DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-21, filed as a preliminary amendment, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because the blocks shown in Figures 1B, 2 require descriptive legends. In Figure 3, what is in x-axis and in y-axis also require descriptive legends.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 21, for example, recites in the preamble “a computer program comprising instructions …”
The body of claim 21 recites the following elements: obtaining a stream… predicting a motion request, determining…. predicting ….
Because Applicant’s specification does not lexicographically define the noted above elements, the Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation to interpret
the claim. The claim is directed towards software per se. Therefore claim 21 is non-statutory because it is directed towards software per se, lacking storage on a medium, which enables any underlying functionality to occur. For these reasons, claim 21 fails to satisfy one of the statutory categories set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 and is therefore considered to be non-statutory.
In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a software per se or computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions” to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 20 is 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.
The limitation of claim 20, “processing circuitry configured to perform the method of any of the preceding claims” renders it indefinite , since claim 20 has 1-19 preceding claims, which claim is referring to? Is it referring to claim 1, or claim 6 or claim 19. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 13-14, 16, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (USP 2019/0143949) in view of Gonzalez Bautista et al. ( USP 2022/0324466).
As Per Claim 1, Werner teaches, a method for real-time control of motion actuators (brake system) in a heavy commercial vehicle (1) in accordance with motion requests,(via a heavy commercial vehicle 1, Fig.1 being equipped with electronically controlled brake system (EBS), controlling the brake operation, [0011], [0012], [0047]), the method comprising: obtaining a motion requests; ( via “wheel rotational speed data are communicated to the brake control unit 2”, [0054], Fig.1), data being communicated in real-time).
However, Werner does not explicitly teach, obtaining a stream of motion requests; predicting a motion request to be obtained after a period of predefined length into the future; determining whether the predicted motion request is within the vehicle's momentary force and moment capabilities; predicting a motion state of the vehicle after said the period; determining whether the predicted motion state is within a motion-state threshold; if the predicted motion request is within said the force and moment capabilities and the predicted motion state is within the motion-state threshold:
controlling (216) the motion actuators without limitation during said the period; and if the predicted motion request exceeds said the force and moment capabilities and the predicted motion state exceeds the motion-state threshold: controlling the motion actuators subject to a configured first limitation during said the period.
In a related field of Art, Gonzalez Bautista et al. (herein after Bautista) teaches, device for predictively controlling the movement of a motor vehicle, wherein, obtaining a stream of motion requests;(via vehicle receiving sensor data ([0011], [0015]);
predicting a motion request to be obtained after a period of predefined length into the future; (via prediction model [Abstract], [0026], [0049], Fig.5); determining whether the predicted motion request is within the vehicle's momentary force and moment capabilities; ([0045], [0047]); predicting a motion state of the vehicle after said the period;(via prediction module 16, [0034], [0033], Claim 9, lines 20-25); determining whether the predicted motion state is within a motion-state threshold;
( vai prediction module 16, “prediction model being connected to a module configured to determine the violation of vehicle driving limit values”, claim 9, lines 25-33); if the predicted motion request is within said the force and moment capabilities and the predicted motion state is within the motion-state threshold:
controlling (216) the motion actuators without limitation during said the period; ([0013]-[0015]); and if the predicted motion request exceeds said the force and moment capabilities ( via determining the violation of the vehicle driving limits) and the predicted motion state exceeds the motion-state threshold: controlling the motion actuators subject to a configured first limitation during said the period. (via generating an alert signal, to control an anticipatory corrective action for said state variable” [0016], [0017],[0046],[0047],[0050], Claim 15, Figs. 3A,3B, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Werner and Bautista before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Werner, to include the teachings (prediction model including prediction module 16, violation prediction module 19 etc.) of Batista and configure with the system of Werner in order to determining future states of the vehicle for future position of the vehicle over plurality of iterations, for future road portion, comparing determined future states with vehicle driving limit values, when driving limit values are exceeding/violated, then generating an alert and taking corrective action. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, generating alert when one of the future states variables reaches the corresponding driving limit, and taking corrective action (i.e., an added safety feature for vehicle operation).
As per Claim 2, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, wherein the first configured limitation includes a condition for longitudinal acceleration to be below a negative
PNG
media_image1.png
22
97
media_image1.png
Greyscale
< 0 ( Bautista : via braking, [0003], [0018], [0031]).
As per Claim 3, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, if the predicted motion request exceeds the force and moment capabilities or the predicted motion state exceeds the motion-state threshold, controlling the motion actuators subject to a configured second limitation during the period. (Bautista :[0016], [0017], [0046], [0047], [0050], Claim 15, Figs. 3A,3B, 6).
As per Claim 4, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 3. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, wherein the second configured limitation is less restrictive than the first configured limitation. (Bautista :[0016], [0017], [0046], [0047], [0050], Claim 15, Figs. 3A,3B, 6).
As per Claim 5, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 3. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, wherein the second configured limitation includes a condition for longitudinal acceleration to be below a non-negative
PNG
media_image1.png
22
97
media_image1.png
Greyscale
>- 0( Bautista : via braking, [0003], [0018], [0031]).
As per Claim 6, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, wherein the motion state is a yaw rate and the motion-state threshold is a yaw-rate threshold. (Bautista : via Monitoring yaw rate , [0013]).
As per Claim 7, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 6. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, wherein the yaw-rate threshold is a function of longitudinal speed. (Bautista : [0034]).
As per Claim 9, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, wherein: the vehicle's momentary force and moment capabilities include momentary lateral force capabilities; and the configured first limitation is a longitudinal acceleration limitation. (Bautista : [0011]).
As per Claim 12, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, predicting a plurality of motion requests to be obtained during the period (Bautista : [0026], [0049]).
As per Claim 13, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, wherein the length of the period (Bautista :(via prediction model [Abstract], [0026], [0049], Fig.5);
However, Werner in view of Bautista does not explicitly teach, the length of the period is between 0.5 and 2.5 seconds, preferably between 1.0 and 2.0 seconds.
However, the length of period (for obtaining motion request) being between 0.5 and 2.5 seconds, preferably between 1.0 and 2.0 seconds, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore , it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to have system, obtaining sensor data between 1.0 and 2.0 second for quick analysis of data to determine any violation of data and subsequently if it warrants , providing an alert to the driver.
As per Claim 14, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, wherein the motion request to be obtained after the period into the future is predicted based on an assumption of constant steering-wheel rate and/or constant pedal-position rate.
(Bautista :[0045], [0049]).
As per Claim 16, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, repeatedly verifying the vehicle's momentary force and moment capabilities on the basis of the vehicle state, sensor data and/or environmental conditions. ( Bautista : [0016], [0017], [0046], [0047], [0050]).
As per Claim 18, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches, wherein: the stream of motion requests is obtained from a driver interface ( Bautista : [0015]).
Claim 20 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
As Per Claim 21, Werner teaches, a computer program comprising instructions to cause the controller (,( via a heavy commercial vehicle 1, Fig.1 being equipped with electronically controlled brake system (EBS), controlling the brake operation, [0011], [0012],[0040], [0047]) to perform method for real-time control of motion actuators in a heavy commercial vehicle in accordance with motion requests, (via “wheel rotational speed data are communicated to the brake control unit 2”, [0054], Fig.1), data being communicated in real-time).
However, Werner does not explicitly teach, the method comprising: obtaining a stream of motion requests; predicting a motion request to be obtained after a period of predefined length into the future; determining whether the predicted motion request is within the vehicle's momentary force and moment capabilities; predicting a motion state of the vehicle after the period; determining whether the predicted motion state is within amotion-state threshold; if the predicted motion request is within the force and moment capabilities and the predicted motion state is within the motion-state threshold: controlling the motion actuators without limitation during the period; and if the predicted motion request exceeds the force and moment capabilities and the predicted motion state exceeds the motion-state threshold: controlling the motion actuators subject to a configured first limitation during the period.
In an analogous art, Gonzalez Bautista et al. (herein after Bautista) teaches, device for predictively controlling the movement of a motor vehicle, wherein, the method comprising: obtaining a stream of motion requests; ( via vehicle receiving sensor data ([0011], [0015]); predicting a motion request to be obtained after a period of predefined length into the future; ( via prediction model [Abstract], [0026], [0049], Fig.5); determining whether the predicted motion request is within the vehicle's momentary force and moment capabilities; ([0045], [0047]); predicting a motion state of the vehicle after the period; via prediction module 16, [0034], [0033], Claim 9, lines 20-25); determining whether the predicted motion state is within amotion-state threshold;
(via prediction module 16, “prediction model being connected to a module configured to determine the violation of vehicle driving limit values”, claim 9, lines 25-33); if the predicted motion request is within the force and moment capabilities and the predicted motion state is within the motion-state threshold: controlling the motion actuators without limitation during the period; ([0013]-[0015]); and if the predicted motion request exceeds the force and moment capabilities( via determining the violation of the vehicle driving limits) and the predicted motion state exceeds the motion-state threshold: controlling the motion actuators subject to a configured first limitation during the period. (via generating an alert signal, to control an anticipatory corrective action for said state variable” [0016], [0017] ,[0046], [0047], [0050], Claim 15, Figs. 3A,3B, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Werner and Bautista before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Werner, to include the teachings (prediction model including prediction module 16, violation prediction module 19 etc.) of Batista and configure with the system of Werner in order to determining future states of the vehicle for future position of the vehicle over plurality of iterations, comparing determined future states with vehicle driving limit values, when driving limit values are exceeding/violated, then generating an alert and taking corrective action. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, generating alert when one of the future states variables reaches the corresponding driving limit, and taking corrective action (i.e., an added safety feature for vehicle operation).
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (USP 2019/0143949) in view of Gonzalez Bautista et al. ( USP 2022/0324466) in view of Shimada et al. (USP 2019/0165786).
As per Claim 15, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches
wherein the motion request to be obtained (Bautista :via vehicle receiving sensor data ([0011], [0015]);
However, Werner in view of Bautista does not explicitly teach, obtaining motion request after the period into the future is predicted using a Savitzky-Golay filter and/or a finite impulse response(FIR), FIR, filter.
In an analogous art Shimada et al. ( Shimada) teaches, transmission device , transmitting method and communication system, wherein, a communication system being equipped with a transmitting device, having the outputs ToutA, ToutB and ToutC, outputting signals SIGA, SIGB and SIGC of voltage states [0075], [0076], Figs. 1, 5) and the transmitting device 10 includes an output 26, and operating like Finite Impulse Response filter and performing a de-emphasis operation ([0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Werner and Bautista and Shimada before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Werner, to include the teachings (transmitting device 10) of Shimada and configure with the system of Werner in order to transmitting voltages states and performing a de-emphasis operation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate enhance communication performance (i.e., an added for fast communication).
11. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (USP 2019/0143949) in view of Gonzalez Bautista et al. ( USP 2022/0324466) and in view of Cheng et al. ( USP 2023/0035475).
As per Claim 19, Werner as modified by Bautista teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Werner in view of Bautista teaches,
wherein: the stream of motion requests is obtained from an automated driving system ;(via vehicle receiving sensor data ([0011], [0015]).
However, Werner in view of Bautista does not explicitly teach, obtaining stream of motion from an automated driving system (ADS).
In a related field of Art, Cheng et al. ( Cheng) teaches, “a computer system 100 being employed in an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle, and includes case CPU 105, the “CPU 105 processes the sensor data to detect objects and then executes instructions of the ADS or ADAS which makes control decisions,” and finally provides inputs to a vehicle controller of the vehicle which generates control signals which are used to control operation of the vehicle (e.g., navigate the vehicle along a trajectory generated by a planning module of the ADS or ADAS by controlling the throttle, the brakes, and the steering angle of the vehicle), or alert a driver of potential hazards or objects of interest”.[0062])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Werner and Bautista and Cheng before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Werner, to include the teachings (CPU 105 with software programs) of Cheng in order to generating signals and controlling the throttle, the brakes and steering angle of the vehicle). Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to control vehicle operation (i.e., an added safety feature to alert driver of potential hazards).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 8,10, 11 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C