DETAILED ACTION
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 sent in response to Applicants’ Communication received on March 27, 2025 for application number 19/091,980. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 27, 2025 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tractor-trailer system, feedback controller, dynamic system, data-driven model, ultra-local model and control system” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by enough structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites enough structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting enough structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting enough structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“tractor-trailer system” in claims 56-65.
“dynamic system”, “control system” in claims 66-75.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 56-62, 64-70 and 72-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansson et al. (WO 2022/184258 A1), hereinafter “Hansson”.
Regarding claim 56, Hansson discloses a method for a vehicle, comprising: retrieving data from one or more sensors positioned on a tractor of the vehicle (Summary section (paragraphs 3, 4)), wherein the tractor is mechanically coupled to a trailer forming a tractor-trailer system (Fig. 1 (100)); determining, based on the data retrieved from the one or more sensors, a lateral acceleration parameter of the tractor (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 16, 31)); and controlling based on the lateral acceleration parameter of the tractor, via a controller, a steering angle of steered wheels of the tractor such that a lateral acceleration of the vehicle is held below a threshold lateral acceleration (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 4, 16, 22-31)).
Regarding claim 57, Hansson discloses the method of claim 56, wherein the one or more sensors comprises an accelerometer (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 18, 54)).
Regarding claim 58, Hansson discloses the method of claim 56, wherein the controller comprises a data-driven model, and wherein the data-driven model comprises an ultra-local model (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 54, 56)).
Regarding claim 59, Hansson discloses the method of claim 58, wherein the ultra-local model is formulated such that a future state depends on a current state and a reference, wherein the current state is the lateral acceleration parameter of the tractor in a current time period and the reference is a lateral acceleration of the tractor predicted along a maneuver at an immediate future time period (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 19, 26, 40, 45, 46, 54)).
Regarding claim 60, Hansson discloses the method of claim 59, wherein the reference is modified by a reference governor for enforcement of a constraint on an allowable maximum lateral acceleration of the tractor-trailer system (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 6, 26, 34)).
Regarding claim 61, Hansson discloses the method of claim 60, wherein the allowable maximum lateral acceleration of the tractor-trailer system is generated based on an amplification factor of the lateral acceleration from the tractor to the trailer (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 26-35)).
Regarding claim 62, Hansson discloses the method of claim 60, wherein the reference governor receives the reference of the lateral acceleration parameter for a maneuver path from an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) (Background section (paragraph 2, 6)); and wherein the maneuver path is an obstacle avoidance path generated after sensing an obstacle along a current trajectory of the vehicle (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 26-35, 53-55)).
Regarding claim 64, Hansson discloses the method of claim 56, wherein the threshold lateral acceleration is selected such that rollover of one or more of the tractor and the trailer is avoided (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 19, 26-35, 40, 45, 46, 54)).
Regarding claim 65, Hansson discloses the method of claim 56, wherein the steering angle is controlled via an actuator configured to control an angle of the steered wheels (Summary section (paragraphs 3, 6, 8); Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 16, 17)); and wherein the method is configured to change a current state of the tractor-trailer system to a next state (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 16, 17, 19, 26-30)).
Regarding claim 66, Hansson discloses a control system comprising: a sensor, and a feedback controller (Summary section (paragraphs 3, 4, 5-10)); the sensor configured to provide real-time data comprising a current state of a dynamic system (Summary section (paragraphs 3, 6, 8; 26-35, 53-55)), wherein the dynamic system is a tractor-trailer combination vehicle (Fig. 1 (100)), and the current state comprises a current lateral acceleration of a tractor of the tractor-trailer combination vehicle (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 16, 31)); the feedback controller configured to determine a value of a control input based on a modified reference and the current state (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 19, 26, 40, 45, 46, 54)); and wherein the control system comprises a data-driven model (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 54, 56)), wherein the data-driven model comprises an ultra-local model of the dynamic system (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 54, 56)); and wherein the control system is configured to prevent a rollover of the tractor-trailer combination vehicle (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 19, 26-35, 40, 45, 46, 54)).
Regarding claim 67, Hansson discloses the control system of claim 66, wherein the ultra-local model configured to represent the dynamic system uses a low-order differential equation, and wherein the low-order differential equation is a first-order differential equation (page 15, line 8 – page 16, line 19.
Regarding claim 68, Hansson discloses the control system of claim 66, wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 18, 54)).
Regarding claim 69, Hansson discloses the control system of claim 66, wherein the control system further comprises a reference governor configured to output the modified reference based on an input reference and the current state such that the dynamic system satisfies a constraint (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 6, 26, 34)), and wherein the constraint is a maximum allowable lateral acceleration for the tractor-trailer combination vehicle to prevent the rollover of one or more of the tractor and a trailer of the tractor-trailer combination vehicle (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 26-35)).
Regarding claim 70, Hansson discloses the control system of claim 69, wherein the reference governor receives the input reference for a maneuver path from an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) (Background section (paragraph 2, 6)); and wherein the maneuver path is an obstacle avoidance path generated after sensing an obstacle along a current trajectory of the vehicle (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 26-35, 53-55)).
Regarding claim 72, Hansson discloses the control system of claim 69, wherein the input reference is a predicted lateral acceleration of the tractor at a future time period (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 19, 26, 40, 45, 46, 54)).
Regarding claim 73, Hansson discloses the control system of claim 66, wherein the control input is a steering angle for wheels of the tractor; and wherein an actuator is configured to receive and implement the control input changing the current state of the dynamic system to a next state (Summary section (paragraphs 3, 6, 8); Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 16, 17, 19, 26-30)).
Regarding claim 74, Hansson discloses a method comprising: receiving, from a sensor, a real-time data comprising a current state of a dynamic system (Summary section (paragraphs 3, 6, 8; 26-35, 53-55)), wherein the dynamic system is a tractor-trailer combination vehicle (Fig. 1 (100)), and the current state comprises a current lateral acceleration of a tractor of the tractor-trailer combination vehicle (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 16, 31)); determining, by a feedback controller of a control system, a value of a control input based on a modified reference and the current state (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 19, 26, 40, 45, 46, 54)), wherein the control system comprises a data-driven model (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 54, 56)), wherein the data-driven model comprises an ultra-local model of the dynamic system (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 54, 56)); and providing, the control input to an actuator of the dynamic system, such that the dynamic system changes from the current state to a next state (Summary section (paragraphs 3, 6, 8); Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 16, 17, 19, 26-30)); and wherein the method is implemented by the control system for preventing a rollover of the tractor-trailer combination vehicle (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 19, 26-35, 40, 45, 46, 54)).
Regarding claim 75, Hansson discloses the method of claim 74, wherein the ultra-local model of the control system is formulated by estimating dynamics of the dynamic system in real-time while the tractor-trailer combination vehicle is in nominal operation (Detailed Description of Example Embodiments of the Invention section (paragraphs 23-35, 53-55)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 63 and 71 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-5923. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights