DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 5/13/2024. The application claims benefit to the provisional application 63/502,355 filed on 5/15/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 preamble, replace … vehicle, comprising … with … vehicle, the system comprising …
Claim 9 preamble, replace … method, comprising … with … vehicle, the method comprising …
Claim 15 preamble, replace … vehicle, comprising … with … vehicle, the system comprising …
Claim 15, add “and” before (b) on line 8.
Claim 15, add “and” at the end of each of lines 14 and 24.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a first/second computational node configured to receive …” and “a control arbitrator configured to receive … and output …” as well as “ a vehicle controller configured to receive …” in claims 1 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the specifications, each of the computational nodes, then control arbitrator, and the vehicle controller can be interpreted to be a combination of one or more software, firmware, and hardware elements [see e.g. [0104] as well as figs. 1-3 and 10 and their associated description in the specifications for exemplary hardware components and figs. 4-9 and their associated description in the specifications for exemplary software components].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner Comments
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagesson et al., US PGPUB 2022/0315020 Al (hereinafter as Tagesson) in view of “Turri, V., Carvalho, A., Tseng, H., Johansson, K., Borrelli, F. (2013) Linear model predictive control for lane keeping and obstacle avoidance on low curvature roads. In: IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC (pp. 378-383)” (hereinafter as IEEE-2013) and Yu et al., EP 3 865 365 A1 (hereinafter as Yu).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tagesson teaches a system for controlling a vehicle [see e.g. title, [0001], and [0008]], the system comprising:
a first computational node [the primary control unit 10 (e.g. in fig. 2 and [0056])] configured to receive a plurality of planner waypoints and a plurality of states for the vehicle [note in [0040] the use of information received to generate the control commands; see also [0059]], wherein the first computational node comprises:
a controller configured to receive the plurality of planner waypoints and the plurality of states and generate, using a control framework, (a) a first control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a lateral direction, and (b) a second control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a longitudinal direction, wherein the first control algorithm is decoupled from the second control algorithm [see [0022]-[0023] the use of inputs from sensors and signals related to a certain operational mode for generating longitudinal and lateral commands; note in [0026] the primary control unit providing both longitudinal and lateral motion control with different control parameters involved, as per [0012]-[0013]; note in [0040] the use of information received to generate the control commands; see also [0059]];
a first controller configured to generate, based on the first control algorithm, a first trajectory and a first control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the lateral direction, wherein the first trajectory and the first control actuation command set is generated using an optimization solver with a first complexity; and a second controller configured to generate, based on the second control algorithm, a second trajectory and a second control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, wherein the second trajectory and the second control actuation command set is generated using a high reliability solver with a second complexity that is less than the first complexity [note e.g. in [0008] and in the abstract that a primary control unit (regarded as a first computational node) performs lateral and longitudinal motion control of the vehicle; note from [0012]-[0013] as well as [0056] that each of the lateral and longitudinal motion control in the primary control unit comprises different sub-control tasks and thus use different solvers; note the trajectory control entities, e.g. in [0054]; further note from the second half of [0009] that the primary control unit also includes a lateral back-up motion control module which would indicate entailing a more complex algorithm for lateral motion control than that used for longitudinal motion control];
a second computational node [note the secondary (back-up) control unit 20 (e.g. in fig. 2 and [0056])] configured to receive the plurality of planner waypoints, the plurality of states for the vehicle [note in [0040] the use of information received to generate the control commands; see also [0059]], and wherein the second computational node comprises:
a third controller configured to generate a third trajectory and a third control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, wherein the third trajectory and the third control actuation command set is generated using the optimization solver with the first complexity [note e.g. from [0014] the use of a secondary (back-up) control unit for performing only longitudinal motion control, as also explicitly indicated in [0053] and also in [0008] and the abstract; note from [0015] the example where the secondary control unit provides a braking control signal; especially note from [0058] the embodiment in which the primary and secondary control units may be formed of equivalent but distinct computer resources and sub-control units thus resulting in equivalent optimization solvers of the same (first) complexity; note again in [0040] the use of information received to generate the control commands; note again the trajectory control entities, e.g. in [0054]; see also [0059]];
a control arbitrator configured to receive the plurality of states for the vehicle, the second control actuation command set, and the third control actuation command set, select, based on at least the plurality of states for the vehicle and health status indications of the first and second computational nodes, either the second control actuation command set or the third control actuation command set, and output a selected control actuation command set [note e.g. in [0023]-[0024] the selection of a command associated with primary or secondary system/control unit based on a signal indicative of a status of the system; again, see [0014;l especially note in [0024] the receipt of a heartbeat signal from the secondary control unit while the primary control unit is running thus assisting in the vehicle decision control unit to choose between corresponding longitudinal motion control commands]; and
a vehicle controller configured to receive the first control actuation command set and the selected control actuation command set, and control the vehicle based thereon [note again, e.g. in [0008] and in the abstract, providing the motion control commands to the vehicle].
Tagesson does not explicitly teach using a model predictive control framework that generates a model predictive control reference that is decomposable into a lateral control reference and a longitudinal control reference by the model predictive control framework.
Tagesson also does not teach that the second computational node is configured to receive the model predictive control reference, wherein the model predictive control reference is received with a first delay. Neither does it teach that the vehicle controller is configured to receive the first control actuation command set and the selected control actuation command set subsequent to a second delay.
IEEE-2013 teaches using, for implementing the control framework, a model predictive control framework that generates a model predictive control reference that is decomposable into a lateral control reference and a longitudinal control reference by the model predictive control framework, wherein the first and second control algorithms are decoupled [see the description undersection “IV. Controller Design” on pp. 381-382 and especially note the generated reference values included in the formulation; see also the abstract indicating the use of a model predictive control (MPC) formulation that decouples the longitudinal and lateral dynamics for the vehicle control].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tagesson and IEEE-2013 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control framework taught by Tagesson by explicitly specifying the use of a model predictive control framework that generates a model predictive control reference that is decomposable into a lateral control reference and a longitudinal control reference by the model predictive control framework for implementing the first control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in the lateral direction and the second control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, as per the teachings of IEEE-2013. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate the control problem formulation utilizing plausible braking or throttle profiles with time-varying models of vehicle dynamics, which would yield more effective results, as suggested by IEEE-2013 [see e.g. abstract].
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that the second computational node is configured to receive the model predictive control reference, wherein the model predictive control reference is received with a first delay. Neither does it teach that the vehicle controller is configured to receive the first control actuation command set and the selected control actuation command set subsequent to a second delay.
Yu teaches a model for autonomous vehicle control in which a first delay is taken into consideration when receiving input parameters and in which the receipt of a control actuation command set takes place subsequent to a second delay [note the actuation delay and the time-latency term both at least described in [0013] and taken into consideration with the discreet-time dynamic model execution for transmitting vehicular commands; see also [0004], [0005], and the abstract; see also the generation of parameters for the dynamic model indicated in [0074]].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Yu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the control framework taught by Tagesson and modified by IEEE-2013 by explicitly further specifying that the second computational node taught by Tagesson is configured to receive the model predictive control reference taught by IEEE-2013, wherein the model predictive control reference is received with a first delay, as that taught by Yu and by further specifying that the vehicle controller is configured to receive the first control actuation command set and the selected control actuation command set (as taught by Tagesson) subsequent to a second delay, as that taught by Yu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable accounting for the latency time and system dynamic delays that are inherent to common control systems such as brakes, throttle, and steering (“drive-by-wire”), as suggested by Yu [see e.g. [0004]].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Tagesson further teaches that the first control actuation command set comprises a brake command set and a steering command set [see e.g. in [0054] the brake and steering systems that can be controlled by command sets as per [0022], for instance].
IEEE-2013 further teaches a first control actuation command set comprising a throttle command set, a brake command set, and a steering command set [see e.g. the abstract].
See the rejection of independent claim 1 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated.
While Tagesson does not explicitly teach selecting the second control actuation command set upon a determination that the health status indication of the second computational node comprises an error condition, Tagesson does clearly and explicitly teach that the control arbitrator is configured to select the third control actuation command set upon a determination that the health status indication of the first computational node comprises an error condition [see [0065] describing the use of the secondary (backup) in emergency situations in which the primary control unit is found faulty]. Examiner notes that since there are only two control units, i.e. a finite number of identified ways to select one out of two when the other one is identified faulty, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the reverse scenario of that taught by Tagesson with a known expected and predictable result. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143 I E.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated.
Tagesson further teaches that the control arbitrator is configured to select a minimal risk condition control actuation command set upon a determination that the health status indication of the first computational node comprises an error condition, and wherein the minimal risk condition control actuation command set causes the vehicle to reduce its speed and safely come to a stop [see e.g. [0035] – [0037] indicating enabling an emergency mode when the primary control unit is found faulty and the description of an emergency stop in [0037] and [0024]; see also [0061] indicating risk reduction and back-up control mechanisms].
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated. IEEE-2013 further teaches that the first control algorithm being decoupled from the second control algorithm configures the first controller and the second controller to independently solve the first control algorithm and the second control algorithm, respectively [the description under equation (5) on p. 379 and subsection II-B; see also the abstract indicating the use of a model predictive control (MPC) formulation that decouples the longitudinal and lateral dynamics for the vehicle control].
See the rejection of independent claim 1 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated. Yu further teaches that a duration of the first delay or the second delay is based on an input delay and an output delay, wherein the input delay comprises a communication time and a computation time of the first computational node and the output delay comprises a delay associated with electro-mechanical components of the vehicle [note from [0004] that the latency can occur due to delays in data collection (communication) and processing (computation) times and that the actuation dynamic delay can occur due to the electro-mechanical actuation of the vehicle components such as motors, belts, etc.]. See the rejection of independent claim 1 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is fully incorporated.
Tagesson further teaches the use of a second computational node and a control arbitrator for computing a control command (in cases of emergency) [see the rejection of claim 2 and [0065]].
Yu further teaches that the output delay further comprises a computation time needed for computing a control command [again, see [0004]].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tagesson and Yu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these teachings to explicitly further specify that the output delay further comprises a computation time of the second computational node and a computation time of the control arbitrator. See the rejection of independent claim 1 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagesson in view of IEEE-2013 and Yu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robert et al., US PGPUB 2018/0267535 Al (hereinafter as Robert).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated.
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle is operating in a Society of Automotive Engineers Level 4 automation mode.
Robert teaches autonomous vehicle control wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle that is operating in a Society of Automotive Engineers Level 4 automation mode [note the Society of Automotive Engineers Level 4 automation mode described in [0007] and its comparison to the different levels 0-5 in [0003]-[0008]; see also the discussion about architecture choice and redundancy in [0016]].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Robert before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle is operating in a Society of Automotive Engineers Level 4 automation mode, as per the teachings of Robert. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to design control elements appropriate for the automation level required in terms of tradeoffs of redundancy and stability, as suggested by Robert [see e.g. [0016] and [0003]-[0008] as well as the abstract].
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagesson in view of IEEE-2013.
Regarding independent claim 9, Tagesson teaches a method of controlling a vehicle [see [0026]], the method comprising:
receiving, by a first computational node, a plurality of waypoints and a plurality of states for the vehicle, wherein the first computational node comprises a controller that is configured to generate, based on the plurality of waypoints and the plurality of states for the vehicle and using a control framework, a first control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a lateral direction and a second control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a longitudinal direction [see [0022]-[0023] the use of inputs from sensors and signals related to a certain operational mode for generating longitudinal and lateral commands; note in [0026] the primary control unit providing both longitudinal and lateral motion control; note in [0040] the use of information received to generate the control commands; see also [0059]];
generating, by the first computational node, (a) a first trajectory and a first control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the lateral direction based on using an optimization solver with a first complexity and (b) a second trajectory and a second control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction based on using a high reliability solver with a second complexity that is less than the first complexity [note e.g. in [0008] and in the abstract that a primary control unit (regarded as a first computational node) performs lateral and longitudinal motion control of the vehicle; note from [0012]-[0013] as well as [0056] that each of the lateral and longitudinal motion control in the primary control unit comprises different sub-control tasks and thus use different solvers; note the trajectory control entities, e.g. in [0054]; further note from the second half of [0009] that the primary control unit also includes a lateral back-up motion control module which would indicate entailing a more complex algorithm for lateral motion control than that used for longitudinal motion control];
generating, by a second computational node that operates in parallel with the first computational node, a third trajectory and a third control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction based on using the optimization solver with the first complexity [note e.g. from [0014] the use of a secondary (back-up) control unit for performing only longitudinal motion control, as also explicitly indicated in [0053] and also in [0008] and the abstract; note from [0015] the example where the secondary control unit provides a braking control signal; note the trajectory control entities, e.g. in [0054]; especially note from [0058] the embodiment in which the primary and secondary control units may be formed of equivalent but distinct computer resources and sub-control units thus resulting in equivalent optimization solvers of the same (first) complexity];
selecting, by a control arbitrator and based on the plurality of states for the vehicle and health status indications of the first and second computational nodes, either the second control actuation command set or the third control actuation command set, and outputting the selected control actuation command set [note e.g. in [0023]-[0024] the selection of a command associated with primary or secondary system/control unit based on a signal indicative of a status of the system; again, see [0014]-[0015]]; and
controlling, by a vehicle controller, the vehicle based on the first control actuation command set and the selected control actuation command set [note again, e.g. in [0008] and in the abstract, providing the motion control commands to the vehicle].
Tagesson does not explicitly teach using a model predictive control framework.
IEEE-2013 teaches using a model predictive control framework for implementing a first control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a lateral direction and a second control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a longitudinal direction (wherein the first and second control algorithms are decoupled) [see the description under equation (5) on p. 379 and subsection II-B; see also the abstract indicating the use of a model predictive control (MPC) formulation that decouples the longitudinal and lateral dynamics for the vehicle control].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tagesson and IEEE-2013 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control framework taught by Tagesson by explicitly specifying the use of a model predictive control framework for implementing the first control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in the lateral direction and the second control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, as per the teachings of IEEE-2013. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate the control problem formulation utilizing plausible braking or throttle profiles with time-varying models of vehicle dynamics, which would yield more effective results, as suggested by IEEE-2013 [see e.g. abstract].
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of independent claim 9 is fully incorporated.
Tagesson further teaches that the first control actuation command set comprises a brake command set and a steering command set [see e.g. in [0054] the brake and steering systems that can be controlled by command sets as per [0022], for instance].
IEEE-2013 further teaches a first control actuation command set comprising a throttle command set, a brake command set, and a steering command set [see e.g. the abstract].
See the rejection of the independent claim for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 9 is fully incorporated.
IEEE-2013 further teaches that using the model predictive control framework enables (a) the first algorithm to be generated for a finite time-horizon that includes a current timeslot and (b) the first trajectory and the first control actuation command set to be generated only for the current timeslot at each timestep [see e.g. the description indicating the prediction of states over a certain time horizon for each timestep under “B. MPC problems” on p. 382; especially note the sequence of positions and speeds over the prediction horizon and the MPC prediction of vehicle states].
See the rejection of claim 9 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 is fully incorporated.
Tagesson further teaches that the second computational node generates the third control actuation command set further based on a one or more of the plurality of waypoints [e.g. note in [0040] the use of a variety of received information to generate the control commands which is applicable to both the primary and secondary control units].
IEEE-2013 further teaches generating a control actuation command set based on a road grade associated with one or more of a plurality of waypoints [see e.g. the description under “II. Vehicle Model” on pp. 378-379; especially note the parameters related to the road curvature and road surface including associated friction coefficients between the tire and the road surface].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tagesson and IEEE-2013 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the control framework taught by Tagesson by explicitly applying the teaching of IEEE-2013 of generating a control actuation command set based on a road grade associated with one or more of a plurality of waypoints to the generation of the third control actuation command set by the second computational node taught by Tagesson. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable taking road conditions into consideration when generating vehicle control commands, as suggested by IEEE-2013 [see e.g. second paragraph under “A. Simulation setup description and results” on p. 382].
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagesson in view of IEEE-2013, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Rocha et al., US PGPUB 2021/0394770 A1 (hereinafter as Rocha).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is fully incorporated.
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that the control arbitrator is configured to select either the second control actuation command set or the third control actuation command set further based on a runtime delay of the second computational node.
Rocha teaches selecting either of two control actuation command sets based on a relative runtime delay of an originating computer with respect to the other [note in [0048] and [0052] the selection of a command based on a fault or error status of different computers at certain times tracked by an error/fault timestamp; see also [0040] and [0044]-[0045]].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Rocha before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the control framework taught by Tagesson and modified by IEEE-2013 by explicitly further modifying the control arbitrator to select either the second control actuation command set or the third control actuation command set further based on a runtime delay of the second computational node, as per the teachings of Rocha. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable synchronizing the control across different computers by monitoring error/fault messages in association with corresponding relative timestamps, as suggested by Rocha [see e.g. [0039]-[0040]].
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is fully incorporated.
Rocha further teaches that the selection is upon a determination that the runtime delay is greater than a threshold [see [0039]-[0040] and note the pre-determined tolerance range; see also the relative timestamps in [0052] and the concept of exceeding a threshold for sending fault or error messages to a switch strategy module].
See the rejection of claim 11 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagesson et al., US PGPUB 2022/0315020 Al (hereinafter as Tagesson) in view of Turri, V., Carvalho, A., Tseng, H., Johansson, K., Borrelli, F. (2013) Linear model predictive control for lane keeping and obstacle avoidance on low curvature roads. In: IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC (pp. 378-383) (hereinafter as IEEE-2013) and Rocha.
Regarding independent claim 15, Tagesson teaches a system for controlling a vehicle [see e.g. title, [0001], and [0008]], the system comprising:
a pair of computational nodes [the primary and secondary (back-up) control units 10 and 20 (e.g. in fig. 2 and [0056])];
a control arbitrator [see the vehicle decision control unit indicated in [0023], for instance]; and
a vehicle controller [see [0054] and note the description of the elements of the control system such as steering system 80, brake system 30, and powertrain system 70 shown in fig. 2],
wherein each of the pair of computational nodes comprises a controller configured to receive a plurality of planner waypoints and a plurality of states for the vehicle, and generate, using a control framework, (a) a first control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a lateral direction, and (b) a second control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a longitudinal direction [see [0022]-[0023] the use of inputs from sensors and signals related to a certain operational mode for generating longitudinal and lateral commands; note in [0026] the primary control unit providing both longitudinal and lateral motion control; note in [0040] the use of information received to generate the control commands; see also [0059]],
wherein a first computational node of the pair of computational nodes [the primary control unit 10 (e.g. in fig. 2 and [0056])] comprises: a first controller configured to generate, based on the first control algorithm, a first trajectory and a first control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the lateral direction, wherein the first trajectory and the first control actuation command set is generated using an optimization solver with a first complexity, and a second controller configured to generate, based on the second control algorithm, a second trajectory and a second control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, wherein the second trajectory and the second control actuation command set is generated using a high reliability solver with a second complexity that is less than the first complexity [note e.g. in [0008] and in the abstract that a primary control unit (regarded as a first computational node) performs lateral and longitudinal motion control of the vehicle; note from [0012]-[0013] as well as [0056] that each of the lateral and longitudinal motion control in the primary control unit comprises different sub-control tasks and thus use different solvers; note the trajectory control entities, e.g. in [0054]; further note from the second half of [0009] that the primary control unit also includes a lateral back-up motion control module which would indicate entailing a more complex algorithm for lateral motion control than that used for longitudinal motion control],
wherein a second computational node of the pair of computational nodes [the secondary (back-up) control unit 20 (e.g. in fig. 2 and [0056])] comprises: a fourth controller configured to generate, based on the second control algorithm, a fourth trajectory and a fourth control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, wherein the fourth trajectory and the fourth control actuation command set is generated using the optimization solver with the first complexity [note e.g. from [0014] the use of a secondary (back-up) control unit for performing longitudinal motion control, as also explicitly indicated in [0053] and also in [0008] and the abstract; note from [0015] the example where the secondary control unit provides a braking control signal; note the trajectory control entities, e.g. in [0054]; especially note from [0058] the embodiment in which the primary and secondary control units may be formed of equivalent but distinct computer resources and sub-control units thus resulting in equivalent optimization solvers of the same (first) complexity],
wherein the control arbitrator is configured to select, based on at least the plurality of states for the vehicle and health status indications of the pair of computational nodes, either the first control actuation command set or the third control actuation command set, and output a first selected control actuation command set, and select, based on at least the plurality of states for the vehicle and health status indications of the pair of computational nodes, either the second control actuation command set or the fourth control actuation command set, and output a second selected control actuation command set [note e.g. in [0023]-[0024] the selection of a command associated with primary or secondary system/control unit based on a signal indicative of a status of the system including heartbeat signals related to the control units and signals indicative of a system mode (normal versus emergency mode); again, see [0014] ;especially note in [0024] the receipt of a heartbeat signal from the secondary control unit while the primary control unit is running thus assisting in the vehicle decision control unit to choose between corresponding longitudinal motion control commands]; and
wherein the vehicle controller is configured to receive the first control actuation command set and the second selected control actuation command set, and control the vehicle based thereon [note again, e.g. in [0008] and in the abstract, providing the motion control commands to the vehicle].
Tagesson does not explicitly teach using a model predictive control framework.
Neither does it teach a third controller (in the second computational node) configured to generate, based on the first control algorithm, a third trajectory and a third control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the lateral direction, wherein the third trajectory and the third control actuation command set is generated using the high reliability solver with the second complexity.
Tagesson also does not explicitly teach that the control arbitrator is configured to select, based on at least the plurality of states for the vehicle and health status indications of the pair of computational nodes, either the first control actuation command set or the third control actuation command set, and output a first selected control actuation command set that is received by the vehicle controller.
IEEE-2013 teaches using a model predictive control framework for implementing a first control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a lateral direction and a second control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in a longitudinal direction (wherein the first and second control algorithms are decoupled) [see the description under equation (5) on p. 379 and subsection II-B; see also the abstract indicating the use of a model predictive control (MPC) formulation that decouples the longitudinal and lateral dynamics for the vehicle control].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tagesson and IEEE-2013 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control framework taught by Tagesson by explicitly specifying the use of a model predictive control framework for implementing the first control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in the lateral direction and the second control algorithm for motion of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, as per the teachings of IEEE-2013. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate the control problem formulation utilizing plausible braking or throttle profiles with time-varying models of vehicle dynamics, which would yield more effective results, as suggested by IEEE-2013 [see e.g. abstract].
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach a third controller (in the second computational node) configured to generate, based on the first control algorithm, a third trajectory and a third control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the lateral direction, wherein the third trajectory and the third control actuation command set is generated using the high reliability solver with the second complexity.
Neither does it teach that the control arbitrator is configured to select, based on at least the plurality of states for the vehicle and health status indications of the pair of computational nodes, either the first control actuation command set or the third control actuation command set, and output a first selected control actuation command set that is received by the vehicle controller.
Rocha teaches two computational nodes that operate in a redundant hardware and software architecture by performing similar operations for autonomous vehicle control command issuing [see e.g. title, abstract, front figure, and [0041] and [0048]; especially note the two CU computers].
Since Tagesson teaches a controller that generates a trajectory and a control actuation command set for the lateral motion of the vehicle [see [0008] and refer to the portions cited by the rejection of claim 1] and that the various controllers may implement alternative solvers by different controller for each of the longitudinal and lateral motion varying in reliability versus complexity [see e.g. [0014] and [0025]], it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Rocha to explicitly specify a third controller (in the second computational node) configured to generate, based on the first control algorithm, a third trajectory and a third control actuation command set for the motion of the vehicle in the lateral direction, wherein the third trajectory and the third control actuation command set is generated using the high reliability solver with the second complexity, as per the combined teachings of Tagesson and Rocha. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable a variety of software and hardware redundancy, as suggested by Tagesson [see e.g. [0009]-[0010], [0014], and [0025]] and Rocha [see e.g. [0003] and [0041]].
Since Tagesson teaches selecting, based on at least the plurality of states for the vehicle and health status indications of the pair of computational nodes, one of two candidate control actuation command sets and outputting the selected control actuation command set [again, note e.g. in [0023]-[0024] the selection of a command associated with primary or secondary system/control unit based on a signal indicative of a status of the system including heartbeat signals related to the control units and signals indicative of a system mode (normal versus emergency mode); again, see [0014] ;especially note in [0024] the receipt of a heartbeat signal from the secondary control unit while the primary control unit is running thus assisting in the vehicle decision control unit to choose between corresponding motion control commands] and Rocha teaches two computational nodes that operate in a redundant hardware and software architecture by performing similar operations for autonomous vehicle control command issuing, as indicated above, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Rocha to explicitly specify that the control arbitrator is also configured to select, based on at least the plurality of states for the vehicle and health status indications of the pair of computational nodes, either of the candidate control actuation command sets related to the lateral motion of the vehicle and to output that selected control actuation command set with the longitudinal selected control actuation command set that is also consecutively received by the vehicle controller. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to again to enable redundancy in both lateral and longitudinal motion component for the autonomous vehicle which would increase reliability and safety at the expense of computational as well as hardware costs, as suggested by Tagesson [see e.g. [0009]].
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is fully incorporated.
Tagesson further teaches that the first control actuation command set comprises a brake command set and a steering command set [see e.g. in [0054] the brake and steering systems that can be controlled by command sets as per [0022], for instance].
IEEE-2013 further teaches a first control actuation command set comprising a throttle command set, a brake command set, and a steering command set [see e.g. the abstract].
See the rejection of independent claim 15 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 is fully incorporated.
Although Tagesson/IEEE-2013 does not explicitly teach that the control arbitrator is configured to select either the second control actuation command set or the third control actuation command set further based on a runtime delay of the second computational node, Rocha teaches selecting either of two control actuation command sets based on a relative runtime delay of an originating computer with respect to the other [note in [0048] and [0052] the selection of a command based on a fault or error status of different computers at certain times tracked by an error/fault timestamp; see also [0040] and [0044]-[0045]].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Rocha before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the control framework taught by Tagesson and modified by IEEE-2013 and Rocha by explicitly further modifying the control arbitrator to select either the second control actuation command set or the fourth control actuation command set further based on a runtime delay of the second computational node, as per the teachings of Rocha. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable synchronizing the control across different computers by monitoring error/fault messages in association with corresponding relative timestamps, as suggested by Rocha [see e.g. [0039]-[0040]].
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is fully incorporated.
Rocha further teaches that the selection is upon a determination that the runtime delay is greater than a threshold [see [0039]-[0040] and note the pre-determined tolerance range; see also the relative timestamps in [0052] and the concept of exceeding a threshold for sending fault or error messages to a switch strategy module].
See the rejection of claims 15 and 17 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 15 is fully incorporated.
Tagesson further teaches that the second computational node generates the fourth control actuation command set further based on a one or more of the plurality of planner waypoints [e.g. note in [0040] the use of a variety of received information to generate the control commands which is applicable to both the primary and secondary control units].
IEEE-2013 further teaches generating a control actuation command set based on a road grade associated with one or more of a plurality of waypoints [see e.g. the description under “II. Vehicle Model” on pp. 378-379; especially note the parameters related to the road curvature and road surface including associated friction coefficients between the tire and the road surface].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tagesson and IEEE-2013 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the control framework taught by Tagesson by explicitly applying the teaching of IEEE-2013 of generating a control actuation command set based on a road grade associated with one or more of a plurality of waypoints to the generation of the fourth control actuation command set by the second computational node taught by Tagesson. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable taking road conditions into consideration when generating vehicle control commands, as suggested by IEEE-2013 [see e.g. second paragraph under “A. Simulation setup description and results” on p. 382].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagesson in view of IEEE-2013 and Rocha, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Robert.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 15 is fully incorporated.
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle is operating in a Society of Automotive Engineers Level 4 automation mode.
Robert teaches autonomous vehicle control wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle that is operating in a Society of Automotive Engineers Level 4 automation mode [note the Society of Automotive Engineers Level 4 automation mode described in [0007] and its comparison to the different levels 0-5 in [0003]-[0008]; see also the discussion about architecture choice and redundancy in [0016]].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Robert before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle is operating in a Society of Automotive Engineers Level 4 automation mode, as per the teachings of Robert. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to design control elements appropriate for the automation level required in terms of tradeoffs of redundancy and stability, as suggested by Robert [see e.g. [0016] and [0003]-[0008] as well as the abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes the following cited art:
Shi, Ke, et al. "Compensation-based robust decoupling control system for the lateral and longitudinal stability of distributed drive electric vehicle." IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 24.6 (2019): 2768-2778, which teaches decoupled control for the lateral and longitudinal stability of a distributed drive electric vehicle [see e.g. abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights