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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uebel et al. (DE1020190105655) which is cited in the IDS. An English translation of the description with paragraph numbers is provided herewith.
Regarding claim 1, Uebel teaches a method for model-based predictive control (MPC) of a motor vehicle, comprising:
executing an MPC algorithm (see at least [0013]), which comprises a high level solver module (at SQP of figure 10), wherein a high level longitudinal trajectory is calculated by the high level solver module for an upcoming route segment (see at least [0018, 0112]), according to which the motor vehicle is to travel within a route-based high level prediction horizon (see again at least [0111, 0112, 0115] which teaches the high-level MPC via the SQP);
sending the high level longitudinal trajectory calculated by the high level solver module to a tracker solver module in the MPC algorithm as an input (via low level MPC-2 of figure 10 and at least [0017, 0018, 0029, etc.]); and
calculating a tracker longitudinal trajectory based on the high level longitudinal trajectory calculated by the high level solver module with the tracker solver module (via the combined control taught in at least [0111-0119]), according to which the motor vehicle is to travel within a time-based tracker prediction horizon (see at least [0113-0115 which teaches a time based prediction horizon optimization control method using high and low level MPCs), wherein the tracker prediction horizon is shorter than the high level prediction horizon, such that the tracker prediction horizon only covers a portion of the high level prediction horizon (see at least [0116, 0117] which teaches optimization by covering smaller but more relevant area).
Regarding claim 2, Uebel teaches calculating the tracker longitudinal trajectory with a higher resolution than the high level longitudinal trajectory (see at least [0116] which discloses a higher quality solution when using multiple MPC stages).
Regarding claim 3, Uebel teaches a length of the high level prediction horizon is 50 meters to 5,000 meters (see at least [0126, 0128, 0130] which discloses operation parameters within the claimed limits, thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Uebel teaches sending the tracker longitudinal trajectory calculated by the tracker solver module to a post processing unit as an input value; processing the longitudinal trajectory calculated by the tracker solver module in the post processing unit to obtain a control signal; and controlling the motor vehicle on the basis of the control signal (see at least figure 1 [0030, 0031, 0043] which shows processor 102 that is used to calculate and send control signals).
Regarding claim 5, Uebel teaches the MPC algorithm comprises a longitudinal dynamics model and a high level cost function dedicated to the high level solver module, and the high level longitudinal trajectory is calculated taking the longitudinal dynamics model into account, while minimizing the high level cost function (longitudinal dynamics module via the route data 103 of figure 10 see calculation of minimum trajectory and at least [0113]).
Regarding claim 6, Uebel teaches wherein a tracker cost function is dedicated to the tracker solver module, and the tracker longitudinal trajectory is calculated taking the longitudinal dynamics model into account, while minimizing the tracker cost function (see above noted paragraphs and equivalent dynamics model 103 and additionally at least [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, Uebel teaches wherein the high level longitudinal trajectory comprises a speed trajectory, according to which the motor vehicle is to travel within the high level prediction horizon (see at least [0113, 0114] and figure 9 which shows speed trajectories) .
Regarding claim 8, Uebel teaches wherein the high level longitudinal trajectory comprises a course of a charging state of a battery, which serves as a power storage for an electric machine in the motor vehicle, wherein the motor vehicle is powered by the electric machine (see at least [0022, 0035, 0036] which discloses a hybrid electric vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Uebel teaches wherein the high level longitudinal trajectory and the tracker longitudinal trajectory comprises a braking force trajectory for brakes in the motor vehicle according to which the brakes are to provide braking forces within the high level predication horizon and within the tracker prediction horizon (see at least [0043, 0050, 0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Uebel teaches wherein the tracker longitudinal trajectory comprises a torque trajectory for a least one drive assembly in the motor vehicle, according to which the at least one drive assembly is to provide drive torques within the tracker prediction horizon (see at least [0053, 0132]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658