DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs 9-11, filed 8/31/26, with respect to 35 USC 112b claim rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. Especially persuasive is applicant’s statement: “The combinations are inputs to the simulation, not the simulation itself. The specification does not redefine "simulation" as a "mathematical combination." Rather, the specification uses "combination" in its ordinary sense to describe how multiple uncertain input values are combined to form different test scenarios for the simulation.”
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claims are supported under 35 USC 112a. However examiner finds the only support or evidence provided is for inputs and outputs of the simulation. The simulation itself, what it is, how it works, how to make and use the simulation is not supported. The argued processing references modeling and predicting outputs, but a description of the model and or prediction is not provided.
Applicant argues A. pgs 12-13 concerning prior art rejection under Busse, arguing Busse’s input values do not represent uncertainty. However examiner finds with respect to pg 12 arguments that Busse’s output of controller 22 x1-x3 are inputs to controller 18. 18 has no control over inputs. Further AAPA (applicant admitted prior art) instant para 47 states uncertainty comes from modeling errors and age of vehicle may result in different performance of the parts of the vehicle resulting in uncertainty. Further, the applicant's argued relationship in Busse para 49 between pressure values and chassis heights is fundamentally a model with uncertainty. Applicant further argues pg 13 that because x1-x3 are outputs of a controller they cannot be inputs. However examiner finds x1-x3 are outputs of a separate controller item 22, again x1-x3 are inputs to 18, 18 has not certainty what values they are.
In response to applicant's argument pg 13 ll 6-13 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., vehicle velocity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues B pgs 13-14 that Busse does not teach simulations. However examiner finds Busse teaches verbatim simulations.
Applicant argues C pgs 14-15 that Busse’s cost determination does not select a controller. However examiner finds Busse includes multiple controllers, at least 18,19, that MPC optimizes and selects, note controllers 18,19 have inputs x1-x3 and z1-z3 respectively. Applicant further argues case law with no specific logic reasoning or evidence and therefore no rebuttal is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18,20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 l 7 and claim 13 l 8 recite “a simulation.” The instant original specification does not support a simulation. There is no disclosure of what the claimed simulation is. There are disclosed models items 112 and 114 which require simulation, however examiner finds the models are not disclosed in any terms beyond generic recitations of being a model. The claims are not supported.
Claims 2-12 and 14-18,20 rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim. See 35 USC 112b claim rejection below.
Examiners Note:
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are adopted to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2149.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e. as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. WL Gore & Associates, inc. v. Garlock, inc., 721 F.2d 1540,220 USPQ303 (Fed, Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 489 US 851 (1984). See also MPEP 2123.
35 USC § 101 - Examiner Comment
The claims were evaluated under the 2019 PEG and found to be statutory. Assuming in arguendo that the claims recite abstract ideas, e.g. mathematical concepts or mental processes, the claim contains significantly more including at least, positively claimed control of a vehicle through selection of a particular controller particularly programmed, see MPEP 2106, 2106.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8,11,12,13-18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Busse et al US 2022/0402508.
In Re 1-8,11-12, Busse teaches
1. A computer system for selecting a vehicle controller for use in control of a vehicle (title), the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire a plurality of input values (x1, x2, x3 fig 2) for each of one or more input variables (23 fig 2) for simulating performance of the vehicle, wherein the plurality of input values represent an uncertainty (measured values and estimated or virtual/abstract parameters are inherently uncertain, further see applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) instant USPGPub para 47) in the respective input variable;
simulate performance (para 13 “simulated”) of the vehicle for each of a plurality of vehicle controllers (18,19,22,25 figs 2-3), wherein a respective simulation is performed for each vehicle controller for each of a plurality of combinations of input values;
determine a total cost (cost function 15 fig 1 abstract paras 53-55,71-91) for each vehicle controller based on the plurality of simulations performed for the respective vehicle controller; and
select a vehicle controller (construed as active control of particular vehicle subsystem with any one of 18,19,22,25 to optimize based on cost, para 25) from the plurality of vehicle controllers based on the determined costs (paras 16-25, especially para 25)(at least all figs and paras).
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of input values for a respective input variable comprises an upper and lower bound for the input variable (taken as optional) and/or a distribution of input values (a set of data and or multiple values inherently comprise a distribution).
3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of input values are (Markush) user-defined (optional), determined based on historical data (para 33 next cycle includes previous cycle), and/or determined based on a statistical method (optional).
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to simulate performance of the vehicle based on a current (para 59 “current state variables”) operating point of the vehicle.
5. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
simulate performance of the vehicle based on a plurality of operating points (figs 2-3 show plural variables, multiple points are discussed throughout the specification including at least paras 26-30,58,89-91) of the vehicle; and store the determined total costs in a computer storage system (4 fig 1 memory unit) of the vehicle.
6. The computer system of claim l, wherein determining a total cost for a vehicle controller comprises determining a cost associated with each (inherent to cost minimization paras 71-91) simulation for the respective vehicle controller, and determining a sum of the determined costs (see summation symbol sigma paras 71-90 equation).
7. The computer system of claim 6, wherein the cost associated with a simulation is determined based on one or more of (Markush) longitudinal, lateral (para 59 lateral acceleration), and/or vertical acceleration and/or jerk of the vehicle, energy losses of the vehicle, a force margin to the friction limit of the tyres of the vehicle, a tyre wear value, peakpower of the vehicle, deviation from a reference path, a yaw rate and/or deviation from a target yaw rate of the vehicle, a velocity and/or deviation from a target velocity of the vehicle, a roll angle of the vehicle, an articulation angle between units of the vehicle, and a pitch angle of the vehicle.
8. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to discard any vehicle controllers having simulation results that are outside of a set of predetermined limits and/or having a cost above a predetermined value (construed as selecting a controller entails not selecting an other controller based on limits/thresholds, para 16,22).
11. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select the vehicle controller having the lowest total cost (abstract inherent to cost optimization).
12. A vehicle (1 fig 1) comprising the computer system of claim 1.
In RE 13-18,20, the method of claims 13-18,20 rejected over in re 1-8,11,12 as described above as taught by Busse, further with computers known to inherently include non-transitory storage mediums.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busse et al US 2022/0402508 in view of Puri et al US 2020/0079223.
In Re 9, Busse teaches wherein the plurality of vehicle controllers comprises an online (paras 6,23) vehicle controller.
Busse does not teach although Puri teaches one or more offline vehicle controllers (offline para 57). Puri further teaches utilizing offline controller with telematics para 57. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of inventive filing to add Puri’s offline controller to Busse’s vehicle to utilize telematics.
In Re 10, Busse in view of Puri further teaches the processing circuitry is configured to simulate performance of the vehicle based on one or more switching methods from the online controller to each of the one or more offline controllers (where the modification of Busser with addition of Puri’s offline controller includes simulation of both online and offline controllers).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights