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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/489,326, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 1, there is no support in the as filed specification on how comparing speeds obtained by a GPS and a wheel encoder results in an updated tire radius. Further, there is no support in the as filed specification of adjustment of the steering or propulsion using a wheel encoder and the updated tire radius.
Regarding claim 2, there is no support in the as filed specification of adjustment of the steering or propulsion using the steering offset bias that minimizes differences between the first plot and second plot. Further, since claims 3-9 depend from claim 2, claims 3-9 also fail to provide adequate support.
Regarding claim 9, there is no support in the as filed specification on how comparing speeds obtained by a GPS and a wheel encoder results in an updated tire radius. Further, there is no support in the as filed specification of adjustment of the steering or propulsion using a wheel encoder and the updated tire radius.
Accordingly, claims 1-9 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application and the filing date of the instant application is 06/23/2024.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/489,326, filed on 09/29/2021, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application (see claims). Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 0001, there is a typographical error with the priority date. Examiner believes Applicant means September 29, 2021.
In Paragraph 0031 line 6, there is a grammar error “Thereafter, they determined position of the GPS” is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests amending “they” to “the”.
In Paragraph 0031 line 7, there is a grammar error “serves as an coordinate origin” is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests amending “an” to “a”.
In Paragraph 0031 line 9, there is a typographical error, the word “baselilnk” is not a word.
In Paragraph 0048, there is a typographical error with the reference to the correct Figure. Examiner believes Applicant means Figure 5.
In Paragraph 0058, there is a typographical error with the reference to the correct camera in line 3. Examiner believes Applicant means camera unit 422-2.
In Paragraph 0061, Applicant refers to RAC location acquisition unit 328 in the last line in the Paragraph, however, in Paragraph 0062 Applicant refers to calibration unit 328 and in Paragraph 0064 Applicant refers to unit 328. Applicant is reminded to be consistent with terminology throughout the specification.
In Paragraph 0082 line 4 there is a grammar error, “method 600 is not combine estimates”. Examiner suggests the correction “method 600 does [is] not combine estimates”.
In Paragraph 0082 line 4 there is a typographical error with reference to the block 5502. Examiner believes Applicant means block 550.
In Paragraph 0086 line 1, Applicant makes reference to “this plot”. Examiner suggests amending line 1 to refer to plot 260.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “determine an updated tire radius for the tire of the tractor based upon a comparison of the first estimate and the second estimate”, the as filed specification appears to describe at Paragraph 0084, solving for a tire radius that is based on GPS determined speed and wheel RPM data from a wheel encoder. It is unclear from the specification how comparing speeds from a GPS and wheel encoder obtains an updated tire radius. Are the speeds used in separate calculations to compute a tire radius for each of the wheel encoder and GPS? Then the computed tire radii are compared to each other, and if one of the radii is the more accurate, that more accurate radius is then used as the updated tire radius? The as filed specification fails to provide adequate support for this limitation. Therefore, since there is a gap in the specification with how the updated tire radius is obtained using speeds from an encoder and a GPS, the specification fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “determine an updated tire radius for the tire of the tractor based upon a comparison of the first estimate and the second estimate”, the as filed specification appears to describe at Paragraph 0084, solving for a tire radius that is based on GPS determined speed and wheel RPM data from a wheel encoder. It is unclear from the specification how comparing speeds from a GPS and wheel encoder obtains an updated tire radius. Are the speeds used in separate calculations to compute a tire radius for each of the wheel encoder and GPS? Then the computed tire radii are compared to each other, and if one of the radii is the more accurate, that more accurate radius is then used as the updated tire radius? The as filed specification fails to provide adequate support for this limitation. Therefore, since there is a gap in the specification with how the updated tire radius is obtained using speeds from an encoder and a GPS, the specification fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0257303 A1) hereinafter Lavoie in view of Bertucci et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0029490 A1) hereinafter Bertucci
Lavoie discloses a vehicle calibration system comprising:
a global positioning satellite (GPS) antenna carried by the vehicle [see Paragraph 0041 - discusses a GPS module];
a wheel speed sensor to output signals indicating rotation of a tire of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0026 - discusses a wheel speed sensor];
a calibration unit [see Paragraph 0021 - discusses a controller, see Paragraphs 0050-0051 - discusses the controller that updates (calibrates) a tire radius] comprising:
a processing unit [see Paragraph 0021 - discusses the controller is a processor]; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions to direct the processing unit [see Paragraph 0003 – discusses a controller is programmed] to:
determine a first estimate for a vehicle speed based upon signals received from the GPS antenna [see Paragraph 0041 - discusses using GPS module to output vehicle speed];
determine a second estimate for the vehicle speed based upon signals received from the wheel speed sensor [see Paragraphs 0041 and 0055 - discusses receiving a wheel speed from the wheel speed sensor]; and
determine an updated tire radius for the tire of the vehicle based upon a comparison of the first estimate and the second estimate [see Paragraph 0055-0057 - discusses determining a second tire radius using the wheel speed and GPS speed, see Paragraph 0057 - discusses that a final (updated) tire radius estimate is based on a fusion (comparison) of the second tire radius estimate (GPS learning method)]; and
a controller configured to output control signals to adjust at least one of a steering and propulsion of the vehicle based on signals from the wheel encoder [see Paragraph 0038 – discusses a screening condition before determining the final tire radius, the screening condition including a wheel speed] and the updated tire radius [see Paragraph 0057 - discusses that the final tire radius updates an algorithm, the processor guides the vehicle along a guidance path, see Figure 2 below - depicts guidance path 138, that involves steering and propulsion to reach a position].
PNG
media_image1.png
232
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Lavoie
Lavoie discloses the claimed invention except for a wheel encoder. Bertucci discloses a wheel encoder [see Paragraph 0148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, and of functional equivalents to substitute the wheel speed sensor as taught by Lavoie for the wheel encoder as taught by Bertucci, since a simple substitution of one known element (speed measuring device) for another would obtain predictable results of measuring speed. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Lavoie discloses updated tire radius determination based upon a comparison of the first estimate and the second estimate (known technique). Lavoie further discloses that the vehicle is farm equipment [see Paragraph 0010]. It is known that farm equipment include tractors. Bertucci discloses a tractor [see Paragraph 0049], the tractor includes a wheel encoder that detects speed [see Paragraph 0148] and a GPS that detects speed [see Paragraph 015]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the known technique of tire radius determination as taught by Lavoie on the tractor as taught by Bertucci to achieve the predictable result of updating a tire radius.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,162,466 B1) hereinafter Das in view of Sights et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0147225 A1) hereinafter Sights.
Regarding claim 2, Das discloses an agricultural vehicle calibration system [see Column 4 lines 44-45 - discusses an agricultural vehicle, see Column 4 lines 30-33 – discusses implementing a (calibration) vehicle control circuitry] comprising:
a speed sensor [see Column 2 lines 34-36 - discusses a speed sensor];
a steering angle sensor [see Column 2 lines 34-36 - discusses a steering wheel angle sensor];
at least one inertial measurement unit [see Column 2 lines 34-36 - discusses an IMU sensor (yaw rate sensor)];
a calibration unit [see Column 16 lines 19-23 - discusses vehicle control circuity, see Figure 5 – depicts the vehicle control circuitry blending (calibrating) filtered measured and filtered calculated yaw rates] comprising:
a processing unit [see Column 5 lines 46-67 - discusses the vehicle control circuitry includes a processing unit or microprocessors]; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions to direct the processing unit to [see Column 15 lines 46-51 - discusses operations below are be implemented using executable instructions (e.g., computer readable and/or machine readable instructions) stored on one or more non-transitory computer readable and/or machine readable media, see Column 16 lines 19-23 - discusses the vehicle control circuitry performs the instructions below]:
generate a first plot of a first series of first yaw rate estimates over time based upon signals from the speed sensor and the steering angle sensor [see Column 16 lines 34-45 - discusses determining a calculated yaw rate signal based on steering wheel angle sensor and a travel speed of the vehicle (speed sensor), see Column 17 lines 10-21 – discusses determining a filtered calculated raw rate, see Figure 4 below – depicts filtered calculated yaw rates, and see Column 17 lines 40-50 - discusses continuing monitoring the calculated yaw rates for new data, this would occur over a period of time (see Figure 4 below – depicts a series of measurements filtered calculated yaw rates over a period of time) until the monitoring ends];
PNG
media_image2.png
462
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Das
generate a second plot of a second series of second yaw rate estimates over the time based upon signals from the at least one inertial measurement unit [see Column 16 lines 46-51 - discusses determining a measured yaw rate signal based on yaw rate sensor (IMU sensor), see Column 17 lines 1-9 – discusses determining a filtered measured yaw rate, see Figure 4 above – depicts filtered measured yaw rates, and see Column 17 lines 40-50 - discusses continuing monitoring the measured yaw rates for new data, this would occur over a period of time (see Figure 4 above – depicts a series of measurements filtered measured yaw rates over a period of time) until the monitoring ends];
compare the first plot and the second plot to determine a steering offset bias that minimizes differences between the first plot and the second plot [see Column 17 lines 22-27 - discusses blending the filtered measured yaw rate and the filtered calculated yaw rate, see Column 10 lines 24-53 - discusses reducing offset (see Figure 4 below – depicts an offset between the filtered yaw rates by blending the filtered measured yaw rate and the filtered calculated yaw rate), the measured filtered yaw rates and calculated filtered yaw rates are blended to reduce the offset (error), and see Column 17 lines 40-50 - discusses continuing monitoring the measured and calculated yaw rates for new data, this would occur over a period of time until the monitoring ends – the first plot and second plot would be compared (blended) until the monitoring ends]; and
PNG
media_image2.png
462
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Das
a controller configured to output control signals to adjust at least one of a steering and propulsion of an agricultural vehicle based on the steering offset bias [see Column 17 lines 29-39 - discusses using the blended signal (reducing offset) to transmit control signals to motors to adjust direction and magnitude of torque applied to the motors, see Column 5 lines 16-32 – discusses the motors control wheels to adjust angle of the wheel (steering) and torque direction (propulsion)].
Das discloses a steering offset bias determination based on first yaw rates from a speed sensor and a steering wheel angle sensor and a second yaw rates from an IMU sensor (known technique). Das further discloses that the vehicle is an agricultural vehicle. It is known that agricultural vehicles include tractors. Sights discloses a tractor [see Paragraph 0036], the tractor includes an IMU, steering angle sensor, and a speed sensor [see Paragraph 0044] and uses these sensors use for calibration of a steering system [see Paragraph 0050] (a similar device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the known technique of steering offset bias determination as taught by Das on the tractor as taught by Sights to achieve the predictable result of correcting steering angle offset, because tractors suffer from the same off-set induced tracking errors as road vehicles and use the same sensor modalities.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Sights further in view of Karishetti et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0102940 A1) hereinafter Karishetti.
Regarding claim 3, Das and Sights disclose the invention with respect to claim 2.
However, Das and Sights fails to disclose wherein the speed sensor comprises a wheel encoder and wherein the steering angle sensor comprises a potentiometer.
Karishetti further discloses wherein a speed sensor comprises a wheel encoder [see Paragraph 0090]
Das and Sights disclose the claimed invention except for a wheel encoder, which is disclosed by Karishetti. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, and of functional equivalents to substitute the speed sensor as taught by Das for the wheel encoder as taught by Karishetti, since a simple substitution of one known element (speed measuring device) for another would obtain predictable results of measuring speed. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Karishetti further wherein a steering angle sensor comprises a potentiometer [see Paragraph 0090].
Das and Sights disclose the claimed invention (e.g. a steering wheel angle sensor) except for a potentiometer which is disclosed by Karishetti. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, and of functional equivalents to substitute the steering wheel angle sensor as taught by Das for the potentiometer as taught by Karishetti, since a simple substitution of one known element (steering angle measuring device) for another would obtain predictable results of measuring steering angle. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Das, Sights, and Karishetti disclose the invention with respect to claim 3. Das further discloses wherein the instructions Das, Sights, and Karishetti are to direct the processing unit to determine the first yaw rate estimates based upon a wheelbase of the tractor [see Column 16 lines 40-42 - discusses a wheelbase is used in the calculated yaw rate].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Sights in view of Karishetti further in view of Krone et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0215483 A1) hereinafter Krone.
Regarding claim 5, Das, Sights, and Karishetti disclose the invention with respect to claim 3.
However, the combination of Das, Sights, and Karishetti fails to disclose wherein the tractor comprises a second inertial measurement unit, wherein the first yaw rate estimations are based upon a fusion of signals from the inertial measurement unit and the second inertial measurement unit.
Krone discloses wherein a tractor [see Paragraph 0019 – a tractor] comprises a second inertial measurement unit [see Paragraphs 0027-0030 - discusses multiple inertial measurement units that measure pose (see Paragraph 0004 – discusses pose includes yaw rate)], wherein a first yaw rate estimations are based upon a fusion of signals from the inertial measurement unit and the second inertial measurement unit [see Paragraph 0049 - discusses fusion using multiple inertia measurement units, see Paragraph 0030 - discusses multiple inertial measurement units using a sensor fusion].
Krone suggests fusion,” “sensor fusion’ or “data fusion”, is the process of combining sensor data and/or data derived from disparate sources to generate output data characterized by less uncertainty [see Paragraph 0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processing unit as taught by Das to include a second IMU with yaw rate estimations and fusing the signals of the first IMU and second IMU as taught by Krone in order to reduce uncertainty with output of data [Krone, see Paragraph 0049].
Regarding claim 6, Das, Sights, Karishetti, and Krone disclose the invention with respect to claim 5. Krone further discloses wherein a processing unit is to use a Kalman filter to fuse the signals from the inertial measurement unit and the second inertial measurement unit to determine the first yaw rate estimations [see Paragraphs 0052-0053- discusses using a Kalman filter for sensor fusion].
Krone suggests using a Kalman filter compensates for any drift over time in readings provided by the gyroscopes associated with the IMUs [see Paragraph 0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processing unit as taught by Das include a second IMU with yaw rate estimations and to fuse the signals of the first IMU and second IMU via a Kalman filter as taught by Krone in order to compensate for any drift in readings [Krone, see Paragraph 0030].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Sights in view of Karishetti in view of Krone further in view of Gregory et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0238710 A1) hereinafter Gregory.
Regarding claim 7, Das, Sights, Karishetti, and Krone disclose the invention with respect to claim 6.
However, the combination of Das, Sights, Karishetti, and Krone fails to disclose wherein the instructions are to direct the processing unit to:
sense a vibration amount proximate the inertial measurement unit; and
apply a weight to the signals from the inertial measurement unit based upon the vibration amount.
Gregory discloses wherein instructions are to direct a processing unit to sense a vibration amount proximate an inertial measurement unit [see Paragraph 0057 — discusses a vibration is felt by an IMU]; and
apply a weight to the signals from the inertial measurement unit based upon the vibration amount [see Paragraph 0057 — discusses that a weight is adjusted].
Gregory suggests that by adjusting weights from an IMU to a Kalman filter enhances performance when exposed to changing mechanical environments such as shock events [see Paragraph 0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processing unit as taught by Das to apply a weight to the signals from the inertial measurement unit, to the Kalman filter as taught by Krone, based upon the vibration amount as taught by Gregory in order to enhance performance of IMUs when exposed to changing mechanical environments such as shock events [Gregory, see Paragraph 0057].
Regarding claim 8, Das, Sights, Karishetti, Krone, and Gregory disclose the invention with respect to claim 7. Krone further discloses the second inertial measurement unit [see Paragraph 0030 - discusses multiple inertial measurement units].
Krone suggests fusion,” “sensor fusion’ or “data fusion”, is the process of combining sensor data and/or data derived from disparate sources (a second inertial measurement unit) to generate output data characterized by less uncertainty [see Paragraph 0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processing unit as taught by Das to include a second IMU with yaw rate estimations and fusing the signals of the first IMU and second IMU as taught by Krone in order to reduce uncertainty with output of data [Krone, see Paragraph 0049].
Gregory further discloses wherein instructions are to direct a processing unit to sense a vibration amount proximate an inertial measurement unit [see Paragraph 0057 — discusses a vibration is felt by an IMU]; and
apply a weight to the signals from the inertial measurement unit based upon the vibration amount [see Paragraph 0057 — discusses that a weight is adjusted].
Gregory suggests that by adjusting weights from an IMU to a Kalman filter enhances performance when exposed to changing mechanical environments such as shock events [see Paragraph 0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processing unit as taught by Das to apply a weight to the signals, from the second inertial measurement unit, to the Kalman filter as taught by Krone, based upon a vibration amount as taught by Gregory in order to enhance performance of the second inertial measurement unit when exposed to changing mechanical environments such as shock events [Gregory, see Paragraph 0057].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Sights in view of Lavoie further in view of Bertucci
Regarding claim 9, Das and Sights disclose the invention with respect to claim 2.
However, the combination of fails to disclose:
wherein the speed sensor comprises a wheel encoder, the system further comprising:
a global positioning satellite (GPS) antenna, wherein the instructions are further configured to direct the processing unit to:
determine a first estimate for a tractor speed based upon signals received from the GPS antenna;
determine a second estimate for the tractor speed based upon signals received from the wheel encoder; and
determine an updated tire radius for the tire of the tractor based upon a comparison of the first estimate and the second estimate, and
wherein the controller is further configured to output control signals to adjust at least one of the steering and propulsion of the tractor based on signals from the wheel encoder and the updated tire radius.
Lavoie discloses:
a global positioning satellite (GPS) antenna [see Paragraph 0041 - discusses a GPS module], wherein instructions [see Paragraph 0003 – discusses a controller is programmed] are further configured to direct a processing unit [see Paragraph 0021 - discusses the controller is a processor] to:
determine a first estimate for a vehicle speed based upon signals received from the GPS antenna [see Paragraph 0041 - discusses using GPS module to output vehicle speed];
determine a second estimate for the vehicle speed based upon signals received from a wheel speed sensor [see Paragraphs 0041 and 0055 - discusses receiving a wheel speed from the wheel speed sensor];
determine an updated tire radius for the tire of the vehicle based upon a comparison of the first estimate and the second estimate [see Paragraph 0055-0057 - discusses determining a second tire radius using the wheel speed and GPS speed, see Paragraph 0057 - discusses that a final (updated) tire radius estimate is based on a fusion (comparison) of the second tire radius estimate (GPS learning method)], and
wherein the controller is further configured to output control signals to adjust at least one of the steering and propulsion of the vehicle based on signals from the wheel encoder [see Paragraph 0038 – discusses a screening condition before determining the final tire radius, the screening condition including a wheel speed] and the updated tire radius [see Paragraph 0057 - discusses that the final tire radius updates an algorithm, the processor guides the vehicle along a guidance path, see Figure 2 below - depicts guidance path 138, that involves steering and propulsion to reach a position].
PNG
media_image1.png
232
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Lavoie
Lavoie discloses the claimed invention except for a wheel encoder. Bertucci discloses a wheel encoder [see Paragraph 0148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, and of functional equivalents to substitute the wheel speed sensor as taught by Lavoie for the wheel encoder as taught by Bertucci, since a simple substitution of one known element (speed measuring device) for another would obtain predictable results of measuring speed. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Further, Lavoie suggests that determining tire radius improves automated parking [see Paragraph 0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processing unit as taught by Das include determination of an updated tire radius and controlling the vehicle based on the updated tire radius as taught by Krone in order to improve automated parking [Lavoie, see Paragraph 0030].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665