DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim for priority to Dutch Patent Application NL 2035927 filed under 35 U.S.C. 119 and receipt of the priority document filed on 09/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS)(s) submitted on 09/17/2024 and 11/12/2024 has/have been received, considered, and is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) has/have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: (a) it does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention or (b) or meets a three-prong test for determining that: (1) the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, (2) without integration into a practical application and (3) does not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are directed toward a system and computer. Therefore, it can be seen that claim(s) 1 and 15 fall(s) within one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, the claim clearly does not meet the three-prong test for patentability.
With regard to the first prong, does the claim recite a judicial exception, the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
(a) Mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Applicant's claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are directed toward the abstract idea of receiving, determining and/or obtaining sensor data, comparing and/or matching the sensor data, and transmit a control signal based on the comparing and/or matching of the sensor data, which comprises mathematical concepts, to data and deriving a result based on the application. Thus, it can be seen that the claim is/are directed towards an abstract idea.
With regard to the second prong, whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
It is clear that Applicant's claim(s) do/does not comprise any of the above additional elements that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. There is no improvement in the functioning of a computer. Nor are the limitations implemented in particular machine or manufacture. There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. There are no additional elements that apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Claim(s) 1 and 15 recite(s) one additional element: a computer comprising at least one processor. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Notably, there is no actual use or presentation of the motion plans, such as controlling the vehicle.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Since the abstract idea in Applicant's claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are implemented on a computer and there are no further limitations or structural elements that go beyond the computer, it can clearly be seen that the abstract idea of receiving, determining and/or obtaining sensor data, comparing and/or matching of the sensor data, and transmit a control signal based on the comparing and/or matching of the sensor data, which comprises mathematical concepts, to data and deriving a result based on the application is merely implemented on a computer. Thus there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to the third prong, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the preguideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not wellunderstood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Applicant's claim(s) do/does not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The use of one or more computers to implement mathematical operations is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Thus, since claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) not integrated into a practical application and (c) do not comprise significantly more than the recited abstract idea, they are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-14 is/are also rejected as depending on claim(s) 1 and 15, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US. 20230227067 A1 to Foster et al. (Foster).
Regarding claim 1, Foster discloses a road vehicle (autonomous vehicle 105), comprising;
a powertrain, a brake system and a steering system (Foster discloses a brake system, steering system and powertrain system ([0339] (vehicle control subsystem 146 may be configured to control operation of vehicle…105 and its components…vehicle control subsystem 146 may include…an engine power output subsystem, a brake unit, a navigation unit, a steering system, and an autonomous control unit...the engine power output may control the operation of the engine…as well as…control the…transmission…the brake unit can…decelerate the autonomous vehicle 105…may include an Anti-lock brake system (ABS) that can prevent the brakes from locking up when…applied…the steering system may represent…mechanisms…to adjust the heading of…vehicle 105); [0703] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can…use a determined wheel torque in detecting the road traction level…wheel torque generally refers to…the autonomous vehicle's 105 powertrain and braking actuators)));
a generic vehicle motion planner, configured to plan, during driving, a vehicle trajectory for the vehicle, subject to at least one feasibility constraint on one or more accelerations of the vehicle along the planned vehicle trajectory, and further configured to output plan based control information representing one or more planned dynamic vehicle control parameters according to the vehicle trajectory (Foster discloses motion planning by the in-vehicle control computer (VCU) 150 configured to plan a vehicle trajectory and monitor feasibility constraints such as managing trailer load, adapting to varying driving conditions and road pathways ([0753] (vehicle 105 can…operate according to a default decision framework that includes certain behavior associated with…vehicle's 105 trailer load, recognizing and responding to traffic signs, and maintaining proper positioning within…vehicle's 105 lane); [0754] (vehicle 105 can include an in-vehicle control computer 150 configured to estimate a grade of the roadway based on perception data indicative of one or more parameters of the roadway received from one or more perception sensors of an autonomous vehicle, provide a first control input…based on the grade of the roadway, determine a response…to the first control input based on perception data…received from the one or more perception sensors, estimate a trailer load of the trailer based on the response of the…vehicle to the first control input, and provide a second control input…based on the grade of the roadway and the trailer load); [0756] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to detect or estimate the road grade in front of the autonomous vehicle 105...can also be configured to dynamically adjust throttle…and brake…control based at least in part on the detected road grade); [0758] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to estimate trailer load from the autonomous vehicle's 105 acceleration response based on throttle and/or braking inputs...can further be configured to estimate the force that can be used to move the trailer to adjust the throttle dynamically and brake control to compensate for trailer load based on the wheel torque)));
a vehicle control interface module configured to supply the drive control signals to at least one of the powertrain, brake system and steering system, based on the plan based control information (Foster discloses vehicle subsystem 140 supplying the control signals to the powertrain, braking and steering components within the vehicle based on the planned trajectory ([0759] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to adjust lateral acceleration and maintain stability in curves using the detected road curvature...can cause…vehicle 105 to decelerate at rates when stopping…vehicle 105…can also be configured to limit lateral acceleration in the curves based on a distance that can reduce the vehicle speed to limit lateral acceleration in the curves taking into account the braking capabilities of…vehicle 105…can also be configured to reduce…vehicle's 105 speed to limit lateral acceleration based on the roadway's detected maximum curvature); [0760] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to dynamically adjust the throttle control to compensate for the determined trailer load and the road grade in order to provide a longitudinal control robustness for the throttle control…can also be configured to dynamically adjust the brake control to compensate for the determined trailer load and the road grade in order to provide a longitudinal control robustness for the brake control…can further be configured to dynamically adjust the steering control to compensate for side wind effects and a super elevation rate due to trailer load in order to provide a lateral control robustness of the steering control…can be configured to control the lateral position of…vehicle 105 to compensate for lateral resistive forces))), and
an adaptation control module configured to use a vehicle dependent parameter value that is not used within the generic vehicle motion planner to determine the feasibility constraint information (Foster discloses VCU 150 configured to adapt to the motion planning by operating off of vehicle sensors when the parameter values within the motion planning when changes or inconsistencies are detected in the vehicle load and/or the road; where vehicle correction must be made ([0761] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to limit lateral acceleration to a predetermined acceleration and a predetermined jerk value to maintain the stability of the truck…when turning or driving on curved roads taking into account the super elevation rate…in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to limit lateral dynamics for some or all lateral maneuvers…of…vehicle 105 depending on trailer inertia and stability criteria…can be configured to reduce speed of…vehicle 105 to maintain a lateral acceleration…can also be configured to limit the steering wheel angle velocity to limit the lateral jerk); [0762] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to decelerate…vehicle 105…the maximum deceleration and maximum jerk can vary); [0763] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to accelerate…vehicle 105 with a maximum acceleration depending on the determined load and a maximum jerk depending on the determined type of load); [0764] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to increase and anticipate a following distance to a vehicle ahead of the autonomous vehicle 105 to account for the allowed longitudinal acceleration and jerk due to the determined trailer load, road grade, and traction…in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to consider braking capabilities such as the maximal longitudinal acceleration achievable depending on one or more of the following: the type of trailer, load, cargo, road grade, and/or traction); [1055] (control computer 150 can be configured to detect roadways with different width, and in response…can be configured to adapt the motion planning of…vehicle 105 with help of the onboard perception system…to drive on an estimated right lane of the road...lane width may have an impact on motion planning since…vehicle 105 may have less margin for error on narrower lanes); [1062] (control computer 150 can be configured to adapt the motion planning with help of the onboard perception system to estimate the center of such extra wide lane and continue…vehicle's 105 mission))).
Regarding claim 2, Foster discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising
a sensor device and wherein the adaptation control module is configured to determine the vehicle dependent parameter value on the basis of a sensor result from the sensor device or further sensor devices (Foster discloses vehicle 105 containing one or more perception sensors configured to determine vehicle dependent values based on the sensor results ([0754] (vehicle 105 can include an in-vehicle control computer 150 configured to estimate a grade of the roadway based on perception data indicative of one or more parameters of the roadway received from one or more perception sensors of an autonomous vehicle, provide a first control input to the autonomous vehicle based on the grade of the roadway, determine a response of the autonomous vehicle to the first control input based on perception data indicative of movement of the autonomous vehicle received from the one or more perception sensors, estimate a trailer load of the trailer based on the response of the autonomous vehicle to the first control input, and provide a second control input to the autonomous vehicle based on the grade of the roadway and the trailer load…in-vehicle control computer 150 can adjust controls provided to…vehicle 105 in order to respond to a determined road grade and trailer load without needing to have the road grade and trailer load manually input into…vehicle 105))).
Regarding claim 5, Foster discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the vehicle dependent parameter value is a maximum feasible longitudinal acceleration provided as the feasibility constraint from the adaptation control module to the generic vehicle motion planner (Foster discloses maximum feasible acceleration as a feasibility constraint from the vehicle control computer 150 ([0763] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to accelerate…vehicle 105 with a maximum acceleration depending on the determined load and a maximum jerk depending on the determined type of load...the maximum acceleration can range from 1 m/s.sup.2 to 3 m/s2 and the maximum jerk can range from 1 m/s3 to 2 m/s3); [0764] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to increase and anticipate a following distance to a vehicle ahead of…vehicle 105 to account for the allowed longitudinal acceleration and jerk due to the determined trailer load, road grade, and traction…in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to consider braking capabilities such as the maximal longitudinal acceleration achievable depending on one or more of the following: the type of trailer, load, cargo, road grade, and/or traction))).
Regarding claim 6, Foster discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the vehicle dependent parameter value is a maximum feasible lateral acceleration provided as the feasibility constraint from the adaptation control module to the generic vehicle motion planner (Foster discloses maximum feasible lateral acceleration as a feasibility constraint from the vehicle control computer 150 ([0759] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to detect the road curvature in front of…vehicle 105 with a distance greater than a stopping distance to limit lateral acceleration and maintain stability in curves…in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to adjust lateral acceleration and maintain stability in curves using the detected road curvature…in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to limit lateral acceleration in the curves based on a distance that can reduce the vehicle speed to limit lateral acceleration in the curves taking into account the braking capabilities of…vehicle 105…in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to reduce…vehicle's 105 speed to limit lateral acceleration based on the roadway's detected maximum curvature))).
Regarding claim 8, Foster discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the one or more planned dynamic vehicle control parameters include
a planned longitudinal vehicle velocity (Foster discloses perceiving planned longitudinal velocity(s) of vehicle 105 ([0456] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can detect a scouting event in response to one or more of the following conditions being met: at least a predetermined number of vehicles…remain parallel, in front of, and/or behind…vehicle 105 within a predetermined distance…of…vehicle's 105 centroid for more than a predetermined length of time…consecutively,…vehicle's 105 velocity is greater than a threshold velocity…and all of the vehicles in proximity of…vehicle 105 maintain a relative velocity within a predetermined relative velocity…of…vehicle 105 for the duration of the period…the threshold velocity can include…25 mph, 30 mph, 35 mph, and the predetermined relative velocity can include…4 mph, 5 mph, 6 mph); [1007] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to control…vehicle 105 to…travel at a speed of a predetermined maximum velocity, and maintain the minimum following distance if there is a vehicle in front of…vehicle 105…the predetermined maximum velocity can include…15 MPH, 20 MPH, 25 MPH))),
a planned longitudinal vehicle acceleration (Foster discloses perceiving planned longitudinal vehicle acceleration ([0465] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to decelerate with a predetermined longitudinal acceleration and bring…vehicle 105 to a complete stop...the predetermined longitudinal acceleration may include…4 m/s2, 5 m/s.sup.2, 6 m/s2); [0466] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to decelerate with a predetermined longitudinal acceleration in order to reduce speed by a predetermined amount...the predetermined longitudinal acceleration can include…2 m/s2, 2.5 m/s.sup.2, 3 m/s2, and the predetermined amount can include…a reduction by 20%); [0764] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to increase and anticipate a following distance to a vehicle ahead of…vehicle 105 to account for the allowed longitudinal acceleration and jerk due to the determined trailer load, road grade, and traction…in adjusting the following distance…in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to consider braking capabilities such as the maximal longitudinal acceleration achievable depending on one or more of the following: the type of trailer, load, cargo, road grade, and/or traction))) and
a planned trajectory curvature (Foster discloses perceiving planned trajectory curvature(s) within the vehicle trajectory ([0535] (in-vehicle control computer 150 may perceive an interchange with different attributes, including on ramp/off ramp, ramp curvature, merge in/merge out lanes, dedicated lane for divergence, presence of traffic signals…in-vehicle control computer 150 may detect ramp properties such as straight, curved, angle of curvature, at least from a predetermined distance away…at least 200 meters, 220 meters, 250 meters, 270 meters, or 300 meters away); [0625] (When the autonomous vehicle 105 approaches a curved ramp…in-vehicle control computer 150 may retrieve information about the curved ramp from the map, including information about curvature, curvature angle and gradient of the curved ramp…in-vehicle control computer 150 may plan to slow down to enter the curved ramp lane at a speed that is lower than the speed limit by a predetermined percentage…10%, 15% lower, or 20% lower…in-vehicle control computer 150 may adjust the speed dynamically to have lateral acceleration no more than a predetermined value…1.5 m/s.sup.2, 2 m/s.sup.2, or 2.5 m/s.sup.2))).
Regarding claim 10, Foster discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the vehicle control interface module is configured to use the plan based control information to select between using different motors of the vehicle for converting the plan based control information into the drive control signals and/or the adaptation control module is configured to use a selection of one of the different motors of the vehicle in the determination of the feasibility constraint information (Foster discloses at least two motors which may be a combination of internal combustion, fuel-cell powered or battery powered electric engine, hybrid engine, or any other type of engine, to execute the vehicle motion plan and communicate said actions from the VCU 150 to vehicle 105 via vehicle drive subsystem 140 (see Fig. 1; [0335] (a system 100…includes a tractor 105 of an autonomous truck…tractor 105 includes a plurality of vehicle subsystems 140 and an in-vehicle control computer 150…the plurality of vehicle subsystems 140 includes vehicle drive subsystems 142, vehicle sensor subsystems 144, and vehicle control subsystems…an engine or motor…transmission…electrical subsystem, and a power subsystem may be included in the vehicle drive subsystems...the engine of the autonomous truck may be an internal combustion engine, a fuel-cell powered electric engine, a battery powered electrical engine, a hybrid engine, or any other type of engine capable of moving…tractor 105…tractor 105 may have multiple motors or actuators to drive the wheels of the vehicle, such that the vehicle drive subsystems 142 include two or more electrically driven motors))).
Regarding claim 11, Foster discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising an object sensor device for detection of potentially colliding objects,
wherein the generic vehicle motion planner is coupled to the object sensor device and configured to determine a planned vehicle trajectory for the vehicle that avoids the potentially colliding objects based on geometric properties of the vehicle, subject to said at least one variable feasibility constraint (Foster discloses in-vehicle control computer 150 of vehicle 105 sensing potential collision with object(s) and rerouting the planned vehicle trajectory to avoid said potential collision with object(s) subject to variable feasibility constraint such as vehicle speed (see Fig. 4D; [0387] (Another scenario…detected by the in-vehicle control computer 150 is a lateral intrusion scenario…in which an entity 426 that is travelling in a parallel lane or direction is rapidly intruding into…vehicle's 105 lane and the in-vehicle control computer 150 predicts that the entity 426 will collide with a side of…vehicle 105); [0388] (In response to detecting a lateral intrusion scenario…in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to cause…vehicle 105 to swerve if an escape space on the opposite side of the potential collision side is available to maintain the critical distance from the entity 426…after swerving, the in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to cause…vehicle 105 to slow down to avoid staying parallel to the intruding vehicle…if an escape route is not available, the in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to cause…vehicle 105 to only use evasive braking and slow…vehicle 105 down to avoid the intruding vehicle); [0819] (In response to detecting a live animal larger than an adult coyote in the autonomous vehicle's travel lane, the in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to reduce the speed of…vehicle 105 to avoid a collision and blow the city horn to encourage the animal to leave); [0998] (in-vehicle control computer 150 can be configured to detect and avoid collisions between…vehicle 105 and any pedestrians, obstacles, and vehicles…by keeping a predetermined safe distance from these items))).
Regarding claim 15, Foster discloses a method of driving a road vehicle wherein the road vehicle comprises a vehicle control interface module, an adaptation control module and a generic vehicle motion planner distinct from each other, the method comprising;
the adaptation control module providing feasibility constraint information defining one or more feasibility constraints to the generic vehicle motion planner, using a vehicle dependent parameter value that is not used within the generic vehicle motion planner to determine the feasibility constraint information (in claim 1, e.g. Foster);
the generic vehicle motion planner determining a planned vehicle trajectory for the vehicle, subject to at least one variable feasibility constraint along the planned vehicle trajectory (in claim 1, e.g. Foster),
the generic vehicle motion planner outputting plan based control information, the plan based control information representing at least a dynamic vehicle control parameter according to the planned vehicle trajectory (in claim 1, e.g. Foster);
the vehicle control interface module computing drive control signals at least one of the powertrain, brake system and steering system based on the plan based control information (in claim 1, e.g. Foster).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. 20230227067 A1 to Foster in view of US. 20220185321 A1 to Bora et al. (Bora).
Regarding claim 3, Foster discloses the road vehicle according to claim 2.
However, Foster does not appear to further expressly disclose,
wherein the sensor device includes an accelerometer and/or a force sensor located on the vehicle or the further sensor devices include accelerometers and/or force sensors located respectively on different parts of the vehicle that are able to move relative each other.
Bora, in the same field of endeavor, further discloses:
wherein the sensor device includes an accelerometer and/or a force sensor located on the vehicle or the further sensor devices include accelerometers and/or force sensors located respectively on different parts of the vehicle that are able to move relative each other (Bora discloses sensor(s) such as accelerometers and/or force sensors to determine acceleration, speed, etc. (see Fig. 2; [0032] (The ECU 202 implements an interface for receiving data from a plurality of sensors 204, 206, 208, such as…for measuring one of a speed, an acceleration, an inclination, a torque, etc. of the vehicle 100, 102, 104…control system 200 may also be provided with an interface for allowing the vehicle control model to be received at and transmitted from the ECU 202, such as from and to a remotely located server); [0035] (Initially…the driver or an autonomy process of the vehicle 100, 102, 104 sets a reference control value V1 for operating the vehicle 100, 102, 104, such as…one of a speed or an acceleration for the vehicle 100, 102, 104…the reference control value V1 is received, S1, at the ECU 202…the ECU 202 also receives, S2, vehicle state values V2, V2′, V2″ from the plurality of sensors 204, 206, 208, such as from sensors adapted for measuring one of a speed, an acceleration, an inclination, a torque, etc. of the vehicle 100, 102, 104…other data may be provided, such as…a weight of the vehicle 100, 102, 104, etc.))).
Therefore, 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 situational behavior system of Foster to incorporate the on-board control system of Bora to include on-board vehicle sensors in order to determine vehicle parameters such as acceleration, speed and force on the vehicle while performing vehicle driving operation(s), with predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Foster and Bora for the express benefit of including on-board vehicle sensors to determine vehicle information such as force, acceleration and speed of the vehicle along the vehicle path, as explained in Bora [0032], [0035].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Foster and Bora discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference,
the vehicle comprising a download interface (in claim 3, e.g. Bora), and
wherein the vehicle adaptation control module is configured to determine the vehicle dependent parameter value on the basis of a parameter value downloaded by the download interface (in claim 3, e.g. Bora).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 & 3 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Foster and Bora discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1.
Bora further discloses:
wherein the vehicle control interface module comprises a feedback loop configured to counteract a difference between an actual measured acceleration of the vehicle and the planned acceleration from the generic vehicle motion planner (Bora discloses PID controller to configure reference values versus measured values for functions such as acceleration and speed of vehicle(s) 100, 102, 104 and incorporate a dynamic compensation factor for the output values between the control function and the vehicle function ([0037] (ECU 202 preferably implements a control function…implemented as a PID controller, typically receives the reference control value V1 as well as data relating to the present operation of the vehicle 100, 102, 104…the control function then operates to reduce the difference between…the desired speed (i.e. the reference control value V1) and a current speed of the vehicle 100, 102, 104…the vehicle control model, M, is used for introduce a dynamic compensation factor…the compensation control value, CCV, between the output from the control function and the function of the vehicle 100, 102, 104 that is to be controlled))).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 & 3 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Foster and Bora discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference.
Bora further discloses an electronic computing unit (ECU) comprising the adaptation control module and/or vehicle motion control interface of the road vehicle according to claim 1 (Bora discloses an ecu comprising the adaptation/vehicle motion control interface of vehicle(s) 100, 102, 104, etc. (see Fig. 2; [0032] (control system 200, comprising a processing circuitry 202, such as an electronic control unit (ECU), adapted for operating…any one of the vehicles 100, 102, 104…ECU 202 implements an interface for receiving data from a plurality of sensors 204, 206, 208, such as…for measuring one of a speed, an acceleration, an inclination, a torque…of the vehicle 100, 102, 104…control system 200 may further comprise a database…for storing a vehicle control model to be used by the ECU 202 in operating the vehicle…control system 200 may also be provided with an interface for allowing the vehicle control model to be received at and transmitted from the ECU 202); [0035] (Initially...the driver or an autonomy process of the vehicle 100, 102, 104 sets a reference control value V1 for operating the vehicle 100, 102, 104, such as…one of a speed or an acceleration for the vehicle 100, 102, 104…the reference control value V1 is received, S1, at the ECU 202…the ECU 202 also receives, S2, vehicle state values V2, V2′, V2″ from the plurality of sensors 204, 206, 208, such as from sensors adapted for measuring one of a speed, an acceleration, an inclination, a torque, etc. of the vehicle 100, 102, 104))).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 & 3 above incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 13-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. 20230227067 A1 to Foster in view of US. 20210197852 A1 to Fairfield et al. (Fairfield).
Regarding claim 13, Foster discloses a set of road vehicles comprising the road vehicle according to claim 1.
However, Foster does not appear to further expressly disclose at least one further road vehicle,
wherein all road vehicles in the set comprise the identical generic vehicle motion planners and different types of road vehicles in the set comprise adaptation control module with different vehicle dependent parameter values for adapting automated driving control of the road vehicles in the set to the type of vehicle and/or to use of different vehicle dependent parameters.
Fairfield, in the same field of endeavor, further discloses at least one further road vehicle,
wherein all road vehicles in the set comprise the identical generic vehicle motion planners and different types of road vehicles in the set comprise adaptation control module with different vehicle dependent parameter values for adapting automated driving control of the road vehicles in the set to the type of vehicle and/or to use of different vehicle dependent parameters (Fairfield discloses using the kinematic model as an adaptation control module on different vehicles to determine a kinematic feasibility of each possible path with different vehicle dependent parameters ([0004] (determining, by the one or more processors based on the received sensor data and the plurality of possible paths, a kinematic feasibility of each possible path according to a kinematic model of the vehicle; selecting, by the one or more processors, a given one of the possible paths based on the kinematic feasibility and a hierarchy of stored rules…being associated with one or more of lane indicators, physical road components or restrictions of the vehicle; and causing the vehicle to perform a selected driving operation in the autonomous driving mode to follow the given path in accordance with the kinematic feasibility and the hierarchy of stored rules); [0073] (using the kinematic model…the system can predict the swept volume of the vehicle for a given maneuver…this is used to determine how best to perform a particular driving operation…or to determine if a particular route is kinematically feasible…the route may be overlaid on a map along with swept volume…the onboard planner or offboard system may compute other agents and obstacles for different possible routes on the map…a set of curves can then be determined for possible paths, and perform a geometry calculation for the swept volume to determine potential overlaps with other objects))).
Therefore, 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 situational behavior system of Foster to incorporate the kinematic truck routing model of Fairfield to include a kinematic model motion planner installed on a plurality of vehicles, wherein the kinematic model is used to determine kinematic feasibility of each path containing different vehicle-dependent parameters surrounding the vehicle in order to best perform vehicle driving operation(s), with predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Foster and Fairfield for the express benefit of including an obstacle detector to determine whether an obstacle is in the vicinity of the vehicle and/or on a collision path with the vehicle and output a collision risk warning via a sound output, as explained in Fairfield [0004], [0073].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Foster and Fairfield discloses the method of installing an automated driving system in a set of road vehicles comprising the road vehicle according to claim 1 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 and 13 above incorporated herein by reference, and at least one further road vehicle, the method comprising
installing identical generic vehicle motion planners in all road vehicles of the set (in claim 13, e.g. Fairfield), and
adapting automated driving control of different types of road vehicles in the set to the different types by installing adaptation control module with different vehicle dependent parameter values (in claim 13, e.g. Fairfield).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 & 13 above incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. 20230227067 A1 to Foster in view of US. 20180364703 A1 to Liu et al. (Liu).
Regarding claim 7, Foster discloses the road vehicle according to claim 1.
However, Foster does not appear to expressly disclose,
wherein the vehicle dependent parameter value is a maximum yaw rate provided as the feasibility constraint from the adaptation control module to the generic vehicle motion planner.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, further discloses:
wherein the vehicle dependent parameter value is a maximum yaw rate provided as the feasibility constraint from the adaptation control module to the generic vehicle motion planner (Liu discloses wherein a maximum allowable yaw rate is a feasibility constraint and server 501 performs as an adaptation control module to adjust the entry and exit speeds to maintain a yaw rate below the maximum allowable yaw rate and prevent the yaw rate from exceeding the maximum allowable yaw rate (see Fig. 5; [0169] (A primitive may have…parameters…adjusted by the teleoperator…parameters may include one or more of the following:…a velocity of the AV when reaching the end of the primitive,…a maximum allowable yaw rotation rate of the AV during the traversal of the primitive, and an ending position of the primitive); [0170] (a teleoperation server 501 may comprise a primitive adjusting process 536 to handle the parameters across primitives…when a specific parameter is set by the teleoperator, the primitive adjusting process 536 may ensure that other parameters are automatically modified to be compatible with the current adjustment...when a maximum allowable yaw rotation rate is being configured…the primitive adjusting process may automatically modify the entry and exit speed of the primitive to ensure the maximum allowable yaw rotation rate is not exceeded…the velocities of two connected primitives may be different…since an immediate velocity reduction…is impossible for the AV, the primitive adjusting process may computationally smooth the velocities across the two primitives))).
Therefore, 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 situational behavior system of Foster to incorporate the intervention driving system of Liu to include a maximum yaw rotation rate and a server of a vehicle, wherein the server adjusts the entry and exit speed of the vehicle into a turn to maintain a yaw rate below the maximum yaw rate along the vehicle trajectory, with predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Foster and Liu for the express benefit of including a maximum yaw rotation rate threshold and the adjustment capability of the server to adjust the vehicle speed to maintain a yaw rate below the maximum yaw rate, as explained in Liu [0169]-[0170].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure as teaching the state of the art of vehicle motion control(s), at the time of filing. For example:
US 20180017971 A1 to Di Cairano; Stefano teaches, inter alia System And Method For Controlling Motion Of Vehicle in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A method selects from a memory a first model of motion of vehicle, a second model of the motion of the vehicle, a first constraint on the first model for moving along a desired trajectory of the vehicle, and a control invariant set joining states of the first model with states of the second model. For each combination of the states within the control invariant subset there is at least one control action to the second model that maintains the state of the second model within the control invariant set for every modification of the state of the first model satisfying the first constraint. A portion of the desired trajectory satisfying the first constraint is determined using the first model while a sequence of commands for moving the vehicle along the portion of the desired trajectory is determined using the second model. The sequence of commands is determined to maintain the sequence of the states of the second model and a sequence of the states of the first model determined by the portion of the desired trajectory within the control invariant subset. The vehicle is controlled using at least one command from the sequence of commands.”
PNG
media_image1.png
482
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
US 20100211270 A1 to Chin; Yuen-Kwok teaches, inter alia INTERVENTION IN OPERATION OF A VEHICLE HAVING AUTONOMOUS DRIVING CAPABILITIES in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Among other things, a determination is made that intervention in an operation of one or more autonomous driving capabilities of a vehicle is appropriate. Based on the determination, a person is enabled to provide information for an intervention. The intervention is caused in the operation of the one or more autonomous driving capabilities of the vehicle.”
PNG
media_image3.png
667
451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
668
469
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT L PINKERTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9820. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00-4:00.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on 571-272-7298. 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.
/ROBERT L PINKERTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665