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 .
Inventorship
2. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Lu et al. (US 2014/0195112 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figures 1 and 3, Lu invention teaches a vehicle control apparatus (12) comprising: a light detection and ranging device (LiDAR) [para. 0019 teaches the sensor array includes various types of sensors operatively coupled to one or more system control modules so as to enable transmission of the sensor inputs to the control module(s). The sensor array may include individual sensors or groups of associated sensors (such as radar, lidar, laser scan, or vision/camera systems) for detecting aspects of the vehicle environment]; and a processor [para. 0020 teaches the control system 12 also includes one or more control modules operatively coupled to associated sensor (or groups of sensors), to other control modules, and/or to other elements of the control system] configured to: receive, via the LiDAR, a point cloud corresponding to a road surface on which a vehicle is driving [Figure 3 and para. 0034]; determine, based on a steering sensor (14b) of the vehicle, a predicted driving route of the vehicle [Figure 1 and para. 0040]; determine, based on at least one of the point cloud or the predicted driving route, a profile of the road surface [Figures 1, 3 and para. 0040]; determine, based on the profile, information about an obstacle on the road surface [Figures 1, 3 and para. 0041]; and control, based on the information about the obstacle, a suspension of the vehicle [para. 0041; and furthermore see Figure 4] .
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in claim 1, Lu invention further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: extract, from the point cloud, partial points included in the predicted driving route [Figure 4 and para. 0050].
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in claim 1, Lu invention further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the profile by: determining projection points by projecting the partial points onto a plain in a coordinate system associated with the point cloud; and determining the profile based on a distance between the predicted driving route and the projection points [Figure 4 and para. 0050-0055].
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in claim 1, Lu invention further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an interpolated profile of the road surface by performing, based on a smoothing spline, interpolation on a portion, of the profile, that is not represented in the point cloud [Figure 4 and para. 0050-0055].
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in claim 1, Lu invention further teaches wherein the information about the obstacle comprises shape information about the obstacle [para. 0050 and TABLE 1], and wherein the processor is configured to determine the information about the obstacle by: determining, based on at least one of a slope of an interpolated profile of the road surface or one or more extrema of a second derivative curvature of the interpolated profile, the shape information of the obstacle [para. 0050 and TABLES 1 and 2].
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in claim 1, Lu invention further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the shape information by: determining the shape information of the obstacle based on an order of signs of the one or more extrema [see TABLES 1 and 2].
Regarding claim 8, as discussed in claim 1, Lu invention further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: filter the information about the obstacle based on at least one of symmetricity of the shape information of the obstacle, or parallelism of the road surface [see TABLES 1, 2 and Figure 3].
Regarding claims 11-16, and 18, see discussion in claims 1-6 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 7, 9, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed in claims 1 and 6, Lu invention fails to teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the shape information by one of: determining, based on the order of the signs of the one or more extrema being positive-to-negative-to-positive, that the obstacle is convex relative to a surrounding area of the road surface; or determining, based on the order of the signs of the one or more extrema being negative-to-positive-to-negative, that the obstacle is concave relative to the surrounding area of the road surface.
However, as discussed in claim 6, Lu invention further teaches the determination of the plurality of shapes of the object or obstacle [see TABLES 1 and 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to be included the teaching of determining that the obstacle is convex or concave relative to a surrounding area of the road surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed in claim 1, Lu invention fails to specifically disclose a memory for storing a neural network model and applying the steering information to the neural network model.
Notes para. 0042, Lu invention teaches computer may also include (or be operatively associated with) a memory (not shown) for storing road surface condition information correlated with the GPS position of the stored road surface condition, along with any other required data and/or information, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain, via the steering sensor (14b), steering information associated with the vehicle; and determine, para. 0137, 0138, 0149 and 0154].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have provided a memory for storing a neural network model and applying the steering information to the neural network model in order to predict or to estimate a turning radius of the vehicle [using the turning angle to determine the turning radius is well-known], as is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, see discussions and motivations in claims 7 and 9.
7. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0019008 A1) or Moss (US 2020/0368629 A1).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed and motivated in claim 9, Lu invention fails to specifically teaches using the Ackermann geometry to determine a turn radius of each wheel of the vehicle.
Nakamura invention teaches using the ideal Ackermann geometry to determine a wheel turning angle of each wheel of the vehicle [para. 0088].
Moss invention also teaches “the steering system 321 comprises a conventional steering linkage to alter the direction of travel of the vehicle by turning both front wheels in accordance with steering remote-control commands received via the antenna 317. The linkage may conform to a variation of any steering geometry, such as Ackermann geometry, to account for the respective turning radii of the wheels 305, 309 when steering the vehicle through a curved path. The control module is configured to monitor the roll angle of the vehicle and adjust the steering angle applied to at least one of the front wheels 305, 309 in order to maintain an acute vehicle roll angle so as to perform a skiing maneuver.” [para. 0124].
Since the prior art references are from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Nakamura or Moss would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Lu invention.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the technique of using the Ackermann geometry to determine a turn radius of each wheel of the vehicle for the purpose of maintaining an accurate roll angle of vehicle so as to perform the smooth turning at medium and high vehicle speed.
Regarding claim 20, see discussion and motivation in claim 10.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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, Logan Kraft can be reached on (571) 270-5065. 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.
/J.H.H./
February 17, 2026
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747