DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
This objection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the drawings.
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, 3, 4, 6-14, 16, 17, 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arwed (DE 102012201112) in view of Raffone (U.S. Pat. No. 11,897,452).
Regarding claim 1 and 17, Arwed discloses a vehicle system for dynamically controlling bidirectional maneuvers of a vehicle (abstract ¶5), the vehicle system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to detect one or more objects external to a vehicle (abstract ¶5, ¶24, ¶25);
a vehicle control module; and a control module in communication with the one or more sensors and the vehicle control module (abstract ¶24-26), the control module configured to:
determine a desired speed profile and a target trajectory based on the detected objects (abs ¶5-6 ¶10 ¶53 discloses limiting acceleration so that the speed allows for good maneuverability this is construed as sufficient to address a “speed profile”);
identify a desired direction of travel for the vehicle based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (¶6, ¶56);
dynamically adapt, based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory, a prediction control model to correspond to the desired direction of travel (abstract ¶5, ¶56, ¶58); and
determine a curvature reference for the vehicle based on the target trajectory (¶45 discusses the data points gathered that give the understanding of curvature i.e. steering angle, position data, yaw angle change. Also in discussing line 17 shown in the figures and discussed in ¶51 and ¶52 when stating that this path is determined and has a “circular arc” which has a curve this amounts to determining a curvature);
determine a yaw rate reference for the vehicle based on the curvature reference and a longitudinal velocity reference (¶19 discloses that the trajectory can also be described with respect to yaw with ¶41 disclosing how trajectories are pre calculated, ¶57 discusses how speed is controlled);
generate a steering angle command with the adapted prediction control model (¶5, ¶10), wherein the vehicle control module is configured control the vehicle based on the steering angle command to maneuver the vehicle along the target trajectory in the desired direction of travel (¶5, ¶10).
Arwed does not disclose determine a rate of change of a heading error based on the yaw rate reference and a measured yaw rate of the vehicle; determine a heading error based on a measured heading of the vehicle and a heading reference or that the generated steering angle command with the adapted prediction control model based on the heading error and the rate of change of the heading error.
Raffone, which deals in autonomous driving, teaches determine a rate of change of a heading error based on the yaw rate reference and a measured yaw rate of the vehicle; determine a heading error based on a measured heading of the vehicle and a heading reference or that the generated steering angle command with the adapted prediction control model based on the heading error and the rate of change of the heading error (claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Arwed with the heading error and correction of Raffone because this helps to keep the driver on the “ideal path” (col. 3, lines 58-62).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Arwed discloses wherein the control module is configured to: determine at least one of forward and reverse segments for the vehicle; and determine the yaw rate reference for the vehicle based on the at least one of the forward and reverse segments (¶21, ¶24, ¶45).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 3, Arwed discloses wherein: the target trajectory is a global frame target trajectory; and the control module is configured to convert the global frame target trajectory into a vehicle frame trajectory and determine the at least one of the forward and reverse segments based on the vehicle frame trajectory (¶21, ¶24).
Regarding claim 6 and 16 which depends from claim 1 and 14 respectively, Arwed discloses wherein the control module is configured to latch a value of the longitudinal velocity reference to a defined value in response to the longitudinal velocity reference being less than the defined value (all the values are “latched” to defined values due to be given real numbers with real units).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 6, Arwed discloses wherein the control module is configured to dynamically adapt at least one constraint for the adapted prediction control model based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (¶5, ¶56, ¶58).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 7, Arwed discloses wherein the control module is configured to select a defined value for the at least one constraint based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (¶54, ¶58).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 6, Arwed discloses wherein the control module is configured to dynamically adapt at least one weight for the adapted prediction control model based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (¶5).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 9, Arwed discloses wherein the control module is configured to select a defined value for the at least one weight based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (all values of the system are defined).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 1, Arwed discloses wherein the objects include at least one of a line marking and an object on a roadway (shown in the figures).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 1, Arwed discloses wherein the desired direction of travel is a forward direction of the vehicle or a reverse direction of the vehicle (shown in the figures).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 12, Arwed discloses wherein the prediction control model is stable during the forward direction of the vehicle and the reverse direction of the vehicle (shown in the figures).
Regarding claim 14, Arwed discloses a vehicle system for dynamically controlling bidirectional maneuvers of a vehicle, the vehicle system comprising: one or more sensors configured to detect one or more objects external to a vehicle; a vehicle control module; and a control module in communication with the one or more sensors and the vehicle control module, the control module configured to: determine a desired speed profile and a target trajectory based on the detected objects; identify a desired direction of travel for the vehicle based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory; dynamically adapt, based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory, a prediction control model to correspond to the desired direction of travel; dynamically adapt at least one constraint and at least one weight for the adapted prediction control model; determine a curvature reference for the vehicle based on the target trajectory; determine a yaw rate reference for the vehicle based on the curvature reference and a longitudinal velocity reference; determine a rate of change of a heading error based on the yaw rate reference and a measured yaw rate of the vehicle; determine a heading error based on a measured heading of the vehicle and a heading reference; and generate a steering angle command with the adapted prediction control model based on the heading error and the rate of change of the heading error, wherein the vehicle control module is configured control the vehicle based on the steering angle command to maneuver the vehicle along the target trajectory in the desired direction of travel (The limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 1, 2 and 9).
Regarding claim 19 which depends from claim 18, Arwed discloses further comprising latching a value of the longitudinal velocity reference to a defined value in response to the longitudinal velocity reference being less than the defined value (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claims 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 20 which depends from claim 19, Arwed discloses further comprising: dynamically adapting at least one constraint for the adapted prediction control model based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory; and dynamically adapting at least one weight for the adapted prediction control model based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claims 1, 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 21 which depends from claim 1, Raffone discloses wherein the control module is configured to dynamically adapt at least one constraint for the adapted prediction control model based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (Claim 2 discloses that “lateral speed” is part of the constraint used to create the steering command).
Regarding claim 22 which depends from claim 21, Arwed discloses wherein the control module is configured to select a defined value for the at least one constraint based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (Both of these are defined values and the reference discloses controlling the speed and a desired speeed).
Regarding claim 23 which depends from claim 1, Arwed discloses wherein the control module is configured to dynamically adapt at least one weight for the adapted prediction control model based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (fig. 6 shows how the speed profile is changed allowing the speed to be the most influential portion of the travel. While stopped the steering is allowed to change becoming the most influential portion. Then when travel resumes between stopping points the speed and steering share weight.).
Regarding claim 24 which depends from claim 23, Arwed discloses wherein the control module is configured to select a defined value for the at least one weight based on at least one of the desired speed profile and the target trajectory (Fig. 6 the vehicle has points where the speed is zero).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12 that the Arwed reference does not mention a “yaw rate reference”. In creating a trajectory the reference discusses that the predicted trajectories can be considered in terms of yaw ¶19. As a result the trajectories that are preplanned can be considered to be a yaw rate reference.
Where applicant argues for the amendments made to the claims they have been addressed 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 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
Prosecution Insights