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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/721,417 , with an effective filing date of 6/18/2024. Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 15-33 and 35-37 are currently pending. Claims 4 and 10-11 have been cancelled by the Applicant prior to prosecution and claims 12-14 and 34 have been currently canceled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 USC § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, the Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of said claims, and subsequently the rejections to the claims is rendered moot.
Regarding the rejection of claims 34-35 under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, the Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 34, which subsequently is renders the rejection to claim 34 moot, and the necessary changes were made to claim 35. The rejection of claim 35 is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-24 and 31-37 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pat. No. 9,969,386 B1) [hereinafter referred to as Wang] in view of Berkemeier et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0039517 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Berkemeier], the Applicant argues the Examiner allegedly did not establish prima facie obviousness. However, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and the rejections under 35 USC § 103 are maintained as discussed in further detailed below.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the limitation obtaining a set of entry conditions is not disclosed in Wang. However, as described in the previous Office Action the autonomous vehicle gathers initial state information and boundary spacing which is construed as entry conditions indicating allowable vehicle states prior to commencing a maneuver to reach a target pose which in this case is a parked position.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Further regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the limitation initiating the maneuver if the current vehicle state is comprised in the set of entry conditions is not disclosed in Wang. However, in column 11 lines 26-39 the autonomous vehicle determines a geometric path to move the vehicle connecting an initial state of the vehicle with the target state of the vehicle without collision, wherein the geometric path includes a set of waypoints, each waypoint is defined by a position and orientation of the vehicle, and wherein the geometric path is determined using only geometry of the vehicle and the parking space.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Further regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the limitation predicting the probability of reaching a target pose is not disclosed in Wang. However, Fig. 9B below where a probability function of reaching the target posed, i.e., without collision, based on route boundaries, i.e., map of the parking space. The probability function of reaching the desired orientation without collision is construed as predicting the probability of reaching the target pose.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Further regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the limitation predicting the probability of reaching a target pose is below a threshold value is not disclosed or taught in the combination of Wang and Berkemeier. However, Wang discloses predicting the probability of reaching a target pose as discussed above and Berkemeier teaches the use of thresholds based on probability of collisions. This combination is construed as predicting the probability of reaching a target pose is below a threshold value.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Further regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the limitation determining an adjusted maneuver of the vehicle in an essentially opposite direction to the first main route direction is not disclosed or taught in the combination of Wang and Berkemeier. However, as discussed in the previous action, Berkemeier teaches adjusting the direction based on autonomous maneuvers which may necessarily comprise of those made in the opposite direction of the main direction of travel as with the parallel parking of Wang.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Drawings
Drawings 1c and 6a-8 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show: (a) with respect to Figs. 1c and 8 details regarding the identifications (i.e.,Fig.8 items 810 and 820), as described in the specification and (b) with regard to Figs. 6a-7, details regarding the blocks contained therein (i.e. Fig. 7 items 130, 140, 700, 710, 720, and 730), as described by the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified an informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 15-24, 31-33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pat. No. 9,969,386 B1), hereinafter referred to as Wang, in view of Berkemeier et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0039517 A1), hereinafter referred to as Berkemeier.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses:
A method for controlling a vehicle in preparation for a maneuver along a first main route direction, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of entry conditions indicating allowable vehicle states prior to commencing the maneuver, wherein obtaining the set of entry conditions indicating allowable vehicle states prior to commencing the maneuver comprises receiving data indicative of route boundaries and data indicative of a target pose of at least a part of the vehicle within the route boundaries (column (col) 1 lines (ln) 24-27 controlling the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles executing in autonomous-driving mode automatically parks a vehicle into a parked position and orientation referred herein as a target state, col 6 ln 45-46 the boundary of a parking space (construed as a route boundary), and col 6 ln 47-51 The vehicle has an initial state, e.g., a current state, and needs to be parked at a parking spot defined by a target state and each state (e.g., the initial and the target state) define position and orientation of the vehicle);
determining a current vehicle state (col 6 ln 47-51 as discussed above regarding current state of the vehicle and col 8 ln 19-20 sensing the environment and vehicle operation condition);
initiating the maneuver if the current vehicle state is comprised in the set of entry conditions (determining a geometric path connecting an initial state of the vehicle with the target state of the vehicle without collision, wherein the geometric path includes a set of waypoints, each waypoint is defined by a position and orientation of the vehicle, and wherein the geometric path is determined using only geometry of the vehicle and the parking space);
predicting a probability of reaching the target pose on the basis of the route boundaries (see Fig. 9B below where a probability function of reaching the target posed, i.e., without collision, based on route boundaries, i.e., map of the parking space).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Wang discloses in col 1 ln 33-36 controlling the vehicle and col 5 ln 28-29 controlling the motion of the vehicle according to the reference trajectory and predicting a probability of reaching the target pose on the basis of the route boundaries as stated above, it does not explicitly disclose:
probability of reaching the target pose is below a threshold value;
in response to determining the predicted probability of reaching the target pose is below the threshold value;
determining an adjusted maneuver of the vehicle in an essentially opposite direction to the first main route direction; and
controlling the vehicle to switch from the maneuver to the determined adjusted maneuver.
However, Berkemeier teaches in [0003] Trailers are usually unpowered vehicles that are pulled by a powered tow vehicle, which can be necessarily autonomous ([0005]). A trailer may be a utility trailer, a popup camper, a travel trailer, livestock trailer, flatbed trailer, enclosed car hauler, and boat trailer, among others. Furthermore, in [0032] a motion correction system adjusts vehicle autonomous maneuvers based on continuously receiving sensor data and tracked data, specifically to avoid the one or more objects. Furthermore, the motion correction system determines a probability of collision and if the probability of collision exceeds a predetermined threshold, the motion correction system adjusts the vehicle autonomous motion maneuvers and sends it to the drive assistance system. The probability of a collision being above the threshold is construed as necessarily being correlated to the probability of reaching a target pose being below a threshold because if an autonomous system gets into a collision, it necessarily may not be able to reach the target pose. Further, in [0037] the steering behavior may be executed to change the direction of the tow vehicle, based on the vehicle autonomous maneuvers, via the acceleration system which is construed as the adjusted maneuver being in essentially opposite direction to the initial direction (i.e., main route direction).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system/method of Wang, by incorporating the probability and control teachings of Berkemeier, such that the combination would, as taught in Berkemeier in [0031], allow improved accuracy of the tracker and thus the motion correction system while maneuvering the tow vehicle in the rearward direction R.
Claims 35-37 recite a computer program, computer readable medium, control unit, and a vehicle, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claims 35-37 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the set of entry conditions indicating allowable vehicle states prior to commencing the maneuver comprising obtaining a vehicle model of the vehicle (see Fig. 2A, below, where Vehicle models are an input to the motion planning).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the vehicle model contains data indicative of the vehicle geometry of the vehicle (col 2 ln 35-36 geometry of the vehicle is a provided input).
Regarding claims 4, 10-14, and 34, the Applicant has elected to cancel these claims and they are subsequently no longer being considered.
Regarding claim 5, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method according to of claim 1, wherein the data indicative of the route boundaries is obtained from route information (col 1 ln 20-22 The surroundings, such as road edges, pedestrians, and other vehicles, are sensed by the sensors of the vehicle and/or are at least partially known by a priori given information).
Regarding claim 6, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 5, wherein the data indicative of the target pose of at least a part of the vehicle within the route boundaries is obtained from a transportation mission for the vehicle (col 2 ln 5 path plan is construed as being synonymous with transportation mission).
Regarding claim 7, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1,wherein obtaining the set of entry conditions indicating allowable vehicle states prior to commencing the maneuver comprises obtaining environmental variables (col 1 ln 20-22 The surroundings, such as road edges, pedestrians, and other vehicles, are sensed by the sensors of the vehicle and/or are at least partially known by a priori given information, which is construed as environmental variables that are obtained prior to commencing a maneuver).
Regarding claim 8, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1,wherein determining the current vehicle state comprises
determining any one of vehicle linear speed, vehicle angular speed, vehicle linear acceleration, vehicle angular acceleration, wheel rotation speed, tire acceleration, tire normal load, slip angle, and steer angle (col 1 ln 29-36 an initial state representing the vehicle's start position and orientation, and then control the actuators of the vehicle, e.g., vehicle's gas pedal and steering wheel, to ensure that the vehicle follows the desired path or motion and col 7 ln 28-31 utilizes the velocity of the front wheels, angle between the front wheels and the vehicle orientation, the translational acceleration, and the steering angular velocity).
Regarding claim 9, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1,further comprising controlling maneuver of the vehicle on the basis of the obtained set of entry conditions (see claim 1 regarding set of entry conditions and controlling the maneuvering of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 15, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 12, further comprising controlling the vehicle to switch from
the maneuver to the determined adjusted maneuver, in response to the determined current vehicle state deviating from the entry conditions by comparing the deviation with a threshold value (see claim 1 regarding probability).
Regarding claim 16, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising controlling the vehicle in the essentially opposite direction to the first main route direction until the current state of the vehicle is again comprised in the set of entry conditions (col 8 ln 58-64 vehicle controllers and actuators determine and exert control commands to enforce the vehicle state track the reference trajectory if the reference trajectory is state profile, or to enforce the vehicle velocity and steer angle track the reference trajectory if the reference trajectory is the vehicle velocity and steer angle profiles, which is construed as tracking the route and adjusting the maneuver, which may necessarily be in the opposite direction, and further controlling the vehicle to switch from the maneuver to the adjusted maneuver and vice versa until the vehicle successfully reaches the target pose within the route boundaries).
Regarding claim 17, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a time period for performing the operation in the essentially opposite direction until the current state of the vehicle is again comprised in the set of entry conditions (col 8 ln 58-64 vehicle controllers and actuators determine and exert control commands to enforce the vehicle state track the reference trajectory if the reference trajectory is state profile, or to enforce the vehicle velocity and steer angle track the reference trajectory if the reference trajectory is the vehicle velocity and steer angle profiles, which is construed as tracking the route and adjusting the maneuver, which may necessarily be in the opposite direction, and further controlling the vehicle to switch from the maneuver to the adjusted maneuver and vice versa until the vehicle successfully reaches the target pose within the route boundaries).
Regarding claim 18, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising controlling the vehicle in the essentially opposite direction until the current state of the vehicle exceeds a threshold value indicative of a route position of the vehicle permitting the vehicle to restart a new maneuver along the first main route direction (see claim 1 regarding probability thresholds to avoid collisions).
Regarding claim 19, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1,wherein the maneuver is a reverse maneuver and the first main route direction is a reverse driving route direction (col 1 ln 44-45 where the reference is directed toward back-in or parallel parking, to which the reverse direction is the main route direction).
Regarding claim 20, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the essentially opposite direction is a forward driving direction (col 1 ln 44-45 where the reference is directed toward back-in or parallel parking, to which the reverse direction is the main route direction and forward would necessarily be the essentially opposite direction as when parallel parking where to reach a target pose within the route boundary the forward movement of the vehicle may be necessary).
Regarding claim 21, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1,further comprising determining whether the current vehicle state is within the set of entry conditions (col 5 ln 7 determining a geometric path connecting an initial state of the vehicle with the target state of the vehicle without collision, wherein the geometric path includes a set of waypoints, each waypoint is defined by a position and orientation of the vehicle, and wherein the
geometric path is determined using only geometry of the vehicle and the parking space; and col 7 ln 1-3 determine a kinematic path connecting the initial state and the target state such that the kinematic path is feasible and collision free, these are construed as determining whether the ).
Regarding claim 22, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 21, wherein determining whether the current vehicle state is
within the set of entry conditions comprises a pre- determined nominal trajectory (see claim 1 regarding a reference trajectory/path which is a predetermined nominal trajectory and claim 21 regarding the geometric and kinematic paths which are also predetermined trajectories).
Regarding claim 23, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 21, wherein determining whether the current vehicle state is within the set of entry conditions comprises vehicle geometry and map information (col 3 ln 31-32 geometric path can be built using only geometry of the vehicle and a map of the parking space, which is construed as map information).
Regarding claim 24, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising using the set of entry conditions during the maneuver so as to monitor the vehicle state (determining, using a dynamic model of the vehicle, a reference trajectory tracking the kinematic path as a function of time).
Regarding claim 31, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is any one of a single vehicle unit and a vehicle combination having at least two vehicle units interconnected (col1 ln24-26 controlling the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles executing in autonomous-driving mode automatically parks a vehicle (synonymous with single vehicle unit) and see claim 1 where Berkemeier is directed toward a trailer and a towing vehicle).
Regarding claim 32, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 31, wherein when the vehicle is a vehicle combination
having at least two vehicle units interconnected, the at least two vehicle units are interconnected via at least one articulated joint (see claim 1 where Berkemeier is directed toward a trailer and an autonomous towing vehicle).
Regarding claim 33, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 31, wherein the vehicle combination is an autonomous vehicle combination comprising an autonomous towing vehicle (col1 ln24-26 controlling the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles executing in autonomous-driving mode automatically parks a vehicle (synonymous with single vehicle unit) and see claim 1 where Berkemeier is directed toward a trailer and a towing vehicle).
______________________________________
Claims 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pat. No. 9,969,386 B1), hereinafter referred to as Wang, in view of Berkemeier et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0039517 A1), hereinafter referred to as Berkemeier, and Laine et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0182041 A1), hereinafter referred to as Laine.
Regarding claim 25, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1),
but Wang does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising obtaining a tire model to predict a tire wear in dependence of the current vehicle state.
However, Laine teaches in [0060] s.3-4 A software-based tire model is comprised in the system. This tire model provides information about the tire currently mounted on the wheel, its properties, and behavioral characteristics. Furthermore, in [0062] that the tire model is configured to predict a tire wear rate of the tire based on different control allocations. This comprises measurement data obtained from a wheel rotation speed sensor ([0059]) as well as mapping between slip and force is determined by the current tire parameters such as tire slip stiffness properties, tire thread area temperature, tire nominal inflation pressure, current tire normal force, wheel rotation speed, tire wear, and road friction coefficient ([0061]). The model which is stored in memory can be determined analytically or experimentally based on the structural design particulars and chemical composition of the tire which is mounted on the wheel.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system/method of Wang, as already modified by Berkemeier, by incorporating the tire model teachings of Laine, such that the combination would, as taught in Laine in [0007], allow improved vehicle control strategy by the dynamically adapted tire models.
Regarding claim 26, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier and Laine, discloses:
The method of claim 25,wherein the tire model is parameterized by one or more
tire parameters obtained from input data related to at least one parameter of a tire on the vehicle (see claim 25 regarding tire parameters).
Regarding claim 27, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier and Laine, discloses:
The method of claim 26, further comprising obtaining input data related to the at least one parameter of a tire on the vehicle from one or more sensors arranged to measure one or more operating parameters of the tire (see claim 25 regarding tire parameters).
Regarding claim 28, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier and Laine, discloses:
The method of claim 27, wherein the input data relating to the measured one or more operating parameters comprise any of: vehicle speed, wheel rotation speed, tire pressure, tire temperature, tire acceleration, tire strain, tire GPS position, weather, ambient temperature, rain classification data, amount of water on road, normal load, slip angle, steer angle, and applied torque on one or more wheels (col 7 ln 28-31 utilizes the velocity of the front wheels, angle between the front wheels and the vehicle orientation, the translational acceleration, and the steering angular velocity, [0062] determined by the current tire parameters, and see claim 25).
Regarding claim 29, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier and Laine, discloses:
The method of claim 26, wherein the input data comprises data obtained from a
memory related to tire design, wherein the data related to tire design comprises any of: tire nominal dimension, tire structural characteristics, tire chemical composition, and tire history (see claim 25 regarding tire design characteristics and chemical composition).
Regarding claim 30, Wang, as modified by Berkemeier and Laine, discloses:
The method of claim 26, wherein the one or more tire parameters comprise any of: tire wear, tire longitudinal stiffness, tire lateral stiffness, tire rolling resistance, tire peak friction, tire rolling radius, tire contact patch properties, tire balance properties, and wheel alignment properties (see claim 25 regarding tire parameters).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Berkemeier et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,603,100 B2) is directed towards automated reversing by following user-selected trajectories and estimating vehicle motion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights