DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 6/4/2026.
Claims 1-12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Due to the amendment filed 6/4/2026, the objection of claim 5 has been withdrawn; however, the objection of claim 4 has been maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Due to the amendment filed 6/4/2026, the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn; however, the rejections of claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been maintained.
On page 8 of Remarks filed 6/4/2026, the Applicant contends that the term “most of the variable parameters” in claim 5 means that more than 50% of the variable parameters include only maximum and minimum limits of variation of the variable parameters, with reference to the disclosed example in which all parameters are taken into account except one.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the Applicant’s disclosure supports the claim that “most of the variable parameters” indicate more than 50% of the variable parameters. The specification is silent regarding a particular percentage anchored to the relative term “most,” and the example referenced by the Applicant described in paragraphs [0256] through [0257] of the specification filed 11/13/2024 indicates that five out of six parameters use extreme values (i.e. maximum and minimum limits), which is about 83%. The Applicant cannot alter the meaning of terms in arguments beyond what is supported by the original specification.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
On page 10 of Remarks filed 6/4/2026, the Applicant contends that Mori does not disclose “computing, with a computer, a control setpoint for each actuator, according to each value deviation, by a corrector configured to jointly compute an exclusively lateral control setpoint of the automotive machine and an exclusively longitudinal control setpoint of the automotive machine,” as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 below, Mori teaches calculating command values (i.e. “control setpoint”) for controlling an engine, throttle valve, brake system, and electric power steering device (i.e. “actuators”) (see ¶0047-0049) based on a deviation between a target running state and actual running state (i.e. “value deviation”) (see ¶0041-0045) by a feedback system S1 that includes running support controller 46 (i.e. “corrector”) depicted in Figure 3. As discussed in ¶0038, Mori teaches the running support controller 46 as part of an ECU defined as a “computer.”
Mori further teaches that running support controller 46 (i.e. “corrector”) includes proportional controller 76, subtractor 78, differentiator 80, and integrators 82 and 84 (see ¶0052), such that the running support controller 46 is configured to calculate an acceleration/deceleration command value (i.e. “exclusively longitudinal control setpoint”) and steering angular velocity command value (i.e. “exclusively lateral control setpoint”) (see ¶0057-0059, with respect to Figure 3). The calculation of the acceleration/deceleration command value and steering angular velocity command value may be reasonably interpreted as being performed “jointly” by the running support controller 46 (i.e. “corrector”), given that the proportional controller 46, subtractor 78, and differentiator 80 within running support controller 46 simultaneously compute both the acceleration/deceleration command value and steering angular velocity command value. Specifically, proportional controller 76 performs P control in which a speed-dimensional vehicle speed command value is calculated from the positional deviation, and a speed-dimensional steering angular velocity is calculated from the postural deviation (see ¶0057), and differentiator 80 performs D control in which an acceleration-dimensional acceleration command value is calculated from the deviation of the vehicle speed, and an acceleration-dimensional angular acceleration command value is calculated from the deviation of the angular velocity (see ¶0059).
On page 12 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the two parameters of speed and steering angle are not jointly computed in Mori and are instead calculated separately. The Applicant further contends that “jointly computing” refers to a specific technical process where a single, unified mathematical corrector performs a single computation to produce both the lateral and longitudinal outputs simultaneously, which is distinct from a system that merely calculates both outputs in parallel through separate computational paths.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Mori explicitly discloses a single running support controller 46 (i.e. “corrector”) that includes proportional controller 76, subtractor 78, differentiator 80, and integrators 82 and 84 (see ¶0052), such that the running support controller 46 is configured to “jointly” calculate an acceleration/deceleration command value (i.e. “exclusively longitudinal control setpoint”) and steering angular velocity command value (i.e. “exclusively lateral control setpoint”) (see ¶0057-0059, with respect to Figure 3). As depicted in Figure 3 of Mori, proportional controller 76 receives both the position deviation and the postural deviation for simultaneous computing of a speed-dimensional vehicle speed command value and a speed-dimensional steering angular velocity command value (see ¶0057), and differentiator 80 receives both the deviation of the current vehicle speed from the vehicle speed command value and the deviation of the current steering angular velocity from the angular velocity command value for simultaneous computing of an acceleration-dimensional acceleration command value and an acceleration-dimensional angular acceleration command value (see ¶0058-0059). Performing computations within a single ECU module (i.e. running support controller 46) to generate both lateral and longitudinal commands during the same iteration cycle constitutes “jointly computing” both commands (i.e. “setpoints”) by a single “corrector.”
On page 13 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the claimed “one single corrector” is synthesized using advanced control theory and takes a comprehensive state vector as input, such that through a single matrix operation, produces a control vector containing both lateral and longitudinal setpoints, whereas Mori uses a conventional, modular feedback control system, in which two different inputs are used to perform two decoupled calculations that produce the longitudinal and lateral commands, respectively. The Applicant further contends that housing these separate calculations within a single block does not constitute joint computing.
The Examiner agrees that the Mori does not explicitly teach the use of “advanced control theory,” a “comprehensive state vector,” or a “single matrix operation;” however, these features are not claimed in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The term “corrector” has not been given a special definition in the Applicant’s disclosure, and thus, the limitation of “a corrector configured to jointly compute an exclusively lateral control setpoint of the automotive machine and an exclusively longitudinal control setpoint of the automotive machine” broadly encompasses any single calculation module that receives inputs to produce both lateral and longitudinal control outputs, under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
On page 16 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that one skilled in the art would not have combined Hrvatinic designed to produce differential wheel torques with Mori in order to obtain a controller that does not produce differential wheel torques, but separate steering and braking commands.
Due to the amendment filed 6/4/2026 that provides relationships between the “corrector” and “method” of claim 1, Hrvatinic has been replaced with a new reference in the present Office Action, and therefore, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Further, claims 7 and 9 have been newly indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to this amendment.
Allowable Subject Matter
The allowable subject matter of claims 4, 5, and 11 indicated in the Office Action mailed 3/4/2026 has been maintained in the present Office Action.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites a method for developing the corrector for use thereof in the control method in accordance with claim 1, the method comprising.... The preamble of claim 3 is unclear and uses vague relative terminology that does not clearly establish a dependent relationship or specify what is being used where. Specifically, the limitation of “for use thereof in the control method” is merely a statement of intended use without requiring the steps of executing the control method, and the limitation of “in accordance with claim 1” seems to be an attempt to further limit claim 1. In light of the arguments provided in the Remarks filed 6/4/2026, the Examiner assumes that claim 3 is to be interpreted as a dependent claim. Therefore, it is recommended to amend this limitation to recite “The control method according to claim 1, further comprising developing the corrector by:….,” for example, such that claims 4-11 are also amended accordingly.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of the other grid. To more clearly reference the preceding limitation of “another grid,” the limitation of “the other grid” should be amended to recite “the another grid.”
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 3-11 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 3 recites the limitation of the corrector in the nineth line of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 3 introduces “a corrector” in the eighth line of claim 3. Consequently, it is unclear whether “the corrector” recited in the ninth line of claim 3 refers to the corrector in claim 1 or the newly introduced corrector of claim 3, rendering the term ambiguous for lack of clear antecedent basis. Claims 4, 10, and 11 also recite the limitation of the corrector that presents similar issues. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 3 by dependency.
With respect to claim 5, the term most of the variable parameters 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 11 recites the limitation of 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 the emphasized limitations in the claim. Specifically, a relationship cannot be considered an inherent feature between a disturbance and position or yaw error, and direction H∞ cannot be considered an inherent feature of the relationship.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of 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 the emphasized limitations in the claim. Specifically, a relationship cannot be considered an inherent feature between a disturbance and control signal, and direction H2 generalized cannot be considered an inherent feature of the relationship.
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 configured to influence a path and a 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), the method comprising:
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); and
computing, with a computer, a control setpoint for each actuator, according to each value deviation, by a corrector configured to jointly compute 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 “jointly computing” as a single feedback system S1 that uses a single running support controller 46 to process both “longitudinal” and “lateral” deviations in the same calculation loop, 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 is a vehicle comprising 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 configured 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 configured 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 configured to control 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), the computer is programmed to implement the 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Alcala et al. (“LPV-MPC Control for Autonomous Vehicles,” 2019, Science Direct), hereinafter Alcala.
Claim 3
Mori does not further disclose the claimed method for developing the corrector for use thereof in the control method in accordance with claim 1, the method comprising:
modeling the automotive machine in a non-linear form;
linearizing said model in a linear parameter-varying form;
synthesizing a corrector which ensures a reference path tracking, the corrector being synthesized by considering a finite number of points defined by distinct values of variable parameters.
Specifically, Mori is silent on how its running support controller (i.e. “corrector”) is designed and discloses no nonlinear model, LPV linearization, or synthesis procedure. However, Mori is directed to a scenario in which the vehicle cannot sufficiently follow a target path when the vehicle speed is high, the road is sharply curved, or friction is low, such that large control amounts cause undesirably sudden acceleration or steering (see ¶0005), which encompasses problems that LPV control exist to solve, and therefore, it would be obvious to modify the running support controller of Mori, in light of Alcala.
Specifically, Alcala teaches a method for developing a controller (similar to the corrector of Mori) (see pages 109-110, section 3, regarding the offline design of the controller by solving LMI-based problems (9) and (10) and MPC optimization problem (7)). The controller of Alcala may be reasonably applied for use thereof in the control method in accordance with claim 1, given that Alcala is directed to solving the trajectory tracking problem for autonomous vehicles (see abstract), and the controller of Alcala has a control vector that includes a steering angle (similar to the “exclusively lateral control setpoint” of Mori) and a rear-wheel longitudinal acceleration (similar to the “exclusively longitudinal control setpoint” of Mori) (see page 108, equation 4a) which are computed “jointly” (see page 110, equation 11).
Alcala further teaches the method comprising:
modeling the automotive machine in a non-linear form (see page 111, section A, regarding the non-linear equations employed for control purposes);
linearizing said model in a linear parameter-varying form (see pages 107-108, regarding equations 1a-d that transform the non-linear kinematic model into an LPV representation with parameter-varying matrices; see page 108, regarding equations 4a-i that embed the nonlinear terms as parameter-dependent coefficients);
synthesizing a corrector which ensures a reference path tracking (see abstract, regarding that the novel approach is presented to solve the trajectory tracking problem for autonomous vehicles; page 109, section 3.1, regarding that the LPV-MPC design solves position and orientation control of the vehicle), the corrector being synthesized by considering a finite number of points defined by distinct values of variable parameters (see page 108, regarding equation 2 that expresses the control design as a sum over i = 1…2^nc vertex systems Aci, where nc is the number of scheduling variables; equations 9-10, regarding the “synthesizing” step operating on each vertex). The “finite number of points” in Alcala is fixed by the number of scheduling variables.
Since the systems of Mori and Alcala are directed to the same purpose, i.e. ensuring reference path tracking of a vehicle, 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 Mori to further include a method for developing the corrector for use thereof in the control method of Mori, the method comprising modeling the automotive machine in a non-linear form, linearizing said model in a linear parameter-varying form, synthesizing a corrector which ensures a reference path tracking, the corrector being synthesized by considering a finite number of points defined by distinct values of variable parameters, in light of Alcala, with the predictable result of providing a controller that is better able to handle external disturbances and provide real-time feasibility (see page 110, section 4 of Alcala) for solving trajectory tracking problems for autonomous vehicles (abstract of Alcala), similar to the problems addressed in Mori (see ¶0005).
Claim 6
Alcala further teaches that the modeling of the automotive machine in the non-linear form is derived from equilibrium equations of forces applied to the automotive machine (see page 111, section A, regarding equation 13 that is expressed as equilibrium equations of forces applied to a vehicle, as further depicted in Figure 2 on page 108).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Alcala, and in further view of Nguyen et al. (“Fuzzy steering control for autonomous vehicles under actuator saturation: Design and experiments,” 2018, Science Direct), hereinafter Nguyen.
Claim 8
Alcala further teaches that the model considering control inputs of acceleration and steering, defined as being generated via actuators on page 106 (similar to the actuators of Mori) (see page 108, regarding equations 4a, 4h, and 4i that consider control inputs).
While Alcala further teaches that the “control inputs” are used to linearize said model in a linear parameter-varying form (see pages 107-108, regarding equations 1a-d; see page 108, regarding equations 4a-i), as discussed in the rejection of claim 3, Alcala does not further teach a saturation function applied to the control inputs is used to linearize said model in a linear parameter-varying form. However, it would be obvious to further incorporate a saturation function to the control inputs of Alcala, in light of Nguyen.
Specifically Nguyen teaches a saturation function applied to control inputs, defined as steering angle on page 9378 (similar to the control inputs of Alcala) for the development of a T-S fuzzy model (similar to the model in a linear parameter-varying form of Alcala) (see abstract, regarding that system constraints including actuator saturation are explicitly taken into account in the control design procedure for automatic lane keeping; page 9386, last paragraph). As is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, a T-S fuzzy model can be considered a special type of polytopic quasi-LPV system, and thus, it would be reasonable to apply a similar “saturation function” to the control inputs of Alcala.
Since the systems of Alcala and Nguyen are directed to the same purpose, i.e. path tracking of a vehicle, 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 control inputs used to linearize said model in a linear parameter-varying form of Alcala, such that a saturation function applied to the control inputs, in light of Nguyen, with the predictable result of preventing the loss of closed-loop stability during specific driving scenarios (last paragraph on page 9386 of Nguyen).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Alcala, and in further view of Salavati et al. (“Observer-Based Control of LPV Systems with Input Delay and Saturation and Matched Disturbances via a Generalized Sector Condition,” Dec. 10, 2021, Frontiers in Control Engineering), hereinafter Salavati.
Claim 10
The combination of Mori and Alcala does not further teach that the corrector includes an anti-windup. However, no claim language is provided to indicate that any of the claimed steps is performed by the “anti-windup,” and therefore, it would be reasonable to combine references to teach the inclusion of an anti-windup, in light of Salavati.
Specifically, Salavati teaches the known technique of including an anti-windup in a LPV system (similar to the corrector of Mori modified by Alcala) (see abstract).
In Alcala, the LPV model is applied to solve a trajectory tracking problem for autonomous vehicles. In Salavati, the LPV model is applied to MAP response dynamics of vasoactive drug injection. However, it is the mere inclusion of an anti-windup in an LVP model that is modified by Salavati; therefore, the particular application of the LVP model does not influence this combination, given that the “anti-windup” does not influence the claimed steps.
Since the systems of Alcala and Salavati are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a controller in linear parameter-varying form, 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 corrector of Mori modified by Alcala to further include an anti-windup, in light of Salavati, with the predictable result of locally stabilizing the LPV system under saturation, model uncertainty, and exogenous disturbances (abstract of Salavati).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 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, Alcala, 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:
acquiring a validation grid composed of several points;
creating a first grid of points less dense than the validation grid;
synthesizing a first corrector with the first grid;
determining whether the first corrector is valid over the entire validation grid, then:
in a case in which the first corrector is valid over the entire validation grid, the corrector is considered to be equal to the first corrector; and
in a case in which the first corrector is not valid over the entire validation grid, another grid denser than the first grid is generated and then the synthesizing and the determining are repeated with the 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 the synthesizing and the determining are repeated with the other grid” when invalid, as interpreted in light of the overall claim. Similar reasons for allowable subject matter have been provided in the Office Action mailed 3/4/2026.
Claim 5 incorporates the allowable subject matter of claim 4 due to dependency.
With respect to claim 7, the closest prior art of record, Mori and Alcala, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed forces applied to the automotive machine comprise normal reaction forces and longitudinal and lateral friction forces that the ground exerts on wheels of the automotive machine, a thresholding function applied to the normal reaction forces and the longitudinal and lateral friction forces being used to linearize said model in a linear parameter-varying form, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, Alcala further teaches the forces applied to the vehicle as comprising longitudinal and lateral friction forces that the ground exerts on wheels of the vehicle (see page 111, regarding equation 13 that includes Ffriction, FyF, and FyR). However, Alcala does not further teach the forces as including normal reaction forces, nor does Alcala teach any threshold function applied to the forces, as claimed. Applying a “thresholding function” for linearizing the LPV model of Alcala would not be a reasonable substitution to one of ordinary skill in the art.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention, and the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 9, the closest prior art of record, Mori and Alcala, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed variable parameters include a longitudinal acceleration of the automotive machine, a longitudinal speed of the automotive machine, a lateral speed of the automotive machine, a yaw rate of the automotive machine, a heading angle of the automotive machine and a steering angle, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, Alcala teaches the scheduling variables (i.e. “variable parameters”) as including longitudinal speed, lateral speed, yaw rate, steering angle, and heading angle of the vehicle (see pages 107-108). However, Alcala does not further teach that the scheduling parameters include a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, nor does Alcala teach that all of the scheduling variables are provided in one set of parameters, so as to be interpreted as synthesizing a single “corrector,” in light of the combination of Alcala and Mori.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention, and the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, the closest prior art of record, Mori and Alcala, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed the corrector is synthesized from convex optimization criteria under linear matrix inequalities constraints, at least one of the constraints including:
minimizing a 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
minimizing a performance in the direction H2generalised of the relationship between a disturbance applied to the automotive machine and a control signal of the automotive machine, and
taking account of 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 “at least one of the constraints” has been interpreted to incorporate all elements, as indicated in the allowable subject matter provided in the Office Action mailed 3/4/2026.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention, and the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Similar reasons for allowable subject matter have been provided in the Office Action mailed 3/4/2026.
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).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights