DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12, 13, 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Shalev-Shwartz (U.S. Pat. No. 10,937,107).
Regarding claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz discloses a system comprising:
a first vehicle system associated with a first vehicle and including a first sensor array (120) structured to provide first sensor information;
a second vehicle system associated with a second vehicle and including a second sensor array structured to provide second sensor information (col. 34, lines 25-34 discloses determining information provided by “other vehicles”); and
one or more memory devices (140) configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: store a policy (803) in the one or more memory devices;
receive the first sensor information and the second sensor information (510 as addressed above the second sensor information can be gathered for various reasons);
input the first sensor information and the second sensor information into the policy (520);
determine an output of the policy based on the input of the first sensor information and the second sensor information (the flow charts of fig. 5a-f); control operation of the first vehicle system according to the output (530);
compare the first sensor information received after controlling operation of the first vehicle system according to the output to a reward (col. 35, lines 36-50) or penalty condition (col. 43, lines 56-62 discloses penalties);
provide one of a reward signal or a penalty signal in response to the comparison; and update the policy based on receipt of the reward signal or the penalty signal (col. 35, lines 36-50 discloses how this changes the driving).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the first sensor information and the second sensor information include horizon information indicative of a roadway condition (col. 21, lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the horizon information includes look ahead information including at least one of altitude, grade (turn option addressed), or turn degree information (col. 23, lines 15-32 discloses that the image capture devices allow it to determine navigational responses like turns. Col. 24, lines 41-60 state that image analysis results in the turning angle of the steering wheel).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the first sensor information and the second sensor information include vehicle system age information (col. 14, lines 7-14 discloses sharing information that would allow for an understanding of the age of the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine an age of a first component of the first vehicle system and an age of a second component of the second vehicle system and update the policy using the ages (make and model can provide this type of information).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the one or more memory devices are located remote of the first vehicle system and the second vehicle system (col. 33, lines 50-58).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the first vehicle system includes an exhaust gas aftertreatment system (cruise option addressed) or a cruise control system (col. 61, lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to control operation of at least one of the first vehicle system or the second vehicle system using the updated policy (shown in fig. 5a-f).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to receive fleet information from at least one other vehicle in addition to the first vehicle system and the second vehicle system, and utilize the fleet information to update the policy (col. 34, lines 25-34 discloses determining information provided by “other vehicles” allows for any vehicle that is sharing information).
Regarding claim 12, Shalev-Shwartz discloses a system comprising: a first system associated with a first vehicle; a second system associated with a second vehicle; and one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: store a policy in the one or more memory devices; receive information regarding operation of the first system and information regarding operation of the second system; input the information regarding operation of the first system and the second system into the policy; determine an output of the policy based on the input of the information regarding operation of the first system and the second system; and control operation of the first system according to the output (the limitations of this claim have been addressed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 12, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: compare information received after controlling operation of the first system according to the output to a desired value regarding operation of the first system; provide one of a reward signal or a penalty signal in response to the comparison; update the policy based on receipt of the reward signal or the penalty signal; and control operation of at least one of the first system or the second system using the updated policy (the limitations of this claim have been addressed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 12, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the received information regarding operation of the first system and the received information regarding operation of the second system includes at least one of NOx conversion efficiency, a vehicle speed (col. 11, lines 16-19 discloses knowing vehicle speed), an engine speed, or an engine torque (vehicle speed option addressed).
Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 12, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the one or more memory devices are located remote of the first system and the second system (col. 33, lines 50-58).
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 12, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the information regarding operation of the first system and the second system include horizon information indicative of a roadway condition for the first system and the second system (col. 21, lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 18, Shalev-Shwartz discloses a method comprising: storing, by one or more processors in one or more memory devices, a policy; receiving, by the one or more processors, information regarding a first vehicle system and a second vehicle system; inputting, by the one or more processors, the received information into the policy; determining, by the one or more processors, an output of the policy based on the inputted information; controlling, by the one or more processors, operation of the first vehicle system according to the output; providing, by the one or more processors, a reward signal or a penalty signal in response to information received after controlling operation of the first vehicle system according to the output; updating, by the one or more processors, the policy based on receipt of the reward signal or the penalty signal; and controlling, by the one or more processors, operation of at least one of the first vehicle system or the second vehicle system using the updated policy (the limitations of this claim have been addressed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20 which depends from claim 18, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the reward signal or the penalty signal is provided in response to a comparison of the information received after controlling operation of the first vehicle system to a desired value regarding operation of at least one of the first vehicle system or the second vehicle system (the reward is given when successful control of good driving is performed as addressed above).
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) 11, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev-Shwartz (U.S. Pat. No. 10,937,107) as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and in view of Sukhatankar (U.S. Pat. No. 11,938,825).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 1, Shalev-Shwartz does not disclose wherein the first vehicle system and the second vehicle system include at least one of a fuel system or an air handling system, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to control operation of the at least one of the fuel system or the air handling system according to the updated policy.
Sukhatankar, which deals in vehicle learning, teaches wherein the first vehicle system and the second vehicle system include at least one of a fuel system or an air handling system, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to control operation of the at least one of the fuel system or the air handling system according to the updated policy (col. 159, lines 10-25 discloses learning how a fleet operates in order to improve fuel economy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Shalev-Shwartz with the machine learning type of Sukhatankar because this improves fuel efficiency (col. 159, lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 12, Sukhatankar discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to control the second system using the updated policy (col. 159, lines 10-25 the system aggregates data to control all vehicles).
Regarding claim 19 which depends from claim 18, Sukhatankar discloses further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, fleet information from at least one other vehicle system relative to the first vehicle system and the second vehicle system; and utilizing, by the one or more processors, the fleet information to update the policy (col. 159, lines 10-25 the system aggregates data to control all vehicles).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims require that a diesel exhaust fluid doser controller system be subject to artificial intelligence learning sending information to a central location for learning how to operate the system and providing rewards and penalties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please review when considering a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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 at (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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747