DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preamble
2. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
The “heavy-duty vehicle” in the preambles of independent claims 1 and 14-16 has not been accorded much patentable weight since it merely recites the intended use of a control system to a structure, while the body of said claims are able to stand alone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 8, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
3a. Claim 3, which depends directly from claim 1, recites the limitation "VMM function". Since said abbreviation has not been defined in claim 3 or 1, it cannot be ascertained what is being encompassed. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed said term encompasses that which is defined in claim 2.
Claim 8 is subsequently rejected for containing similar recitations and/or dependency on claim 3.
3b. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the at least one MSD". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed “the at least one MSD” encompasses the MSD as outlined in independent claim 1.
3c. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “torque generating device”, and the claim also recites “such as an electric machine…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 10, 12, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wheals (US 2004/0249533).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 15, and 16, as best understood, Wheals discloses a control system and method with control unit1 (supervisor 14; Wheals at abstract, 0022) for motion management of a heavy-duty vehicle (vehicle motion control system, control unit, and associated method for any kind of vehicle; Wheals at abstract, Fig. 1, 0131), the control system and method comprising:
An upper-level control system and a lower-level control system (hierarchal control system includes a supervisor controller 14,150, with safety function 16, and plurality of subsystems; Wheals at Fig. 1, 6, 0017-0020, 0022, 0072).
Where the upper-level control system is arranged to obtain a desired motion behavior by the vehicle (e.g. driver requests and responsiveness of vehicle; Wheals at 0003, 0004, 0026) and to transmit one or more control signals adapted for control of at least one motion support device, MSD (actuators to effect motion of the vehicle in response to driver demands, “sportiness” and safety concerns; Wheals at 0003, 0023, 0026), to the lower-level control system in dependence of the desired motion behavior by the vehicle (actuators implement interpreted driver demands; Wheals at 0022-0024).
Wherein the one or more control signals transmitted from the upper-level control system to the lower-level control system comprises data indicative of a desired control bandwidth for control of the at least one MSD (actuator responsiveness signals provided by supervisor through safety block; Wheals at 0026).
Where the lower-level control system is arranged to receive the control signals and to control the at least one MSD in dependence of the desired control bandwidth (vehicle actuators controlled according to commanded responsiveness; Wheals at 0026).
Wherein the upper-level control system is arranged to determine the desired control bandwidth for control of the at least one MSD in dependence of a control bandwidth of the upper-level control system and on a control stability criterion (supervisor can account for vehicle safety and stability based on sensed local conditions and an automatically determine the actuator responsiveness; Wheals at 0003, 0023, 0025, 0026)
Regarding claim 2, Wheals discloses where the upper-level control system corresponds to a vehicle motion management, VMM, function (control of torque, brakes, etc.; Wheals at 0005, 0023) and where the lower-level control system corresponds to an MSD control unit (subsystem controllers; Wheals at 0005).
Regarding claim 4, Wheals discloses wherein the upper-level control system is arranged to determine the desired control bandwidth for control of the at least one MSD in dependence of a current traffic situation (sensed local conditions, including traffic, used to vary vehicle responsiveness; Wheals at 0027, 0060).
Regarding claim 5, Wheals discloses wherein the upper-level control system is arranged to determine the desired control bandwidth for control of the at least one MSD in dependence of a required response time of the at least one MSD (required vehicle responsiveness determined at supervisor level; Wheals at 0026).
Regarding claim 7, Wheals discloses wherein the upper-level control system comprises a vehicle model configured to model a response by the vehicle to a control signal comprising a given control bandwidth for control of at least one MSD, wherein the upper-level control system is arranged to determine the desired control bandwidth in response to an output of the vehicle model in comparison to a desired response by the vehicle (actuator commanded output a function of vehicle modeling, current sensed conditions, DSI, driver demands and driving style; Wheals at 0002, 0051, 0057, 0058, 0086, 0096).
Regarding claim 9, Wheals discloses wherein the desired motion behavior by the vehicle corresponds to a responsive behavior suitable for an emergency maneuver (emergency vehicle conditions suspends current motion behavior for a more suitable vehicle control; Wheals at 0046).
Regarding claim 10, Wheals discloses wherein the desired motion behavior by the vehicle corresponds to an energy efficient behavior (fuel economy considered in vehicle responsiveness; Wheals at 0074).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Wheals discloses wherein the at least one MSD comprises any of: a torque generating device such as an electric machine and/or a service brake, a steering device, or a suspension system of the heavy-duty vehicle (braking, steering, chassis control; Wheals at 0040, 0017, 0072).
Regarding claim 13, Wheals discloses wherein the data indicative of the desired control bandwidth is selected from a set of predetermined control bandwidths (responsiveness can be altered via DSI index; Wheals at 0026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 3, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheals, as cited above, and further in view of Zheng (US 2019/0185011).
Regarding claim 3 as best understood, while Wheals discloses driver assistance in stability control (e.g. Wheals at 0023, 0065), Wheals is silent as to where the upper-level control system corresponds to an autonomous drive, AD, control function.
Zheng, in a similar motion control invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches a control system of an autonomously controlled vehicle configured with a control function (high-level system configured for motion planning in autonomous control of a vehicle along a route; Zheng at abstract, 0062, 0065).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to augment the driver assistance of Wheals with the autonomous function of Zheng. Doing so would allow further reduce driver error while still outputting a satisfactory driving style.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the combination teaches wherein the AD control function comprises a first vehicle model configured to model a response by the vehicle to a control signal comprising a given control bandwidth for control of at least one MSD and a trajectory tracking function configured to track a desired vehicle trajectory by optimization of a cost function which is at least partly based on an output of the first vehicle model (motion planning along a route modeled and optimized via cost function to include factoring for stability control and vehicle responsiveness on a planned trajectory; Zheng at 0008, 0064, 0085-0088).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches wherein the desired motion behavior by the vehicle is associated with a passenger comfort level (passenger comfort accounted for in motion planning; Zheng at 0008, 0113, 0122).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 15 April 2026
1 Wheals includes controller processing equivalent to circuitry as claimed in claims 14 and 15. Further, it is inherent that the controller of Wheals discloses some kind of persistent storage, equivalent to the storage medium contained in said claims; otherwise, the algorithm could not be implemented. As to limitations which are considered to be inherent in a reference, see MPEP 2112.01.
Prosecution Insights