DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 11/13/2024.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites unusual symbols at the beginning of the seventh and ninth lines of claim 4. It is recommended to remove these symbols.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of this other grid. To more clearly reference the preceding limitation of “another grid,” the limitation of “this other grid” should be amended to recite “the another grid.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation of these variable parameters. To more clearly reference the preceding limitation of “variable parameters,” the limitation of “these variable parameters” should be amended to recite “the variable parameters.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of the path and the speed in the second line of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, a path and speed cannot be considered inherent features of an automotive machine.
Claim 3 recites the limitation of the corrector in the sixth line of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, three separate and distinct limitations of “a corrector” are recited, i.e. “a corrector” in claim 1, “a corrector” in the first line of claim 3, and “a corrector” in the fifth line of claim 3. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine which “corrector” is being referenced by the limitation of “the corrector” in the sixth line of claim 3. It is recommended to amend the limitations of “a corrector” in the first and fifth lines of claim 3 to instead recite “the corrector” or to amend the multiple limitations of “a corrector” to be distinct from one another, depending on the Applicant’s intention.
Claim 3 also recites the limitation of it in the second line of claim 3. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if the limitation of “it” is referencing the “corrector” or the “control method.”
Claim 5 recites the maximum and minimum limits. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, maximum and minimum limits cannot be considered inherent features of a variation of variable parameters.
The term most of the variable parameters in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the quantity of variable parameters that encompass “most of the variable parameters” is not defined and cannot be reasonably determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of the forces. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the forces are undefined in the claim and cannot be considered an inherent feature applied to the automotive machine.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of the forces applied to the automotive machine comprising normal reaction forces as well as longitudinal and lateral friction forces that the ground exerts on wheels of the automotive machine, to linearise said model in a linear parameter-varying form, a thresholding function applied to the normal reaction forces and to the longitudinal and lateral friction forces is used. This limitation cannot be clearly interpreted. Specifically, it is unclear whether to interpret the “forces” as being applied “to linearise said model,” or “to linearise said model…, a thresholding function…is used.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation of the model considering control inputs of the actuators, to linearise said model in a linear parameter-varying form, a saturation function applied to the control inputs is used. This limitation cannot be clearly interpreted. Specifically, it is unclear whether to interpret the “control inputs” as considered “to linearise said model,” or “to linearise said model…, a saturation function…is used.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation of the longitudinal acceleration of the automotive machine, its longitudinal speed, its lateral speed, its yaw rate, its heading angle and a steering angle. There is insufficient antecedent basis for limitations in the claim. Specifically, a longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal speed, lateral speed, yaw rate, and heading angle cannot be considered inherent features of the automotive machine. It is recommended to amend this limitation to read “a longitudinal acceleration, a longitudinal speed, a lateral speed, a yaw rate, a heading angle, and a steering angle of the automotive machine.”
In claim 10, quotations are provided for the term “anti-windup.” The interpretation of this term with quotations cannot be clearly understood. It is recommended to remove the quotations and amend the limitation to recite the intended features indicated by the quotations.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of the regulator. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a regulator cannot be considered an inherent feature of the claimed method.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of the performance in the direction H∞ of the relationship between a disturbance applied to the automotive machine and a position or yaw error of the automotive machine. There is insufficient antecedent basis for emphasized limitations in the claim. Specifically, a relationship cannot be considered an inherent feature between a disturbance and position or yaw error, and a performance cannot be considered an inherent feature of the relationship. Further, direction H∞ cannot be considered an inherent feature of the relationship.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of the performance in the direction H2 generalized of the relationship between a disturbance applied to the automotive machine and a control signal of the automotive machine. There is insufficient antecedent basis for emphasized limitations in the claim. Specifically, a relationship cannot be considered an inherent feature between a disturbance and control signal, and a performance cannot be considered an inherent feature of the relationship. Further, direction H2 generalized cannot be considered an inherent feature of the relationship.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of the amplitude saturations in the last line of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, amplitude saturations cannot be considered inherent features of the actuators.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 1 by dependency.
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)(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, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (US 2017/0115662 A1), hereinafter Mori.
Claim 1
Mori discloses the claimed method for autonomously controlling actuators of an automotive machine which are adapted to influence the path and the speed of said automotive machine (see ¶0002, regarding that the disclosed method pertains to automated driving control to make the running state of a vehicle identical or closer to a target running state by generating acceleration/deceleration and steering angular velocity command values for the control of actuators described in ¶0047-0049), including steps of:
acquiring a reference path (i.e. target path) that said automotive machine should follow (see ¶0040, regarding that the target path Of is set),
determining a nominal value of at least one parameter enabling the automotive machine to follow the reference path (see ¶0040, regarding that target positions, e.g., P5 and P6 in Figure 2, are set and are associated with the target path Of),
determining a current value of each parameter when said automotive machine follows the reference path (see ¶0036, regarding obtaining actual running path Os of vehicle 100 that includes a path where the vehicle actually has run and a path to run, and the running position Ps is obtained and associated with the actual running path Os, as described in ¶0032, with respect to Figure 2; ¶0066-0067, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that the actual running path Os of vehicle 100 runs along target path Of from time point T1 to time point T2 and deviates from target path Of from time point T2 to time point T5 and reaches running position Ps at time point T5),
determining a value deviation between the current value and the nominal value of each parameter (see ¶0041, regarding determining a deviation of the current running position Ps from the current target position P5 when target positions P5 and P6 are set as the target running state), then
computing, with a computer, a control setpoint for each actuator, according to each value deviation, by means of a corrector, wherein the corrector allows jointly computing an exclusively lateral control setpoint of the automotive machine and an exclusively longitudinal control setpoint of the automotive machine (see ¶0042-0045, regarding that an acceleration/deceleration command value and steering angular velocity command value are calculated based on the deviation, where the acceleration command value is used to control driving of vehicle 100 via drive controller 20 that includes an engine and throttle valve, deceleration command value is used to control brake controller 22 that includes a brake system, and steering angular velocity command is used to control steering controller 24 that includes an electric power steering device, as described in ¶0047-0049; Figure 3, depicting the “joint computing,” described as generating the acceleration/deceleration command value for the drive controller or brake controller and the steering angular velocity command values for the steering controller in ¶0056-0059).
Given that only one “parameter” is required to be taught by the claim language, a “parameter” is taught by Mori’s disclosure of position in at least ¶0041. However, it should be noted that Mori discloses additional “parameters” in which deviations occur, including vehicle speed and yaw rate, as described in ¶0041.
Claim 2
Mori further discloses that said automotive machine being a vehicle which comprises at least one wheel (see ¶0033, regarding at least one wheel is provided on vehicle 100; Figure 2, depicting vehicle 100 as a conventional vehicle with wheels), at least one power steering actuator (see ¶0049, regarding that steering controller 24 includes an electric power steering device), at least one braking actuator (see ¶0048, regarding brake controller 22 includes a brake system including a friction brake and electric parking brake and a brake ECU that controls a brake actuator) and at least one propulsion actuator of the vehicle (see ¶0047, regarding that drive controller 20 includes an engine and throttle value). Given that vehicle 100 of Mori is disclosed as a conventional vehicle with four wheels (see Figure 4), Mori inherently teaches that “at least one wheel” is adapted to be steered in a variable direction, as would be necessary to perform the steering control described in at least ¶0049.
Mori further discloses that the lateral control setpoint is transmitted to said at least one power steering actuator to steer said at least one wheel (see ¶0049, regarding that the steering angular velocity command value calculated by the steering instruction unit 58 is transmitted to steering controller 24, defined as an electric power steering device, for steering control of vehicle 100), and the longitudinal control setpoint is transmitted to said at least one braking actuator or to said at least one propulsion actuator to brake or accelerate the vehicle (see ¶0047-0048, regarding that acceleration/deceleration command value calculated by acceleration/deceleration instruction unit 56 is transmitted to either driver controller 20 or brake controller 22 to control driving or braking of vehicle 100).
Claim 12
Mori further discloses the claimed automotive machine (i.e. vehicle 100) comprising at least one actuator which is adapted to influence the path of said machine (see ¶0049, regarding steering controller 24 includes electric power steering device and a steering ECU that controls a steering actuator of the electric power steering device), at least one actuator which is adapted to influence the speed of said machine (see ¶0047-0048, regarding brake controller 22 includes a brake system including a friction brake and an electric parking brake, and a brake ECU that controls a brake actuator, and drive controller 20 includes an engine and a throttle valve for controlling driving of vehicle 100) and a computer for controlling said actuators (see ¶0043-0045, with respect to Figure 1, regarding that running support controller 46 includes acceleration/deceleration instruction unit 56 and steering instruction unit 58 for controlling the running state of vehicle 100 via drive controller 20, brake controller 22, and steering controller 24, as described in ¶0047-0049), characterised in that the computer is programmed to implement a method according to claim 1, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claims 3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Hrvatinic et al. (US 2023/0001935 A1), hereinafter Hrvatinic.
Claim 3
Mori does not further disclose the claimed method for developing a corrector for use thereof in a control method in accordance with claim 1, wherein it is provided to:
model the automotive machine in a non-linear form,
linearise said model in a linear parameter-varying form,
synthesise a corrector which ensures a reference path tracking, and wherein the corrector is synthesised by considering a finite number of points defined by distinct values of variable parameters.
However, no claimed relationships exist between the elements; therefore, it would be reasonable to include an additional method for “developing a corrector,” in light of Hrvatinic.
Specifically, Hrvatinic teaches the known techniques of model[ing] a vehicle (similar to the automotive machine taught by Mori) in a non-linear form (see ¶0051, regarding the discrete nonlinear vehicle model) and linearis[ing] said model in a linear parameter-varying form (see ¶0052-0055, regarding that the vehicle model is linearized producing a set of similar linear models for every algorithm iteration which can be viewed as one Linear Time-Varying model; ¶0058, regarding that the matrices Ak and Bk are obtained by successively linearizing the nonlinear vehicle model, as used in the equation associated with the LTV in ¶0052). Hrvatinic further teaches the known technique of synthesis[ing] a corrector which ensures a reference path tracking, and wherein the corrector is synthesised by considering a finite number of points defined by distinct values of variable parameters (see ¶0060-0063, regarding that the actual values of the states are required to be compared with reference values, so a set of correction “delta” values are calculated as the difference between the nonlinear state values and LTV state values for the next time step using a finite horizon, as described in ¶0044). The limitations of “corrector” and “reference path tracking” are interpreted as distinct from the limitations in claim 1, due to the lack of antecedent basis. Further, the “model” and “linearise” steps do not influence the “synthesise” step in claim 3. See the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding further issues with this limitation.
Since the systems of Mori and Hrvatinic are directed to the same purpose, i.e. controlling a vehicle along a target path, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mori to further include the steps of model the automotive machine in a non-linear form, linearise said model in a linear parameter-varying form, synthesise a corrector which ensures a reference path tracking, and wherein the corrector is synthesised by considering a finite number of points defined by distinct values of variable parameters, in light of Hrvatinic, with the predictable result of providing a proactive approach in controlling the motion of a vehicle by including predictions about the possible future trajectory of the vehicle (¶0004 of Hrvatinic), thus improving dynamic performance and drivability of the vehicle (¶0010 of Hrvatinic).
Claim 6
Hrvatinic further teaches that the modelling of the automotive machine in a non-linear form is derived from equilibrium equations of the forces applied to the automotive machine (see ¶0091, regarding that the sum of forces on the wheels must be as close as possible to the driver’s force request, where the model has a model of wheel dynamics as represented by the equation in ¶0070). See the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding issues with this limitation.
Claim 7
Hrvatinic further teaches that the forces applied to the automotive machine comprising normal reaction forces as well as longitudinal and lateral friction forces that the ground exerts on wheels of the automotive machine, to linearise said model in a linear parameter-varying form, a thresholding function applied to the normal reaction forces and to the longitudinal and lateral friction forces is used (see ¶0091, regarding that the sum of the forces on the wheels must be as close as possible to the driver’s force request). The sum of forces on the wheels taught by Hrvatinic inherently include normal, longitudinal, and lateral forces. Prior art is applied liberally to the limitations of claim 7, due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 8
Hrvatinic further teaches that the model considering control inputs of the actuators, to linearise said model in a linear parameter-varying form, a saturation function applied to the control inputs is used (see ¶0083, regarding the upper and lower input limits applied as hard constraints). Prior art is applied liberally to the limitations of claim 7, due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 9
Hrvatinic further teaches that the variable parameters include the longitudinal acceleration of the automotive machine, its longitudinal speed, its lateral speed, its yaw rate, its heading angle and a steering angle (see ¶0102-0110, regarding that in each time step, the controller receives inputs of current vehicle states that include longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal speed, lateral speed, yaw rate, heading, and steering wheel angle).
Claim 10
Hrvatinic further teaches that the corrector includes an “anti-windup” (see ¶0077-0080, regarding that slack variables are used for when a variable breaks its soft constraint; ¶0082-0084, regarding upper and lower input limits used as hard constraints). While the term “anti-windup” is not explicitly disclosed in Hrvatinic, the slack variables and upper and lower limits of Hrvatinic act as an “anti-windup” by limiting the vehicle control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 4, the closest prior art of record, Mori and Wu (“Control of Linear Parameter Varying Systems,” 1995, University of California at Berkeley), hereinafter Wu, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed steps are provided for:
S1 - acquiring a validation grid composed of several points,
S2 - creating a first grid of points less dense than the validation grid,
S3- synthesising a first corrector with the first grid,
S4 - determining whether the first corrector is valid over the entire validation grid, then:
if the first corrector is valid over the entire validation grid, the corrector is considered to be equal to the first corrector,
otherwise, another grid denser than the first grid is generated and then steps S3 and S4 are repeated with this other grid, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, while the technique of verifying a rough grid of a parameter space with a finer grid is known (see section 6.2.2 on page 113 of Wu), no reasonable combination of prior art can be applied to teach the overall claimed process in which “the corrector” is defined as the “first corrector” when the “first corrector is valid over the entire validation grid,” such that “another grid denser than the first grid is generated and then steps S3 and S4 are repeated with this other grid” when invalid, as interpreted in light of the overall claim. This allowable subject matter has been made under the assumption that “the corrector” is referencing the same corrector of claims 1 and 3, from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 5 incorporates the allowable subject matter of claim 4 due to dependency.
With respect to claim 11, the closest prior art of record, Mori, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed the regulator is synthesised from convex optimisation criteria under linear matrix inequalities constraints, at least one of the constraints including:
minimising the performance in the direction H∞ of the relationship between a disturbance applied to the automotive machine and a position or yaw error of the automotive machine
minimising the performance in the direction H2generalised of the relationship between a disturbance applied to the automotive machine and a control signal of the automotive machine,
taking account of the amplitude saturations of the actuators, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, this limitation is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification. The directions H∞ and H2generalised are known in the art, where H∞ is used to minimize the worst-case scenario, and H2generalised is used to measure the average performance of a system.
Further, the limitation of “and” or “or” is not claimed, so as to clearly define whether “at least one of the constraints” includes all of the elements or one of the elements; therefore, this allowable subject matter has been made under the assumption that all elements are included in at least one of the constraints. The claim language would instead recite “the constraints include at least one of” if the alternative was intended by the Applicant.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the limitations of claim 11, in light of the overall claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Sugawara et al. (US 2024/0158009 A1) teaches tracking a target trajectory by controlling steering by an electronic control power steering apparatus (see ¶0151) based on a transverse deviation defined as a distance between the vehicle and target trajectory (see ¶0062-0063), Kabzan et al. (US 2022/0283587 A1) teaches determining speed and steering commands based on a difference between a reference trajectory and predicted trajectory (see ¶0138), Jiang et al. (US 2019/0064823 A1) teaches determining a trajectory error based on a difference between a desired trajectory and the trajectory estimated from actual vehicle states (see abstract), and Raste et al. (US 2023/0311849 A1) teaches linearizing a non-linear vehicle model along a reference state and input trajectory (see ¶0082).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661