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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues the prior arts are not directed to energy efficiency but only to safety and comfort and energy-centric features are entirely absent from Soliman for example.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Soliman indeed optimizes the speed and acceleration profiles of the driver driven trajectories and the optimization are associated with energy efficiency (at least in para. 0032, 0033, 0035, 0059, and previous cited paragraphs in the rejections). In fact, Soliman is energy-centric teaching the system operations to maximize energy efficiencies and consumption throughout the disclosure. Therefore, it is not clear how Soliman is not directed to energy efficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman (US 2020/0031371 A1), Garimella et al. (US 2024/0262422 A1), Kim (US 2025/0074389 A1) and Zebiak et al. (US 2024/0181896 A1).
For claim 1, Soliman discloses an autonomous driving system for a vehicle having wheels (Fig. 2, 5, 11, para. 0026, 0030), comprising: an electric vehicle body (Para. 0025, 0040);
an energy-saving control unit comprising: a data acquisition and processing module to collect driving data of a human and environment information (Fig. 2, 5, para. 0028, where data collect driving data of human and environment information); a constraints generation module which determines a suggested speed and acceleration region based on the driving data of the human and vehicle model constraints (Para. 0006, 0035-0037, 0047, where suggested driving adjustment to speed and acceleration based on the vehicle and human driving data are instructed and controlled);
a joint optimization module transforms path information of the human into an optimization problem; an accurate tracking algorithm to combine a state of the vehicle and a generated optimal trajectory based upon the path information of the human; a path tracking module to find an optimal point in driving movement of the human, to track an optimized path (Para. 0032, 0033, 0043, 0046, 0047, 0048, 0059, where the driver driving and path information and behavior are evaluated and optimized to improve vehicle efficiency and reduce energy consumption by optimizing the travel paths of the vehicle); and
a differential steering controller independently controls the speed of each wheel controls the steering behavior of the vehicle causing driving operations including turning angles, speed, braking and acceleration based on the path to follow (Para. 0028, 0040, 0046, 0049, 0050, where the drive system control the propulsion of each wheels),
wherein maintain operation of the motor within a high-efficiency interval during autonomous driving (Para. 0027, 0029, 0032, 0033, 0035, 0040, 0047, where energy efficiency of the system is being monitored and controlled during autonomous operations).
Soliman does not specifically disclose the vehicle body is a wire-controlled skateboard chassis; wherein the path tracking module determines a turning radius for the vehicle, and the differential steering controller uses the turning radius to adjust speeds of the wheels. Garimella in the same field of the art discloses the well-known vehicle body type is a wire-controlled skateboard chassis (Abstract, para. 0005, 0028-0030). Kim in the same field of the art discloses determines a turning radius for the vehicle, and the differential steering controller uses the turning radius to adjust speeds of the wheels (Fig. 1, 2, 4, 10, abstract, para. Para. 0011). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Soliman to employ a vehicle body with skateboard chassis and the path tracking module determines a turning radius for the vehicle, and the differential steering controller uses the turning radius to adjust speeds of the wheels, as taught by Garimella and Kim respectively to utilize the vehicle control system in any well-known vehicle configurations and appropriately control the radius of the vehicle during travel of the paths.
Soliman further does not explicitly disclose the speed and acceleration region is optimized by analyzing a motor efficiency map. Zebiak in the same field of the art discloses vehicle motor system where the speed and acceleration region is optimized by analyzing a motor efficiency map (Para. 0036, 0039). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Soliman to optimize the speed and acceleration region by analyzing a motor efficiency map, as taught by Zebiak to ensure operating the vehicle based on efficiency map to maximize energy efficiency of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman (US 2020/0031371 A1), Garimella et al. (US 2024/0262422 A1), Kim (US 2025/0074389 A1) and Zebiak et al. (US 2024/0181896 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chevalier et al. (US 2022/0371574 A1).
For claim 2, Soliman discloses the autonomous driving system according to claim 1,
wherein the vehicle has a steering wheel, pedals, a sensor array and an onboard computer (Fig. 5), wherein:
the wire-controlled skateboard chassis has first through fourth in-wheel motors to respectively drive the wheels and are independently controlled (as taught by Garimella and Kim discussed above);
the path tracking module comprises first through two modes: human mode, autonomous mode (Para. 0046-0048, where autonomous and driver modes can be selected),
wherein the human mode uses the steering wheel and pedals to control the vehicle (Fig. 2, abstract, para. 0008, 0025), and
the autonomous mode uses the sensor array and the onboard computer to generate driving commands based on a real-time environment (Fig. 5, 12, para. 0008, 0025, 0026, 0030, 0048, where the vehicle may be driving autonomously).
Soliman does not specifically disclose the vehicle having a remote mode; the vehicle to be usable with a remote controller, and the remote mode uses wireless communication to transfer signals between the vehicle and the remote controller. Chevalier in the same field of the art discloses known vehicle system having a remote mode; the vehicle to be usable with a remote controller, and the remote mode uses wireless communication to transfer signals between the vehicle and the remote controller (Para. 0138). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Soliman to include a remote mode; the vehicle to be usable with a remote controller, and the remote mode uses wireless communication to transfer signals between the vehicle and the remote controller, as taught by Chevalier to allow the convenience for remote operators to operate the vehicle when necessary.
For claim 3, Soliman, as modified, discloses the autonomous driving system according to claim 2, further comprising a processor which controls a rotational speed and torque of each wheel depending on a path tracking algorithm of energy saving and an intended route, to independently adjust wheel speeds of the wheels (Para. 0032, 0040, 0046, 0047, where intended route for the vehicle is controlled by controlling the speed and torque of each wheels).
For claim 10, Soliman, as modified, discloses the autonomous driving vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the differential steering mechanism modulates power supplied to the motors on each wheel according to principles of forward kinematics (Kim - Fig. 1-3, 7, 8, , which govern a relationship between the position of the vehicle and controllability associated with voltages of the motors (Kim - Fig. 10, 11, para. 0011, 0013, 0035, where the power deliver to each motor of the wheels are controlled based on the position of the vehicle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are allowed.
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 4, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the driving data being saved in a binary file format in a storage medium for efficient storage and transmission, wherein a local planning module processes the collected human driver data to generate a planned travel route, and extract the trajectory of the vehicle based on position and time data of the human driving trajectory, representing the travel route followed by the human driver; the trajectory data is filtered to remove any outliers or noise that may affect the quality and accuracy of the travel route; boundary regions are generated based on road width, lane markings, and obstacles detected from an environment and traffic data, wherein the boundary regions define feasible and infeasible regions for the vehicle to travel: reference points are selected from the trajectory data, and vertical vectors are generated from the reference points to the boundary regions, the vertical vectors representing a lateral deviation of the vehicle from the reference points; optimization variables are selected based on objective and constraints of the path planning, the optimization variables include at least one of curvature, heading angle, lateral offset, longitudinal speed, and acceleration of the vehicle; a cost function is established based on the optimization variables and the human driver data, wherein the cost function reflects preferences of the human driver and comfort level, as well as the safety and efficiency of the vehicle; the cost function and the constraints are converted into a quadratic programming form, the quadratic programming form consists of a quadratic objective function and linear equality and inequality constraints; the constraints are generated based on the boundary regions, vehicle dynamics, and traffic rules; numerical optimization is performed using the joint optimization module that finds optimal values of optimization variables that minimize the cost function while satisfying the constraint conditions; and obtaining the optimal path with the lowest overall curvature by maintaining the reference path's smoothness and the tracking accuracy.
For claim 5, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the constraints generation module determines a suggested speed and acceleration region based on speed and acceleration information of the human driver; the process of finding and selecting the optimal motor output efficiency point for a given trajectory comprises efficiency point identification and efficiency area selection; wherein in the efficiency point identification, a motor output efficiency point of a current path is found in a suggested area where a motor output efficiency map that corresponds to a desired speed and torque range of the vehicle, the motor output efficiency point on the map has a highest efficiency value for the current trajectory; the efficiency point identification maximizes the energy efficiency and performance of the vehicle; and efficiency area selection is based on the current output efficiency point and a suggested interval, the area with output efficiency greater than the current efficiency is selected; the suggested interval is a threshold value that defines an acceptable range of efficiency deviation from the current efficiency point an area with output efficiency greater than the current efficiency is a region of a motor output efficiency map that has efficiency values higher than the current efficiency point minus the suggested interval.
For claim 6, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the joint optimization module transforms the path of the human driver into an optimization problem by establishing a cost function that considers the distance between adjacent discrete positions generated by a human driver and a reference position, distance from an endpoint to the reference position, wherein the weights of the distance between the discrete points generated by the human driver and the reference position, distance from the endpoint to the reference position, speed, acceleration, endpoint velocity, reference speed, and endpoint acceleration are adjusted according to driving behavior of the human driver to adapt to different behavioral needs; constraints including the position of each optimization point, velocity, acceleration, continuous position of the optimization point, continuous velocity, initial point state, and end state are added into a cost function for optimization to minimize cost; the cost function and constraints are then transformed into a quadratic programming form and brought into the joint optimization module for real-time solutions; the optimal trajectory containing time information with a lowest overall curvature is obtained from path smoothing optimization, representing a best trade-off between the driver's preferences and the vehicle's performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(12,280,796) Schleede et al. discloses a vehicle control system applying filtering to trajectory data to smooth out traveled path for efficiency.
(US 2025/0171046 A1) Linscott discloses a vehicle control system refining and training driving paths between human driven and vehicle controlled trajectories and to improve the performance of the vehicle.
(US 2017/0088174 A1) Inoue et al. discloses a driving assistance control for assisting driver with control adjustments during driving based on normative driving to improve driver performance and fuel consumption.
(10,656,644) Lin et al. discloses a system for using human driving patterns to improve autonomous vehicles trajectories and performance.
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 Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657