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 .
Claim Status
This action is in response to claims filed on 09/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. US11591267B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are covered by the claims of the reference.
Pending Application 18/898485
U.S. Patent No. US 11591267 B2
Claim 1, claim 2, claim 3, claim 4
Claim 11
A vehicle having a semi-autonomous and a fully autonomous driving mode, the vehicle comprising: one or more processors; and memory operatively connected to the one or more processors and including computer code, that when executed by the one or more processors, causes the vehicle to: in response to receiving a driving input for a defined time horizon, determine a reference driving input for the defined time horizon, wherein the driving input is a human driver input when the vehicle is operating in a semi-autonomous mode and a pseudo-driver input when the vehicle is operating in a fully autonomous mode; compare the reference driving input to an autonomous driving command; compute a second autonomous driving command based on the comparing; and generate a control signal which effectuates the second autonomous driving command.
Claim 5
Claim 12
The vehicle of claim 11, wherein: comparing the reference driving input to the autonomous driving command comprises comparing the reference driving input to the autonomous driving command within a term of an objective cost function; and the second autonomous driving command reduces the objective cost function.
Claim 6
Claim 13
The vehicle of claim 12, wherein: the human driver input comprises a current human driver command and one or more predicted human driver commands for the defined time horizon; and the pseudo-driver input comprises one or more predicted pseudo-driver commands for the defined time horizon.
Claim 7
Claim 14
The vehicle of claim 13, wherein the current human driver command comprises one or more commands a human driver in the vehicle places on one or more motive systems of the vehicle.
Claim 8, claim 9, claim 10, claim 11
Claim 1
A vehicle having a semi-autonomous and a fully autonomous driving mode, the vehicle comprising: one or more processors configured to execute machine executable instructions in non-transitory memory to: in response to receiving a driving input and a vehicle state for a defined time horizon, determine a reference driving input and a reference vehicle state for the defined time horizon, wherein the driving input is a human driver input when the vehicle is operating in a semi-autonomous mode and a pseudo-driver input when the vehicle is operating in a fully autonomous mode; compare the driving input and the reference driving input to an autonomous driving command and the reference vehicle state to the vehicle state; compute a second autonomous driving command based on the comparing; and generate a control signal which effectuates the second autonomous driving command.
Claim 12
Claim 2
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein: comparing the reference driving input to the autonomous driving command comprises comparing the reference driving input to the autonomous driving command within a first term of an objective cost function; comparing the driving input to the autonomous driving command comprises comparing the driving input to the autonomous driving command within a second term of the objective cost function; comparing the reference vehicle state to the vehicle state comprises comparing the reference vehicle state to the vehicle state within a third term of the objective cost function; and the second autonomous driving command reduces the objective cost function.
Claim 13
Claim 3
The vehicle of claim 2, wherein the objective cost function further comprises a fourth term containing a slack variable.
Claim 14
Claim 4
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the vehicle state comprises a data associated with the current operational state of the vehicle.
Claim 15
Claim 5
The vehicle of claim 4, wherein the vehicle state further comprises one or
more data associated with predicted future operational states of the vehicle.
Claim 16
Claim 6
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein: the human driver input comprises a current human driver command and one or more predicted human driver commands for the defined time horizon; and the pseudo-driver input comprises one or more predicted pseudo-driver commands for the defined time horizon.
Claim 17
Claim 9
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the pseudo-driver input is a stabilizing
prediction steering command.
Claim 18
Claim 10
The vehicle of claim 9, wherein the stabilizing prediction steering command is a stable lane keeping feedforward command.
Claim 19, claim 20
Claim 11
A vehicle having a semi-autonomous and a fully autonomous driving mode, the vehicle comprising: one or more processors; and memory operatively connected to the one or more processors and including computer code, that when executed by the one or more processors, causes the vehicle to: in response to receiving a driving input for a defined time horizon, determine a reference driving input for the defined time horizon, wherein the driving input is a human driver input when the vehicle is operating in a semi-autonomous mode and a pseudo-driver input when the vehicle is operating in a fully autonomous mode; compare the reference driving input to an autonomous driving command; compute a second autonomous driving command based on the comparing; and generate a control signal which effectuates the second autonomous driving command.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rahman et al. (US 2023/0020503 A1) teaches a vehicle that can be operated in a fully- or semi-autonomous mode comprising a computer that executes instructions comprising determining affordance indicators representing the current state of the vehicle based on acquired vehicle sensor data; determining high-level commands including a longitudinal acceleration action and a lateral steering action based on the affordance indicators using a quadratic program algorithm that minimizes a cost function which includes slack variables; determining low-level commands for operating the vehicle from the high-level commands; determining whether the low-level commands are safe using lateral and longitudinal control barrier functions and outputting changed or unchanged low-level commands based on the result; translating the output low-level commands back to high-level commands; and comparing the high-level commands to the original high-level commands to determine reward functions that are used to train the system.
Engel et al. (US 2023/0049927 A1) teaches an autonomous vehicle, where the driver still has the opportunity to influence the driving operation, configured to store a driver intervention into the autonomous driving function of the vehicle during a first instance, and execute the autonomous driving function based on the stored driver intervention during a second instance; and further configured to perform an autonomous driving function formed by a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm that includes a longitudinal dynamics model of the vehicle and a cost function to be minimized, the function comprising: measuring current vehicle state variable; determining an input variable for closed-loop control of the electric machine by executing the MPC algorithm with regard to the stored driver intervention such that the motor vehicle is driven autonomously by the electric machine and the cost function is minimized, wherein the cost function includes a first term for battery electrical energy, a second term for vehicle driving time, a third term for a vehicle torque or drive force, a fourth term for vehicle torque gradient, and a fifth term for a slack variable, where the input variable is determined as a function of the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth term such that the cost function is minimized.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm M-Th.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached at (571)272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights