed.”).
Regarding claim 3, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . further comprising determining a pending driving straight condition variable based on at least one of: (i) a heading condition variable based on Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) heading data; (ii) a derived heading condition variable based on a latitude and a longitude of the vehicle obtained from GPS; (iii) a wheel velocity condition variable based on differences in wheel velocities; and (iv) a road curvature condition variable (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 5/6, lines 57-67/1-10 “. . . the navigation map data 114 includes enhanced data that defines, describes, and/or otherwise characterizes some or all of the following, without limitation: amount of road curvature [(i.e., road curvature condition variable)] . . .”; pg. 8, col. 9-10, lines 57-67/1-16 “If the navigation map data 114 indicates that the road is curved or that curves are approaching soon [(i.e., pending driving straight condition variable)] . . .”).
Regarding claim 4, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 3 as recited in the claim and applied above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the additional claim limitations recited in claim 4 (see claim 4 “. . . wherein the wheel velocity condition variable is based on a difference between at least one of: (i) a right front wheel velocity and a left front wheel velocity; (ii) a right rear wheel velocity and a left rear wheel velocity: (iii) the right front wheel velocity and the left rear wheel velocity; and (iv) the left front wheel velocity and the right rear wheel velocity.”) serve to further characterize a claim limitation written in the alternative form in claim 3 (see claim 3 “. . . further comprising determining a pending driving straight condition variable based on at least one of: (i) a heading condition variable based on Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) heading data; (ii) a derived heading condition variable based on a latitude and a longitude of the vehicle obtained from GPS; (iii) a wheel velocity condition variable based on differences in wheel velocities; and (iv) a road curvature condition variable.”) that, for the purpose of examination, was not selected (selected criterium in claim 3: “. . . at least one of: . . . (iv) a road curvature condition variable.”). As such, the further characterization of this limitation is not given patentable weight, and the claim is subsequently rejected on the basis of its dependency.
Regarding claim 6, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 3 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . further comprising obtaining a plurality of the pending driving straight condition variables over a time window and determining a matured straight driving condition variable from the plurality of pending driving straight condition variables (see Tan at least pg. 7, col. 7, lines 17-29 “It should be appreciated that the process 300 may store historical data in an ongoing manner such that data collected over a period of time can be analyzed and considered [(i.e., matured straight driving condition variable determined from plurality of historical pending driving straight condition variables)].”; pg. 8, col. 9-10, lines 57-67/1-16 “If the navigation map data 114 indicates that the road is curved or that curves are approaching soon [(i.e., pending driving straight condition variable)] . . .”).
Regarding claim 7, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 6 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . further comprising learning a bias correction for the sensor using the matured driving straight condition (see Tan at least pg. 7, col. 7, lines 17-29 “It should be appreciated that the process 300 may store historical data in an ongoing manner such that data collected over a period of time can be analyzed and considered [(i.e., matured straight driving condition variable determined from plurality of historical pending driving straight condition variables)].”; pg. 7, col. 8, lines 4-24 “. . . task 310 computes the updated calibration value [(i.e., bias correction)] based on the current calibration factor and at least one previously calculated calibration value (e.g., one or more historical calibration values calculated during prior iterations of the process 300 [(i.e., using values that were computed using a matured straight driving condition)]).”).
Regarding claim 9, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
A system for calibrating a sensor of a vehicle (see Tan at least pg. 4, col. 2, lines 5-14 “. . . a control system having at least one processor device to . . . calculate a current sensor offset factor for the onboard sensor [(i.e., sensor calibration)] in response to determining that the calibration initiation conditions are satisfied.”), comprising:
a processor configured to (see Tan at least pg. 4, col. 2, lines 5-14 “. . . a control system having at least one processor device to . . .”):
determine a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 8, col. 9, lines 22-41 “. . . some of the vehicle status data 110 is analyzed to determine whether the vehicle is driving straight . . . the analyzed vehicle status data 110 may include information obtained from the inertial measurement unit, the steering angle sensor, and/or at least some of the four wheel speed sensors [(i.e., control condition variables indicative of trajectory with respect to a straight line)].”; pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . .”);
determine a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of a road section (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 9, col. 11, lines 49-67 “The bank of a road is usually expressed as a banking angle [(i.e., bank angle)] and, therefore, a one or two degree banking angle may be considered to be within tolerance for purposes of the process 300. If the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on, or will soon be travelling on, a road having more than a negligible amount of banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition)] . . .”) . . .
determine a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . . (3) the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on a road having zero or substantially zero banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition variable)] . . .”); and
calibrate the sensor when the vehicle is in the straight-line condition (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line; . . . (3) the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on a road having zero or substantially zero banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition variable)] . . .”).
While Tan discloses determining a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line, determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section, and determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable and the bank angle condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line, it does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle.
Naka teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle (see Naka at least pg. 3, paragraph 1 “When the vehicle is straight ahead, the operating member is not operated and the steering torque at this time is almost zero . . . If . . . the steering torque is substantially zero [(i.e., torque condition variable)], it is possible to determine that the vehicle is in a straight traveling state . . .”); . . .
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determination various condition variables indicative of a trajectory or motion of a vehicle with respect to a straight line and subsequently determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle based on at least one of those variables of Tan with the determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of a vehicle with respect to a straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle as taught by Naka to determine a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of a vehicle with respect to a straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as claim 1 above.
While Tan and Naka disclose determining a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line, determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section, determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle, and determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable and the bank angle condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line, they do not appear to explicitly disclose the wherein the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity.
Grip teaches the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity (see Grip at least pg. 2, col. 2, paragraph 5 “To calculate the reference velocity, we use the four wheel speeds, the steering wheel angle, and the yaw [(i.e., heading)] rate to obtain four separate estimates of the longitudinal velocity. The reference velocity is calculated as a weighted average of these four velocity estimates . . .”; pg. 3, col. 1, paragraph 2 “The estimate ây . . . is formed by using the nonlinear friction model for each wheel, where the measurements of the steering wheel angle, yaw [(i.e., heading)] rate, and wheel speeds, . . . are used as inputs.”; “. . .
θ
^
b is therefore considered an estimate of the bank angle.”; Equation 2- reference velocity used to estimate the longitudinal velocity; Equation 10- ây used for determining bank angle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section of Tan and Naka with the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity as taught by Grip to have the bank angle condition variable be determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as supplied above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 9 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the processor is further configured to determine a pending driving straight condition variable based on at least one of: (i) a heading condition variable based on Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) heading data; (ii) a derived heading condition variable based on a latitude and a longitude of the vehicle obtained from GPS; (iii) a wheel velocity condition variable based on differences in wheel velocities; and (iv) a road curvature condition variable (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 5/6, lines 57-67/1-10 “. . . the navigation map data 114 includes enhanced data that defines, describes, and/or otherwise characterizes some or all of the following, without limitation: amount of road curvature [(i.e., road curvature condition variable)] . . .”; pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 8, col. 9-10, lines 57-67/1-16 “If the navigation map data 114 indicates that the road is curved or that curves are approaching soon [(i.e., pending driving straight condition variable)] . . .”).
Regarding claim 12, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 11 as recited in the claim and applied above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the additional claim limitations recited in claim 12 (see claim 12 “. . . wherein the wheel velocity condition variable is based on a difference between at least one of: (i) a right front wheel velocity and a left front wheel velocity; (ii) a right rear wheel velocity and a left rear wheel velocity: (iii) the right front wheel velocity and the left rear wheel velocity; and (iv) the left front wheel velocity and the right rear wheel velocity.”) serve to further characterize a claim limitation written in the alternative form in claim 11 (see claim 11 “. . . wherein the processor is further configured to determine a pending driving straight condition variable based on at least one of: (i) a heading condition variable based on Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) heading data; (ii) a derived heading condition variable based on a latitude and a longitude of the vehicle obtained from GPS; (iii) a wheel velocity condition variable based on differences in wheel velocities; and (iv) a road curvature condition variable.”) that, for the purpose of examination, was not selected (selected criterium in claim 11: “. . . at least one of: . . . (iv) a road curvature condition variable.”). As such, the further characterization of this limitation is not given patentable weight, and the claim is subsequently rejected on the basis of its dependency.
Regarding claim 14, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 9 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the processor is further configured to obtain a plurality of the pending driving straight condition variables over a time window and determine a matured straight driving condition variable from the plurality of pending driving straight condition variables (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 7, col. 7, lines 17-29 “It should be appreciated that the process 300 may store historical data in an ongoing manner such that data collected over a period of time can be analyzed and considered [(i.e., matured straight driving condition variable determined from plurality of historical pending driving straight condition variables)].”; pg. 8, col. 9-10, lines 57-67/1-16 “If the navigation map data 114 indicates that the road is curved or that curves are approaching soon [(i.e., pending driving straight condition variable)] . . .”).
Regarding claim 16, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
A vehicle (see Tan at least pg. 4, col. 2, lines 5-14 “Also presented here is a vehicle having: an onboard sensor configured to generate raw sensor values; and a control system having at least one processor device to . . . calculate a current sensor offset factor for the onboard sensor [(i.e., sensor calibration)] in response to determining that the calibration initiation conditions are satisfied.”), comprising:
a sensor (see Tan at least pg. 4, col. 2, lines 5-14 “Also presented here is a vehicle having: an onboard sensor . . .”); and
a processor configured to (see Tan at least pg. 4, col. 2, lines 5-14 “Also presented here is a vehicle having: . . . a control system having at least one processor device . . .”):
determine a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 8, col. 9, lines 22-41 “. . . some of the vehicle status data 110 is analyzed to determine whether the vehicle is driving straight . . . the analyzed vehicle status data 110 may include information obtained from the inertial measurement unit, the steering angle sensor, and/or at least some of the four wheel speed sensors [(i.e., control condition variables indicative of trajectory with respect to a straight line)].”; pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . .”);
determine a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 9, col. 11, lines 49-67 “The bank of a road is usually expressed as a banking angle [(i.e., bank angle)] and, therefore, a one or two degree banking angle may be considered to be within tolerance for purposes of the process 300. If the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on, or will soon be travelling on, a road having more than a negligible amount of banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition)] . . .”) . . .
determine a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . . (3) the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on a road having zero or substantially zero banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition variable)] . . .”); and
calibrate the sensor when the vehicle is in the straight-line condition (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line; . . . (3) the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on a road having zero or substantially zero banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition variable)] . . .”).
While Tan discloses determining a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line, determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section, and determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable and the bank angle condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line, it does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle.
Naka teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle (see Naka at least pg. 3, paragraph 1“When the vehicle is straight ahead, the operating member is not operated and the steering torque at this time is almost zero . . . If . . . the steering torque is substantially zero [(i.e., torque condition variable)], it is possible to determine that the vehicle is in a straight traveling state . . .”); . . .
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determination various condition variables indicative of a trajectory or motion of a vehicle with respect to a straight line and subsequently determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle based on at least one of those variables of Tan with the determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of a vehicle with respect to a straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle as taught by Naka to determine a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of a vehicle with respect to a straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as claim 1 above.
While Tan and Naka disclose determining a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line, determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section, determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle, and determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable and the bank angle condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line, they do not appear to explicitly disclose the wherein the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity.
Grip teaches the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity (see Grip at least pg. 2, col. 2, paragraph 5 “To calculate the reference velocity, we use the four wheel speeds, the steering wheel angle, and the yaw [(i.e., heading)] rate to obtain four separate estimates of the longitudinal velocity. The reference velocity is calculated as a weighted average of these four velocity estimates . . .”; pg. 3, col. 1, paragraph 2 “The estimate ây . . . is formed by using the nonlinear friction model for each wheel, where the measurements of the steering wheel angle, yaw [(i.e., heading)] rate, and wheel speeds, . . . are used as inputs.”; “. . .
θ
^
b is therefore considered an estimate of the bank angle.”; Equation 2- reference velocity used to estimate the longitudinal velocity; Equation 10- ây used for determining bank angle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section of Tan and Naka with the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity as taught by Grip to have the bank angle condition variable be determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as supplied above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 16 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the processor is further configured to determine a pending driving straight condition variable based on at least one of: (i) a heading condition variable based on Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) heading data; (ii) a derived heading condition variable based on a latitude and a longitude of the vehicle obtained from GPS; (iii) a wheel velocity condition variable based on differences in wheel velocities; and (iv) a road curvature condition variable (see Tan at least pg. 6, col. 5/6, lines 57-67/1-10 “. . . the navigation map data 114 includes enhanced data that defines, describes, and/or otherwise characterizes some or all of the following, without limitation: amount of road curvature [(i.e., road curvature condition variable)] . . .”; pg. 6, col. 6, lines 27-38 “The processor device 202 is capable of executing the processor-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage media 206, wherein the instructions cause the ECU 200 to perform the various processes, operations, and functions described herein.”; pg. 8, col. 9-10, lines 57-67/1-16 “If the navigation map data 114 indicates that the road is curved or that curves are approaching soon [(i.e., pending driving straight condition variable)] . . .”).
Regarding claim 19, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 18 as recited in the claim and applied above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the additional claim limitations recited in claim 19 (see claim 19 “. . . wherein the wheel velocity condition variable is based on a difference between at least one of: (i) a right front wheel velocity and a left front wheel velocity; (ii) a right rear wheel velocity and a left rear wheel velocity: (iii) the right front wheel velocity and the left rear wheel velocity; and (iv) the left front wheel velocity and the right rear wheel velocity.”) serve to further characterize a claim limitation written in the alternative form in claim 18 (see claim 18 “. . . wherein the processor is further configured to determine a pending driving straight condition variable based on at least one of: (i) a heading condition variable based on Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) heading data; (ii) a derived heading condition variable based on a latitude and a longitude of the vehicle obtained from GPS; (iii) a wheel velocity condition variable based on differences in wheel velocities; and (iv) a road curvature condition variable.”) that, for the purpose of examination, was not selected (selected criterium in claim 18: “. . . at least one of: . . . (iv) a road curvature condition variable.”). As such, the further characterization of this limitation is not given patentable weight, and the claim is subsequently rejected on the basis of its dependency.
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Naka and further in view of Grip and Gartner (US 20100030428 A1; hereinafter Gartner).
Regarding claim 2, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . further comprising determining the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . . (3) the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on a road having zero or substantially zero banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition variable)] . . .”) . . .
While Tan discloses determining the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line, it does not appear to explicitly disclose determining the straight-line condition when a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold.
Gartner teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . and a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold (see Gartner at least [0124] “In order to detect straight-ahead travel it is necessary for the yaw rate [(i.e., first derivative of heading)] and the yaw acceleration [(i.e., second derivative of heading)] to remain within predefined limiting values during one observation cycle.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line of Tan with the determining the straight-line condition when a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold as taught by Gartner to determine the straight-line condition when the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line and a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold. Doing so would ensure that the vehicle is truly in a straight line condition, as a change in heading, represented by the first and second derivatives, would be a kinematics-based indicator of non-straight movement dynamics such as turning.
Regarding claim 10, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 9 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the processor is further configured to determine the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . . (3) the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on a road having zero or substantially zero banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition variable)] . . .”) . . .
While Tan discloses determining the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line, it does not appear to explicitly disclose determining the straight-line condition when a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold.
Gartner teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . and a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold (see Gartner at least [0124] “In order to detect straight-ahead travel it is necessary for the yaw rate [(i.e., first derivative of heading)] and the yaw acceleration [(i.e., second derivative of heading)] to remain within predefined limiting values during one observation cycle.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line of Tan with the determining the straight-line condition when a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold as taught by Gartner to determine the straight-line condition when the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line and a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as supplied above with regard to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 16 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Tan discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the processor is further configured to determine the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . . (3) the navigation map data 114 indicates that the vehicle is travelling on a road having zero or substantially zero banking angle [(i.e., bank angle condition variable)] . . .”) . . .
While Tan discloses determining the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line, it does not appear to explicitly disclose determining the straight-line condition when a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold.
Gartner teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . and a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold (see Gartner at least [0124] “In order to detect straight-ahead travel it is necessary for the yaw rate [(i.e., first derivative of heading)] and the yaw acceleration [(i.e., second derivative of heading)] to remain within predefined limiting values during one observation cycle.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line of Tan with the determining the straight-line condition when a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold as taught by Gartner to determine the straight-line condition when the straight-line condition when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line and a heading condition variable indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line, wherein the heading condition variable is indicates the vehicle is moving in the straight line when on a first derivative of a heading of the vehicle is less than a first threshold and a second derivative of the heading of the vehicle is less than a second threshold. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as supplied above with regard to claim 2.
Claims 5, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Naka and further in view of Grip and Ota et al. (JP 2005301892 A; hereinafter Ota).
Regarding claim 5, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 3 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Tan discloses determining a road curvature condition variable (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . .”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose the road curvature condition variable being based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle; (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle; and (iii) a meaning of a road sign in at least one of the left-side image and the right-side image.
Ota teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the road curvature condition variable is based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle; (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle; and (iii) a meaning of a road sign in at least one of the left-side image and the right-side image (see Ota at least pg. 6, paragraph 1 “. . . the white lines to be recognized by the camera correspondence recognition units 2L and 2R are the left and right white lines that define the travel lane on which the host vehicle is traveling, and the positions of the white lines that can be obtained by the road white line recognition device 2[.] The information includes the position of the left road white line and the right road white line with respect to the shooting position of the left camera 1L [(i.e., left-side camera)], and the position of the left road white line and the right road white line of the driving lane with respect to the shooting position of the right camera 1R [(i.e., right-side camera)].”; pg. 6, paragraph 2“If the position information of the left and right white lines defining the travel lane can be obtained by the road white line recognition device 2, the computing device 3 uses the obtained white line position information as a parameter value indicating the characteristics of the travel lane. The lane curvature ρ . . . [is] calculated.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining a road curvature condition variable of Tan with the road curvature condition variable being based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle, and (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle as taught by Ota to have the road curvature condition variable be based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle, and (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle. Doing so would provide a means for obtaining the road curvature condition variable on-board the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 11 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Tan discloses determining a road curvature condition variable (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . .”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose the road curvature condition variable being based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle; (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle; and (iii) a meaning of a road sign in at least one of the left-side image and the right-side image.
Ota teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the road curvature condition variable is based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle; (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle; and (iii) a meaning of a road sign in at least one of the left-side image and the right-side image (see Ota at least pg. 6, paragraph 1 “. . . the white lines to be recognized by the camera correspondence recognition units 2L and 2R are the left and right white lines that define the travel lane on which the host vehicle is traveling, and the positions of the white lines that can be obtained by the road white line recognition device 2[.] The information includes the position of the left road white line and the right road white line with respect to the shooting position of the left camera 1L [(i.e., left-side camera)], and the position of the left road white line and the right road white line of the driving lane with respect to the shooting position of the right camera 1R [(i.e., right-side camera)].”; pg. 6, paragraph 2 “If the position information of the left and right white lines defining the travel lane can be obtained by the road white line recognition device 2, the computing device 3 uses the obtained white line position information as a parameter value indicating the characteristics of the travel lane. The lane curvature ρ . . . [is] calculated.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining a road curvature condition variable of Tan with the road curvature condition variable being based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle, and (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle as taught by Ota to have the road curvature condition variable be based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle, and (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 18 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Tan discloses determining a road curvature condition variable (see Tan at least pg. 9, col. 12, lines 9-24 “. . . the process 300 initiates calibration of a . . . sensor only if: (1) the vehicle status data 110 [(i.e., control condition variables)] indicates that the vehicle is currently driving in a straight or substantially straight line . . .”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose the road curvature condition variable being based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle; (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle; and (iii) a meaning of a road sign in at least one of the left-side image and the right-side image.
Ota teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the road curvature condition variable is based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle; (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle; and (iii) a meaning of a road sign in at least one of the left-side image and the right-side image (see Ota at least pg. 6, paragraph 1 “. . . the white lines to be recognized by the camera correspondence recognition units 2L and 2R are the left and right white lines that define the travel lane on which the host vehicle is traveling, and the positions of the white lines that can be obtained by the road white line recognition device 2[.] The information includes the position of the left road white line and the right road white line with respect to the shooting position of the left camera 1L [(i.e., left-side camera)], and the position of the left road white line and the right road white line of the driving lane with respect to the shooting position of the right camera 1R [(i.e., right-side camera)].”; pg. 6, paragraph 2 “If the position information of the left and right white lines defining the travel lane can be obtained by the road white line recognition device 2, the computing device 3 uses the obtained white line position information as a parameter value indicating the characteristics of the travel lane. The lane curvature ρ . . . [is] calculated.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining a road curvature condition variable of Tan with the road curvature condition variable being based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle, and (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle as taught by Ota to have the road curvature condition variable be based on at least one of: (i) a left-side image obtained from a left-side camera of the vehicle, and (ii) a right-side image obtained from a right-side camera of the vehicle. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as claim 5 above.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Naka and further in view of Grip and Ribbens (William B. Ribbens, Chapter 8 - Vehicle-Motion Controls, Understanding Automotive Electronics (Seventh Edition), Butterworth-Heinemann, 2013, Pages 381-457, ISBN 9780080970974.; hereinafter Ribbens).
Regarding claim 8, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Tan discloses steering wheel angle as a control condition variable (see Tan at least “. . . some of the vehicle status data 110 is analyzed to determine whether the vehicle is driving straight . . . the analyzed vehicle status data 110 may include information obtained from the inertial measurement unit, the steering angle sensor, and/or at least some of the four wheel speed sensors [(i.e., control condition variables indicative of trajectory with respect to a straight line)].”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose a control condition variable being based on a commanded trajectory of the vehicle and an error between the commanded trajectory and the straight line.
Ribbens teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the control condition variable is based on a commanded trajectory of the vehicle and an error between the commanded trajectory and the straight line (see Ribbens at least pg. 454, paragraph 5 “In the illustration of Figure 8.32, the front wheels are steered to a steering angle δF by the driver's steering wheel input [(i.e., commanded trajectory)].”; Figure 8.32- steering angle δF is defined relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle x’ (i.e., error between commanded trajectory and the straight line)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the steering wheel angle as a control condition variable of Tan with the control condition variable being based on a commanded trajectory of the vehicle and an error between the commanded trajectory and the straight line as taught by Ribbens to have the control condition variable be based on a commanded trajectory of the vehicle and an error between the commanded trajectory and the straight line. Doing so would further define the steering wheel angle control condition variable input of Tan in a way that aligns with existing industry standards for defining vehicle steering input.
Regarding claim 15, Tan, Naka, and Grip disclose the subject matter of claim 9 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Tan discloses steering wheel angle as a control condition variable (see Tan at least “. . . some of the vehicle status data 110 is analyzed to determine whether the vehicle is driving straight . . . the analyzed vehicle status data 110 may include information obtained from the inertial measurement unit, the steering angle sensor, and/or at least some of the four wheel speed sensors [(i.e., control condition variables indicative of trajectory with respect to a straight line)].”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose a control condition variable being based on a commanded trajectory of the vehicle and an error between the commanded trajectory and the straight line.
Ribbens teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the control condition variable is based on a commanded trajectory of the vehicle and an error between the commanded trajectory and the straight line (see Ribbens at least pg. 454, paragraph 5 “In the illustration of Figure 8.32, the front wheels are steered to a steering angle δF by the driver's steering wheel input [(i.e., commanded trajectory)].”; Figure 8.32- steering angle δF is defined relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle x’ (i.e., error between commanded trajectory and the straight line)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the steering wheel angle as a control condition variable of Tan with the control condition variable being based on a commanded trajectory of the vehicle and an error between the commanded trajectory and the straight line as taught by Ribbens to have the control condition variable be based on a commanded trajectory of the vehicle and an error between the commanded trajectory and the straight line. The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as claim 8 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
(A) Applicant argues, “Claim 1 has been amended and is directed to a method for calibrating a sensor of a vehicle moving on a road section. The method includes determining a control condition variable indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle with respect to a straight line; determining a bank angle condition variable indicative of a motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a bank angle of the road section, wherein the bank angle condition variable is determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity; determining a torque condition variable indicative of the motion of the vehicle with respect to the straight line based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle; determining a straight-line condition for the vehicle when at least one of the control condition variable, the bank angle condition variable and the torque condition variable indicates that the vehicle is moving in the straight line; and calibrating the sensor when the vehicle is in the straight- line condition.
“Tan discloses a technique for calibrating an onboard sensor of a vehicle. Tan discloses determining a bank angle condition variable. However, Tan does not teach that the bank angle condition variable is based on vehicle dynamics. In particular, Applicant submits that Tan does not teach or suggest the feature of wherein the bank angle condition variable is determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity, as specified in amended claim 1.
“Naka has been cited by the examiner as teaching determining a torque condition variable based on a torque applied to a steering wheel of the vehicle. Without agreeing with the examiner, Applicant submits that Naka does not teach or suggest the feature of wherein the bank angle condition variable is determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity, as specified in amended claim 1.
“Applicant therefore submits that Tan and Naka, either alone or in any combination, do not teach or suggest at least this feature of amended claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, is patentable over Tan, Naka and the prior art of record,” (remarks pages 8-9).
As to Point (A), the arguments have been considered but are moot. Applicant appears to argue that the prior art of record fail to disclose or otherwise suggest the bank angle condition variable being determined based on vehicle dynamics, wherein the vehicle dynamics includes a heading of the vehicle and a wheel velocity, as required by the amended claims. These limitations are taught by the prior art as applied above. See the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the independent claims above for additional details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (JP 2012171430 A) discloses comparing a yaw rate to a threshold to determine a straight driving condition.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TABITHA KRESS whose telephone number is (703) 756-1763. The examiner can normally be reached MTWR 06:30-16:30 CST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/TABITHA KRESS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
10/1/26
