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 Analysis - 35 USC § 101
There is no 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection because each of the independent claims recite controlling the driving of the vehicle based on a change in a control condition. This is not simply an algorithm, rather the use of an algorithm to control a vehicle.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10-13, 16-19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tengilimoglu, “Implications of automated vehicles for physical road environment: A comprehensive review,” March 8, 2022, hereinafter “Tengilimoglu”, in view of Anselma (See PTO-892).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12, Tengilimoglu discloses a method, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and apparatus for controlling driving of a vehicle, the method comprising:
during a smart cruise control (SCC) operation, determining, by one or more processors of the apparatus, based on control information of the vehicle, a road condition of a road on which the vehicle is driven (Page 4, P2 discloses at Levels 1-2, the driving assistance systems provide the driver with longitudinal or/and lateral vehicle motion control in the form of adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assistance. Page 9, P2 discloses Level 4 systems can operate without any driver involvement within a specific ODD, but once the vehicle leaves that ODD (e.g. due to adverse weather conditions, work zones etc.), drivers need to take control);
detecting based on the road condition being different from a pre-set standard road condition, driver operation data (Page 3, P1 discloses operational design domains (ODD), which based on the footnote is the set of driving conditions for a given automated driving system under which it is designed to operate. These driving conditions may include weather conditions, road infrastructure components, and vehicle-related conditions. This is a determination of road condition pre-set standards. Page 9, P2, discloses that when a weather condition puts the vehicle outside its ODD a control condition needs to change (i.e. the driver needs to take control) and based on the determination of if the driver’s operation data is detected or not, the vehicle needs a safe area to stop/park and wait for the driver to be ready, or wait for conditions to improve to the extent where the automated control system is able to proceed);
changing based on the detecting of the driver operation data, a control condition for controlling driving of the vehicle (As discussed in the limitation above the change could be any of the driver taking control or the car stopping);
controlling, based on the changed control condition, driving of the vehicle (See limitation above).
While Tengilimoglu does teach controlling the vehicle based on the driver operation data, and the controlling feature is stopping the car, which can be reasonably interpreted to mean controlling acceleration of the vehicle based on a power train, it does not specifically state that this is done by controlling a second gear of the power train. The question then becomes, would it be obvious to one of ordinary skill to control acceleration of the power train based on a type of gear shifting. Anselma answers this question affirmatively.
Specifically, Page 3, section 2.1 discloses shifting gears based on a request coming from the driver following a dedicated control logic. This is done for the purpose, as described on Page 6, Section 2.4, where the powertrain is connected to variable gears so that it can operate as an electrically variable transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tengilimoglu with the teachings of Anselma to operate as an electrical generator while ensuring reaction torque for the ICE torque is being delivered to the wheels. Page 12, Results section further explains why this gear shifting logic would add efficiency.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Tengilimoglu discloses wherein the changing the control condition comprises one of:
setting a first control condition for the control condition based detecting of the driver operation data, wherein the first control condition is different from a second control condition for undetected driver operation (a control condition is the vehicle stopping and waiting when the driver is not ready to take control of the vehicle as in Page 9, P2. This section further teaches on Page 9, P2, that when a weather condition puts the vehicle outside its ODD a control condition needs to change (i.e. the driver needs to take control) and based on the determination of if the driver’s operation data is detected or not, the vehicle needs a safe area to stop/park and wait for the driver to be ready, or wait for conditions to improve to the extent where the automated control system is able to proceed. Taking control or not taking control are two different conditions).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Anselma discloses controlling the powertrain in such a way to shift into various gears. While Anselma does not disclose specifically the raising and lowering mechanisms of claims 5 and 6, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to control the power train in any shifting mechanism. That is, since Anselma already discloses power train shifting based on control logic, it would have been obvious to substitute the specific ways the power train is controlled with any other mechanism not claimed to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Tengilimoglu discloses controlling driving of the vehicle based on the SCC and a pre-set standard range being satisfied, wherein the satisfaction of the pre-set standard range is determined based on sensor information from the vehicle and navigation information from a navigation sensor (As in claim 1, when the pre-set standard range is satisfied, the vehicle will drive. Page 4, last paragraph discloses AVs rely on their onboard sensors, embedded software and artificial intelligence in vehicles so that they do not need additional external infrastructure or communications).
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 19, Tengilimoglu discloses controlling the driving of the vehicle based on the SCC such that a required acceleration of the SCC and a slope of the required acceleration are lowered (As in claim 1, the car comes to a stop).
Regarding claim 21, Tengilimoglu discloses wherein the determining the road condition comprises analyzing an intervention state associated with chassis control of the vehicle (Page 3, P1 discloses operational design domains (ODD), which based on the footnote is the set of driving conditions for a given automated driving system under which it is designed to operate. These driving conditions may include weather conditions, road infrastructure components, and vehicle-related conditions.).
Regarding claim 22, Tengilimoglu discloses wherein the determining the road condition comprises comparing a speed of the vehicle with a reference vehicle speed (Page8, P2 discloses speed control systems and P4 discloses in comparison to speed limits).
Regarding claim 23, Tengilimoglu discloses wherein the determining the road condition comprises determining, based on the road condition being different from the pre-set standard road condition, that the road on which the vehicle is driven is a low friction road (Table 1 discloses road friction determination. Page 11, Section 4.3.1 discloses loss of friction on the road, which is equivalent to low friction).
Regarding claim 24, Tengilimoglu discloses wherein the controlling the power train further comprises applying an engine brake based on a deceleration condition of the vehicle (See rejection to claim 1 for car stopping, which necessarily requires a brake and deceleration).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over Tengilimoglu in view of Anselma in view of Alvarez, “A Real-Time Intelligent Intra-vehicular Temperature Control Framework,” A Real-Time Intelligent Intra-vehicular Temperature Control Framework | Springer Nature Link, 2021, hereinafter “Alvarez.”
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Tengilimoglu discloses wherein the sensor information comprises information from an illumination sensor (Page 16, section 4.8.2 discloses illumination sensors).
However, Tengilimoglu does not disclose information from an ambient temperature sensor.
However, Alvarez does teach this limitation on Page 7, P2 teaching in order to monitor the vehicle’s ambient temperature, the system is equipped with a high accuracy DHT22 temperature sensor module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a temperature sensor to control of the vehicle’s climate control system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot as they are directed to new limitations addressed by newly added Anselma above.
Conclusion
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 ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
