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 . This office action is in response to an Amendment filed on 7/17/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18- 20 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed on 7/17/2026 are under consideration. Claims 1, 8, 13, 15, and 18 are amended. Claims 7 and 17 were Cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carsten et al. (EP1890110A2).
Regarding Claim 1 Carsten teaches A computer system for determining a vehicle motion profile, (Pg. 1 – [0002] – “According to the prior art, a driving strategy for a motor vehicle is determined in that before a trip starts with the motor vehicle, for example by means of a navigation device of the motor vehicle, a route is determined via which the motor vehicle comes from a current location of the motor vehicle to a predefined destination. As a rule, either a shortest distance (the navigation device searches for the shortest route between the location and the destination)” ) the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire information related to an upcoming vehicle path, including a range of the vehicle path; (Pg. 1 – [0002] – “As a rule, either a shortest distance (the navigation device searches for the shortest route between the location and the destination) or a temporally shortest route” & See Also Pg. 10 – [0027] – “Of course, the present invention is not limited to this preferred field of application, however, but can also be used outside a motor vehicle in order to determine the optimum driving strategy on a computer for any motor vehicle to be specified, for example. A motor vehicle is understood to mean all vehicles which are provided with a drive, such as, for example, motor bicycles, trucks and cars” (equates to the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire information related to an upcoming vehicle path, including a range of the vehicle path; as the first quote shows the range being considered via the shortest route being considered by the system, thus including a range of the travel and the second quote showing the invention able to run on any computing system for nay vehicle.) ) and determine a vehicle motion profile as a solution to an optimization problem that describes a total cost for a vehicle to follow the vehicle path including a first cost associated with energy usage of the vehicle and a second cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle; (Pg. 5 – “energy consumption of a device of the motor vehicle which is not assigned to the drive of the motor vehicle. Such devices of the motor vehicle comprise a light source of the motor vehicle, an air conditioning system of the motor vehicle and a heatable rear window. For example, when driving on a route section passing through a tunnel, the light of the motor vehicle must be switched on, which leads to increased energy consumption and thus to increased operating costs” & See Also Pg. 5 – “The higher the wear of the motor vehicle on the trip of a specific route, the higher the operating costs to be calculated for the trip over the route. The wear of the motor vehicle depends on the selected route (for example, the brakes and the tires of the motor vehicle wear more in a route with many stops than in a route with fewer stops), but also on the driving style selected on the basis of the driving strategy, since, for example, a more aggressive driving style can decrease the driving duration, but generally increases the wear of the brakes, the tires and the transmission.” (equates to and determine a vehicle motion profile as a solution to an optimization problem that describes a total cost for a vehicle to follow the vehicle path including a first cost associated with energy usage of the vehicle and a second cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle as the first quote shows the operating costs to include the energy consumption of the vehicle along a given route being considered and the second quote showing the tire wear of the vehicle being a part of the cost function.)) wherein the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance. (Pg. 5 – “The higher the wear of the motor vehicle on the trip of a specific route, the higher the operating costs to be calculated for the trip over the route. The wear of the motor vehicle depends on the selected route (for example, the brakes and the tires of the motor vehicle wear more in a route with many stops than in a route with fewer stops), but also on the driving style selected on the basis of the driving strategy, since, for example, a more aggressive driving style can decrease the driving duration, but generally increases the wear of the brakes, the tires and the transmission” & See Also Pg. 9 – {0019} - “Within the scope of the present invention, a device for determining an optimum driving strategy for a drive from a starting point to a destination point is also provided. In this case, the device determines a route from the starting point to the destination point in such a way that the driving strategy is optimized as a function of at least two parameters, which can be weighted continuously in particular”(equates to wherein the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance. As the quote shows the wear of the tire being considered for path optimization wherein the wear is considered as this is directly related to repair and replacement of the tire and thus a cost associated with a tire.))wherein the total cost associated with the solution to the optimization problem is below a threshold; (Pg. 11 – [0041] – “In order to explain the method according to the invention by way of example, it should be pointed out that it is true precisely for journeys on a freeway that the travel time can be optimized at the cost of energy consumption. Since a highway can be driven very quickly as compared with other types of roads such as a highway, a highway section is often included in the optimum route to be calculated, although the two points connected by the highway section are also connected via a shorter highway section.” & See Also Pg. 5 – “The higher the wear of the motor vehicle on the trip of a specific route, the higher the operating costs to be calculated for the trip over the route. The wear of the motor vehicle depends on the selected route (for example, the brakes and the tires of the motor vehicle wear more in a route with many stops than in a route with fewer stops), but also on the driving style selected on the basis of the driving strategy, since, for example, a more aggressive driving style can decrease the driving duration, but generally increases the wear of the brakes, the tires and the transmission.” & See Also Pg. 11 – [0035] – “FIG. 2 shows four examples of the weighting of the four parameters A, B, F, S as a function of a predefined desire 11- 14 of the driver of the motor vehicle” (equates to wherein the total cost associated with the solution to the optimization problem is below a threshold as the threshold is set by the other routes being considered and the route selected is then below the threshold as it is optimized based upon a variety of factors as shown from the third quote wherein the first and second quote show the energy consumption and the tire wear being the potentially higher weighted categories for the optimization problem) ) and the determined vehicle motion profile meets the range of the vehicle path. (Pg. 11 – [0041] – “In order to explain the method according to the invention by way of example, it should be pointed out that it is true precisely for journeys on a freeway that the travel time can be optimized at the cost of energy consumption. Since a highway can be driven very quickly as compared with other types of roads such as a highway, a highway section is often included in the optimum route to be calculated, although the two points connected by the highway section are also connected via a shorter highway section.” (equates to and the determined vehicle motion profile meets the range of the vehicle path. As the quote shows the shortest path being the highway to be picked and thus the range of driving concerning this highway would mee the parameter for the assigned path.)) and control a vehicle based on the vehicle motion profile. (Pg. 7 – [0012] – “The current driving comfort (e.g. the road condition) can be determined, for example, by using the acceleration sensors present in the vehicle for the purpose of driving dynamics control.” & See Also Pg. 4 – [0009] _” The vehicle setting may also include further driver assistance systems (ADAS) of the motor vehicle, such as ACC (adaptive cruise control, the speed of the motor vehicle being matched to the speed of a vehicle driving beforehand), HCA (heading control assist), the motor vehicle specifically engaging into the steering system in order to keep the motor vehicle in the lane” (equates to and control a vehicle based on the vehicle motion profile as the quote shows the road condition being determined which in turn is used as a cost for the route optimization and the road condition data is used for the control of driving dynamics.) )
Regarding Claim 2 Carsten teaches . The computer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle path represents an entire journey for the vehicle, from a starting location to a destination location. (Pg. 1 – [0002] – “As a rule, either a shortest distance (the navigation device searches for the shortest route between the location and the destination) or a temporally shortest route” (equates to wherein the vehicle path represents an entire journey for the vehicle, from a starting location to a destination location as the quote shows the location in which a starting location of the vehicle is established to a destination.))
Regarding Claim 3 Carsten teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the information related to the upcoming vehicle path comprises a friction profile, a curvature, and/or a vertical profile of the vehicle path. (Pg. 5 – “An elevation profile of the route to be determined. When comparing two routes, the route whose height profile has fewer height meters is preferable in terms of the journey duration and the operating costs with otherwise the same features” (equates to wherein the information related to the upcoming vehicle path comprises a friction profile, a curvature, and/or a vertical profile of the vehicle path. As the quote shows an elevation or vertical profile of the path to be travelled upon being considered in the cost function of the cited art.))
Regarding Claim 4 Carsten teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to implement the range of the vehicle path as a constraint of the optimization problem. (Pg. 11 – [0041] – “However, when optimizing with respect to energy consumption, the longer section of the freeway has a negative impact, since a greater amount of energy is required for its management than for the shorter section of the freeway. Depending on the method of predefinable boundary conditions and other information, the method according to the invention will now decide to consider the freeway section or the highway section with respect to the optimum travel route” (equates to wherein the processing circuitry is configured to implement the range of the vehicle path as a constraint of the optimization problem as the quote shows the shortest path being included in the optimization problem and thus the range of the vehicle being a constraint as the path determined may be based on the distance of travel.))
Regarding Claim 6 Carsten teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the first cost represents CO2 emissions and/or electrical energy usage. (Pg. 6 – “target energy quantity in the energy store of the hybrid drive of the motor vehicle. On the basis of this information, the route can be designed in such a way that an energy in the energy store of the hybrid drive is consumed as rarely as possible, so that the drive of the motor vehicle takes place electrically as frequently as possible.” (equates to wherein the first cost represents CO2 emissions and/or electrical energy usage. As the quote shows the hybrid vehicle route being selected and the cost of the optimization problem being optimized to have the vehicle travel in an electric mode as frequent as possible wherein the electrical energy usage is a part of the cost function.))
Regarding Claim 9 Carsten teaches The computer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle motion profile comprises one or more of a speed of the vehicle, a trajectory of the vehicle, and a power split between driven axles, electric machines, and/or an internal combustion engine of the vehicle. (Pg. 5 – “timing of a traffic light circuit on a route section in question for the route to be determined. The time behavior of the traffic light circuit is to be understood on the one hand as the information when a traffic light is actually in operation on a specific route section. On the other hand, it can be derived from the time behavior of the traffic lights located on a route section, with which average speed the route section can be expected to be traveled through with as few stops as possible due to red traffic lights and with how many stops due to red traffic lights depending on the travel speed of the motor vehicle” (equates to wherein the vehicle motion profile comprises one or nore of a speed of the vehicle, a trajectory of the vehicle, and a power split between driven axles, electric machines, and/or an internal combustion engine of the vehicle as the quote shows the traffic light profile being included in the optimization problem including the speed or average speed of the vehicle along a route being considered.))
Regarding Claim 12 Carsten teaches A vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1. (Pg. 10 – [0027] – “Of course, the present invention is not limited to this preferred field of application, however, but can also be used outside a motor vehicle in order to determine the optimum driving strategy on a computer for any motor vehicle to be specified, for example. A motor vehicle is understood to mean all vehicles which are provided with a drive, such as, for example, motor bicycles, trucks and cars”)
Regarding Claim 13 Carsten teaches A computer-implemented method for determining a vehicle motion profile, (Pg. 1 – [0001] – “The present invention relates to a method for determining an optimum driving strategy for a motor vehicle and to a correspondingly designed device with which the optimum driving strategy can be determined.”) the method comprising: acquiring, by processing circuitry of a computer system, information related to an upcoming vehicle path, including a range of the vehicle path; (Pg. 1 – [0002] – “As a rule, either a shortest distance (the navigation device searches for the shortest route between the location and the destination) or a temporally shortest route” & See Also Pg. 10 – [0027] – “Of course, the present invention is not limited to this preferred field of application, however, but can also be used outside a motor vehicle in order to determine the optimum driving strategy on a computer for any motor vehicle to be specified, for example. A motor vehicle is understood to mean all vehicles which are provided with a drive, such as, for example, motor bicycles, trucks and cars” (equates to the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire information related to an upcoming vehicle path, including a range of the vehicle path; as the first quote shows the range being considered via the shortest route being considered by the system, thus including a range of the travel and the second quote showing the invention able to run on any computing system for nay vehicle.) ) and determining, by the processing circuitry, a vehicle motion profile as a solution to an optimization problem that describes a total cost for a vehicle to follow the vehicle path including a first cost associated with energy usage of the vehicle and a second cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle; (Pg. 5 – “energy consumption of a device of the motor vehicle which is not assigned to the drive of the motor vehicle. Such devices of the motor vehicle comprise a light source of the motor vehicle, an air conditioning system of the motor vehicle and a heatable rear window. For example, when driving on a route section passing through a tunnel, the light of the motor vehicle must be switched on, which leads to increased energy consumption and thus to increased operating costs” & See Also Pg. 5 – “The higher the wear of the motor vehicle on the trip of a specific route, the higher the operating costs to be calculated for the trip over the route. The wear of the motor vehicle depends on the selected route (for example, the brakes and the tires of the motor vehicle wear more in a route with many stops than in a route with fewer stops), but also on the driving style selected on the basis of the driving strategy, since, for example, a more aggressive driving style can decrease the driving duration, but generally increases the wear of the brakes, the tires and the transmission.” (equates to and determine a vehicle motion profile as a solution to an optimization problem that describes a total cost for a vehicle to follow the vehicle path including a first cost associated with energy usage of the vehicle and a second cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle as the first quote shows the operating costs to include the energy consumption of the vehicle along a given route being considered and the second quote showing the tire wear of the vehicle being a part of the cost function.)) wherein the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance. (Pg. 5 – “The higher the wear of the motor vehicle on the trip of a specific route, the higher the operating costs to be calculated for the trip over the route. The wear of the motor vehicle depends on the selected route (for example, the brakes and the tires of the motor vehicle wear more in a route with many stops than in a route with fewer stops), but also on the driving style selected on the basis of the driving strategy, since, for example, a more aggressive driving style can decrease the driving duration, but generally increases the wear of the brakes, the tires and the transmission” (equates to wherein the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance. As the quote shows the wear of the tire being considered for path optimization wherein the wear is considered as this is directly related to repair and replacement of the tire and thus a cost associated with a tire.)) wherein the total cost associated with the solution to the optimization problem is below a threshold; (Pg. 11 – [0041] – “In order to explain the method according to the invention by way of example, it should be pointed out that it is true precisely for journeys on a freeway that the travel time can be optimized at the cost of energy consumption. Since a highway can be driven very quickly as compared with other types of roads such as a highway, a highway section is often included in the optimum route to be calculated, although the two points connected by the highway section are also connected via a shorter highway section.” & See Also Pg. 5 – “The higher the wear of the motor vehicle on the trip of a specific route, the higher the operating costs to be calculated for the trip over the route. The wear of the motor vehicle depends on the selected route (for example, the brakes and the tires of the motor vehicle wear more in a route with many stops than in a route with fewer stops), but also on the driving style selected on the basis of the driving strategy, since, for example, a more aggressive driving style can decrease the driving duration, but generally increases the wear of the brakes, the tires and the transmission.” & See Also Pg. 11 – [0035] – “FIG. 2 shows four examples of the weighting of the four parameters A, B, F, S as a function of a predefined desire 11- 14 of the driver of the motor vehicle” (equates to wherein the total cost associated with the solution to the optimization problem is below a threshold as the threshold is set by the other routes being considered and the route selected is then below the threshold as it is optimized based upon a variety of factors as shown from the third quote wherein the first and second quote show the energy consumption and the tire wear being the potentially higher weighted categories for the optimization problem) ) and the determined vehicle motion profile meets the range of the vehicle path. (Pg. 11 – [0041] – “In order to explain the method according to the invention by way of example, it should be pointed out that it is true precisely for journeys on a freeway that the travel time can be optimized at the cost of energy consumption. Since a highway can be driven very quickly as compared with other types of roads such as a highway, a highway section is often included in the optimum route to be calculated, although the two points connected by the highway section are also connected via a shorter highway section.” (equates to and the determined vehicle motion profile meets the range of the vehicle path. As the quote shows the shortest path being the highway to be picked and thus the range of driving concerning this highway would mee the parameter for the assigned path.)) and control a vehicle based on the vehicle motion profile. (Pg. 7 – [0012] – “The current driving comfort (e.g. the road condition) can be determined, for example, by using the acceleration sensors present in the vehicle for the purpose of driving dynamics control.” & See Also Pg. 4 – [0009] _” The vehicle setting may also include further driver assistance systems (ADAS) of the motor vehicle, such as ACC (adaptive cruise control, the speed of the motor vehicle being matched to the speed of a vehicle driving beforehand), HCA (heading control assist), the motor vehicle specifically engaging into the steering system in order to keep the motor vehicle in the lane” (equates to and control a vehicle based on the vehicle motion profile as the quote shows the road condition being determined which in turn is used as a cost for the route optimization and the road condition data is used for the control of driving dynamics.) )
Regarding Claim 14 Carsten teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the vehicle path represents an entire journey for the vehicle, from a starting location to a destination location. (Pg. 1 – [0002] – “As a rule, either a shortest distance (the navigation device searches for the shortest route between the location and the destination) or a temporally shortest route” (equates to wherein the vehicle path represents an entire journey for the vehicle, from a starting location to a destination location as the quote shows the location in which a starting location of the vehicle is established to a destination.))
Regarding Claim 15 Carsten teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 13, comprising implement, by the processing circuitry, the range of the vehicle path as a constraint of the optimization problem. (Pg. 11 – [0041] – “However, when optimizing with respect to energy consumption, the longer section of the freeway has a negative impact, since a greater amount of energy is required for its management than for the shorter section of the freeway. Depending on the method of predefinable boundary conditions and other information, the method according to the invention will now decide to consider the freeway section or the highway section with respect to the optimum travel route” (equates to wherein the processing circuitry is configured to implement the range of the vehicle path as a constraint of the optimization problem as the quote shows the shortest path being included in the optimization problem and thus the range of the vehicle being a constraint as the path determined may be based on the distance of travel.))
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) 5, 10, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsten as mapped above and in view of Zhang (US 2025/0196889 Al).
Regarding Claim 5 Carsten teaches The computer system of claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet Carsten fails to teach wherein the optimization problem is a non-linear optimal control problem, NOCP.
Zhang Teaches wherein the optimization problem is a non-linear optimal control problem, NOCP. (Pg. 13 – [0011] – “the path planning problem is formulated as a nonlinear Optimal Control Problem (OCP) with the control objective being minimizing the off-track of the vehicle bodies swept area and avoiding collision with obstacles”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Carsten to include wherein the optimization problem is a non-linear optimal control problem, NOCP as this type of optimization technique allows for a computationally simple way of finding a global minimum to the cost function derevied herein.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the optimization problem is a non-linear optimal control problem, NOCP as this way of solving the path planning for the vehicle allows for enhanced accuracy, robustness, and flexibility when performing the optimization.
Regarding Claim 10 Carsten teaches the computer system of claim 1,
Yet fails to teach to wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to provide the vehicle motion profile a control system configured to determine one or more control inputs for the vehicle.
Zhang teaches to wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to provide the vehicle motion profile a control system configured to determine one or more control inputs for the vehicle. (Pg. 14 – [0025] – “FIG. 10 is a block diagram of an autonomous driving system, according to an embodiment.” & See Also Pg. 17 – [0064] –“ The reference trajectory is provided by the trajectory planner block to a controller of the tractor trailer combination which uses the reference trajectory for sending instructions to the tractor-trailer combination's drive system (e.g., the steering system, brake system and the acceleration system) for moving the tractor-trailer combination along the determined lane of the roadway. The controller may be a microcontroller and/or include one or more (core) processors which, when executing program code instructions stored in memory associated with the controller, causes the controller to perform the operations discussed herein. The modules/algorithms discussed above may be implemented in program code having instructions that may be executed by a controller of the tractor autonomous driving system, such as a controller not shown in FIG. 10.” ( Equates to: to a control system configured to determine one or more control inputs for the vehicle as the figure and quote provided show how the path planning for the autonomous vehicle is used to send control inputs to the vehicle to control it over the designated path.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Carsten to include a control system configured to determine one or more control inputs for the vehicle as these limitations allow for autonomous vehicle control to be actualized via the path planning for the vehicle being optimized.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a control system configured to determine one or more control inputs for the vehicle as this allows for the trajectory planning of the vehicle to be directly utilized to control inputs to the vehicle for a level of autonomous control to be actualized.
Regarding Claim 11 Carsten-Zhang teaches The computer system of claim 10, as previously mapped above.
Yet Carsten fails to teach wherein the one or more control inputs relate to one or more driven axles of the vehicle.
Zhang teaches wherein the one or more control inputs relate to one or more driven axles of the vehicle. (pg. 14 – [0025] – “FIG. 10 is a block diagram of an autonomous driving system, according to an embodiment.” & See Also Pg. 17 – [0064] –“ The reference trajectory is provided by the trajectory planner block to a controller of the tractor trailer combination which uses the reference trajectory for sending instructions to the tractor-trailer combination's drive system (e.g., the steering system, brake system and the acceleration system) for moving the tractor-trailer combination along the determined lane of the roadway. The controller may be a microcontroller and/or include one or more (core) processors which, when executing program code instructions stored in memory associated with the controller, causes the controller to perform the operations discussed herein. The modules/algorithms discussed above may be implemented in program code having instructions that may be executed by a controller of the tractor autonomous driving system, such as a controller not shown in FIG. 10.” ( Equates to: wherein the one or more control inputs relate to one or more driven axles of the vehicle. As the quote shows the acceleration system of the vehicle being controlled wherein the driven axle of the vehicle is included in the system to propel the vehicle forward..)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Carsten to include wherein the one or more control inputs relate to one or more driven axles of the vehicle as these limitations allow for autonomous vehicle control to be actualized via the path planning for the vehicle being optimized.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the one or more control inputs relate to one or more driven axles of the vehicle. as this allows for the trajectory planning of the vehicle to be directly utilized to control inputs to the vehicle for a level of autonomous control to be actualized.
Regarding Claim 16 Carsten teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 13, as previously mapped above.
Yet Carsten fails to teach wherein the optimization problem is a non-linear optimal control problem, NOCP.
Zhang Teaches wherein the optimization problem is a non-linear optimal control problem, NOCP. (Pg. 13 – [0011] – “the path planning problem is formulated as a nonlinear Optimal Control Problem (OCP) with the control objective being minimizing the off-track of the vehicle bodies swept area and avoiding collision with obstacles”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Carsten to include wherein the optimization problem is a non-linear optimal control problem, NOCP as this type of optimization technique allows for a computationally simple way of finding a global minimum to the cost function derived herein.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the optimization problem is a non-linear optimal control problem, NOCP as this way of solving the path planning for the vehicle allows for enhanced accuracy, robustness, and flexibility when performing the optimization.
Claim(s) 8, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsten as mapped above and in view of Vosahlik (US 2024/0132066 Al).
Regarding Claim 8 Carsten teaches The computer system of claim 7, as previously mapped above.
Yet Carsten fails to teach comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels.
Vosahlik teaches comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels. (Pg. 7 – [0001] – “Optimization of vehicle behavior is useful to reduce fuel consumption, extend vehicle and/or component life, and/or minimize emissions. Complex analyses may take place to determine velocities that the vehicle should use to optimize any of these factor” (equates to comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels as the quote shows the minimization and thus the cost consideration of emissions of the vehicle in which the cited art deals with path planning for.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Carsten to include comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels as this limitation allows for further parameters and environmental impacts of vehicles to be considered within the path planning allowing for optimal results to include lowering the emissions of the vehicle during the path.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels as this allows for fuel savings to be considered by reducing emission created from burning fuel unwantedly along a trajectory.
Regarding Claim 18 Carsten teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 17, as previously mapped above.
Yet Carsten fails to teach comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels.
Vosahlik teaches comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels. (Pg. 7 – [0001] – “Optimization of vehicle behavior is useful to reduce fuel consumption, extend vehicle and/or component life, and/or minimize emissions. Complex analyses may take place to determine velocities that the vehicle should use to optimize any of these factor” (equates to comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels as the quote shows the minimization and thus the cost consideration of emissions of the vehicle in which the cited art deals with path planning for.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Carsten to include comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels as this limitation allows for further parameters and environmental impacts of vehicles to be considered within the path planning allowing for optimal results to include lowering the emissions of the vehicle during the path.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, a cost associated with particulate emissions and/or friction loss from a tyre as a function of a longitudinal slip associated with the one or more wheels as this allows for fuel savings to be considered by reducing emission created from burning fuel unwantedly along a trajectory.
Regarding Claim 19 Carsten teaches when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 13 as previously mapped above.
Yet Carsten teaches A computer program product comprising program code for performing,
Vosahlik teaches A computer program product comprising program code for performing, (Pg. 15 – [0094] – “A computer program product comprising program code for performing,” ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Carsten to include A computer program product comprising program code for performing as this allows for another matter of subject matter to be patented.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include A computer program product comprising program code for performing as this allows for a broader range of patentable protection over the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 20 Carsten teaches which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 13 as previously mapped above.
Yet Carsten fails to teach A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions,
Vosahlik teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, (Pg. 8 – [0018]- “which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 13.”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Carsten to include A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, as this allows for another matter of eligible subject matter to be patented.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions as this allows for a broader range of patentable protection over the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 applicant’s amendments to the claim
changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 1-6, “Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are amended to address the rejection.
Claim 1 is directed to a statutory machine, namely a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the recited operations. The Office Action appears to acknowledge that the computer-system claims fall within a statutory category. Applicant therefore addresses the Alice/Mayo analysis below.
Alice Step One: Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea
Under Alice step one, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. The Office Action characterizes claim 1 as a mental process for generating a vehicle trajectory. Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization overgeneralizes the claim and does not account for the claim as a whole.
Claim 1 is directed to a computer system for vehicle control. As amended, claim requires processing circuitry configured to acquire information related to an upcoming vehicle path, including a range of the path; determine a vehicle motion profile as a solution to an optimisation problem that describes a total cost for a vehicle to follow the path; include in that total cost both a first cost associated with energy usage and a second cost associated with tyre wear, where the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance; determine the solution such that the total cost is below a threshold and the motion profile meets the range of the vehicle path; and control a vehicle based on the vehicle motion profile.
This is not a claim to a result-only mental evaluation. The claim is directed to determining and using a control-ready vehicle motion profile for controlling a physical vehicle. The claim addresses a technical problem in vehicle motion management: energy-efficient strategies, such as regenerative braking, can increase axial torque on the wheels and thereby increase tyre wear, such that energy usage and tyre wear can be competing vehicle-control considerations. The claimed system addresses that technical problem by including a specific tyre-wear cost representation in the same optimisation problem as energy usage, requiring the resulting solution to meet path-range and cost constraints, and controlling the vehicle based on the resulting motion profile.
The recited operations, considered as a whole, cannot practically be performed in the human mind.. Claim 1 recites processing circuitry determining a vehicle motion profile as a solution to an optimisation problem having specified physical cost terms and constraints, and then controlling a vehicle based on that determined profile. The human mind is not practically equipped to perform the claimed computer-implemented vehicle-control process as claimed, particularly where the output is a vehicle motion profile used to control a physical vehicle. Accordingly, claim 1 is not properly characterized as a "mental process." Nor is claim 1 directed merely to a mathematical concept. Even assuming, for argument's sake, that determining a solution to an optimisation problem involves mathematical operations, claim 1 does not seek to monopolize an optimisation problem or a mathematical relationship in the abstract. Rather, the claim applies the optimisation in a specific technological context to determine a vehicle motion profile that is then used to control a vehicle. This is the type of practical application that the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have recognized as patent eligible when a calculation is applied in a technological process, rather than claimed in isolation. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 192-93 (1981); Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Claim 1 also integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed system does not merely collect data and display a result. The acquired path information, the range requirement, the total-cost optimisation, the specified tyre-wear cost representation, the threshold requirement, and the vehicle-control limitation operate together to produce and implement a vehicle motion profile. The vehicle is not an incidental field of use; it is the physical machine being controlled. The "control a vehicle based on the vehicle motion profile" limitation is not insignificant post-solution activity, because it is the act that effectuates the determined motion profile in the physical vehicle. Thus, the claim as a whole meaningfully limits any alleged mathematical concept or data analysis to a concrete vehicle-control application.
The claimed subject matter also improves the technical field of vehicle motion management. The specification explains that conventional vehicle motion profiles may pursue goals such as energy efficiency or range without accounting for tyre wear, and that some energy- efficiency strategies can increase tyre wear. Claim 1 reflects the disclosed improvement by requiring a vehicle motion profile determined from an optimisation problem that balances energy usage with a specified tyre-wear cost representation, while satisfying the vehicle-path range and cost constraints, and then using the profile to control the vehicle. The claim therefore improves vehicle control by enabling the vehicle to be controlled based on both energy usage and tyre- wear considerations, rather than merely optimizing energy or route selection in isolation.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one, and the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn.
Alice Step Two: Claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea
Even if claim 1 were considered to recite an abstract idea, claim 1 includes additional elements that, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
The claim does not instruct a generic computer to "apply" a mathematical concept.
Instead, the claimed processing circuitry is configured to perform a specific ordered combination of vehicle-control operations: acquire upcoming path information including a range; determine a vehicle motion profile as a solution to an optimisation problem describing total cost for a vehicle to follow the path; include in that total cost a first cost associated with energy usage and a second cost associated with tyre wear; require the tyre-wear cost to represent particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance; require the solution to have a total cost below a threshold and meet the vehicle-path range; and control a vehicle based on the determined vehicle motion profile.
This ordered combination provides an inventive concept because it applies the alleged abstract idea, if any, in a particular vehicle-control architecture to solve a technical vehicle- control problem. The claim links the optimisation to physical vehicle considerations-energy usage, tyre wear, particulate emissions, friction loss, tyre maintenance, vehicle-path range, and vehicle control. These limitations confine the claim to a specific and practical implementation, rather than claiming optimisation or trajectory generation generally.
The Office Action states that the additional limitations merely use a generic computer and amount to data gathering or outputting. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The limitations are not limited to acquiring data or communicating a result. The claim requires determining a particular vehicle motion profile from a total-cost optimisation having specified physical cost representations and then controlling a vehicle based on that profile. Controlling a vehicle based on the determined profile is an operative vehicle-control step, not a generic data-output step.
Further, the Office Action has not established that the ordered combination of claim 1 was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant vehicle-control field. The specification indicates the opposite: vehicle motion profiles often seek goals such as energy efficiency or range without taking tyre wear into account, even though energy-efficiency strategies such as regenerative braking can increase axial torque and tyre wear. The claimed combination addresses that problem by including a specific tyre-wear cost representation in the optimisation problem and using the resulting vehicle motion profile for vehicle control. At minimum, the ordered combination is more than the mere use of a generic computer to perform conventional data processing.
Claim 1 also does not preempt all vehicle routing, all vehicle trajectory generation, all optimisation, or all energy-management techniques. The claim is limited to a computer system configured to determine and use a vehicle motion profile in the specific manner recited, including the required tyre-wear cost representation, range and threshold requirements, and vehicle-control limitation. This meaningful limitation further confirms that the claim amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Accordingly, even under Alice step two, claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.” - In response to Point A the Examiner agrees with the applicant and has removed the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as the inclusion of and control a vehicle based on the vehicle motion profile is something outside the capability of the human mind alone and would take additional measures to enact the claimed controlling of the vehicle as claim herein by the system and method.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-20 applicant’s amendments to the claim
changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-9, “Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carsten et al (EP 1890110A2).
The Office Action rejected claims 5, 10, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over EP1890110A2 ("Carsten") in view of US 2025/0196889 Al ("Zhang").
The Office Action rejected claims 8, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over EP1890110A2 ("Carsten") in view of US 2024/0132066 Al ("Vosahlik").
As amended, claim 1 recites, among other features, that the processing circuitry is configured to determine a vehicle motion profile as a solution to an optimisation problem that describes a total cost for a vehicle to follow a vehicle path, where the total cost includes "a first cost associated with energy usage of the vehicle and a second cost associated with tyre wear of the vehicle," and where "the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance." Claim 1 further recites that the processing circuitry is configured to "control a vehicle based on the vehicle motion profile."
The rejection appears to rely on Carsten's disclosure that "wear of the motor vehicle" may affect operating costs, including a qualitative statement that brakes and tires may wear more on a route with many stops or with a more aggressive driving style. Applicant respectfully submits that this disclosure does not anticipate amended claim 1.
Claim 1 requires an optimisation problem having a total cost that includes a tyre-wear cost term, and the claim expressly defines what that tyre-wear cost term represents: particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance. The claimed "second cost" is therefore a specific tyre-related cost representation within the optimisation problem used to determine a vehicle motion profile for vehicle control.
Carsten is materially different. Carsten describes operating costs as a broad route/driving- strategy parameter and identifies "wear of the motor vehicle" only as one possible information parameter among many others. Carsten's cited disclosure is qualitative. It does not disclose13
determining, as part of an optimisation problem, a tyre-specific second cost representing particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, or a cost associated with tyre maintenance. Nor does Carsten disclose any model, calculation, quantification, weighting, or formulation by which tyre wear is converted into such a cost term for use in determining the claimed vehicle motion profile.
The Office Action's position that Carsten's general discussion of tire wear "equates to" a cost associated with tyre maintenance improperly fills in missing claim limitations by inference. Even if tire wear may, in some circumstances, eventually relate to maintenance or replacement, Carsten does not necessarily disclose a second cost in an optimisation problem that represents a cost associated with tyre maintenance, much less particulate emissions from a tyre or friction loss from a tyre. A system could implement Carsten's broad teaching by applying a generalized route penalty for vehicle wear without ever representing particulate emissions, friction loss, or tyre maintenance cost. Thus, the claimed limitation is not expressly or inherently disclosed.
No claim recitation can be ignored in determining anticipation. See Pac-Tex, Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 187, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Anticipation requires the disclosure, in a prior art reference, of each and every recitation as set forth in the claims. See Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 U.S.P.Q. 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986), and Akzo N.V. v. U.S. International Trade
Commissioner, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1986). There must be no difference between the claimed invention and reference disclosure for an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102.
See Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (CAFC, 1991) and StudiengesellschaftKohle GmbHv. Dart Industries, 220 U.S.P.Q. 841 (CAFC, 1984).
In view of the above, it is clear that that the cited reference fails to disclose each and every element recited in the claims. Therefor the withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.” -As to point A the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that Carsten does not teach “wherein the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance”. During Patent Examination, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned amendment is within an optimization of a driving route creation have a cost associated with the selection of the driving route be in line with the potential tire wear, friction loss of the tire, or a cost to provide tire maintenance. Carsten teaches the generation of an optimized route considering a multitude of factor that determine the final route the vehicle travels upon and one of the factors/costs associated with the route selection is based on the tire wear of the vehicle (as mapped above in claim 1 & 13). Therefor the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments and assert that Carsten teaches “wherein the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance”.
Carsten teaches: wherein the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance. (Pg. 5 – “The higher the wear of the motor vehicle on the trip of a specific route, the higher the operating costs to be calculated for the trip over the route. The wear of the motor vehicle depends on the selected route (for example, the brakes and the tires of the motor vehicle wear more in a route with many stops than in a route with fewer stops), but also on the driving style selected on the basis of the driving strategy, since, for example, a more aggressive driving style can decrease the driving duration, but generally increases the wear of the brakes, the tires and the transmission” (equates to wherein the second cost represents particulate emissions from a tyre, friction loss from a tyre, and/or a cost associated with tyre maintenance. As the quote shows the wear of the tire being considered for path optimization wherein the wear is considered as this is directly related to repair and replacement of the tire and thus a cost associated with a tire.))
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GHANDRIZ - US 2024/0001928 Al - A method for controlling motion of a heavy-duty vehicle, comprising obtaining information related to an upcoming vehicle path and vehicle maneuver along the path, obtaining information related to a road friction coefficient along the upcoming vehicle path, configuring lateral and longitudinal wheel slip limits for at least two wheels of an axle or lumped group-axle on the heavy-duty vehicle, wherein lateral and longitudinal wheel slip values are related to respective lateral and longitudinal tire force values via a pre-determined combined tire slip model, determining a vehicle motion profile for performing the vehicle maneuver along the path as a solution to a non-linear optimal control problem, NOCP, wherein the NOCP is constrained by the lateral and longitudinal wheel slip limits and formulated to account for the road friction coefficient and/or curvature along the upcoming vehicle path, and controlling the motion of the heavy-duty vehicle along the path based on the determined target vehicle motion profile.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/9/26
Prosecution Insights