DETAILED ACTION
Claims 11-20 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements provided complies with the provisions of MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. A signed copy of the form is attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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 –
Claims 11-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arndt et al., “Two-Wheel Self-Balancing of a Four-Wheeled Vehicle, IEEE”.
As per claim 11, Arndt et al., teaches a method for controlling a path of a vehicle approaching an obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance), comprising: controlling a steering angle of wheels implementing a computation of a yaw-rate setpoint of the vehicle and a loop for controlling the steering angle of the wheels depending on the computed yaw-rate setpoint (see page 36, second col. fourth par.), the controlling the steering angle of the wheels using a longitudinal speed of the vehicle (see page 34, col. 1, second par.); and controlling a speed of the vehicle (see page 34, col. 1, second par.), wherein said longitudinal speed of the vehicle is a setpoint (see page 36, second col. fourth par.) longitudinal speed determined in the controlling the speed of the vehicle (see page 34, col. 1, second par.).
As per claim 12, Arndt et al., teaches wherein the controlling the speed of the vehicle (see page 34, col. 1, second par.) comprises optimizing an objective function (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model) taking into account a distance computed depending on a measured distance between the vehicle and the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) and depending on a yaw angle (see Fig. 1, page 30, first col. and first par.) of the vehicle, the optimizing providing a setpoint (see page 36, second col. fourth par.) longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, integration of which provides said setpoint (see page 36, second col. fourth par., as noted above) longitudinal speed (see page 34, col. 1, second par.).
As per claim 13, Arndt et al., teaches wherein the computed distance (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model and Fig. 7) is dependent on a minimum safety distance between the vehicle and the obstacle to be bypassed (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance).
As per claim 14, Arndt et al., teaches wherein the computed distance (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model and Fig. 7) increases as a function of the yaw angle (see Fig. 1, page 30, first col. and first par.) of the vehicle at least until the yaw angle (see Fig. 1, page 30, first col. and first par.) allows the obstacle to be bypassed (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance).
As per claim 15, Arndt et al., teaches wherein the optimizing meets a constraint according to which a distance travelled by the vehicle (see Fig. 11) during a predetermined number of computation increments must be less than said computed distance (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model and Fig. 7).
As per claim 16, Arndt et al., teaches wherein as soon as the yaw angle (see Fig. 1, page 30, first col. and first par.) allows the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) to be bypassed, the computed distance (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model and Fig. 7) is updated so that the computed distance (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model and Fig. 7) no longer depends on the measured distance between the vehicle and the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance), in accordance with a predefined choice of driving mode (see pages 36-37, for conclusion).
As per claim 17, Arndt et al., teaches wherein as soon as the yaw angle (see Fig. 1, page 30, first col. and first par.) allows the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) to be bypassed, the computed distance (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model and Fig. 7) is updated so as to no longer constrain the objective function (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model), or to constrain the objective function (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model) depending on another obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) on the path of the vehicle, instead of said obstacle to be bypassed (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance).
As per claim 18, Arndt et al., teaches wherein an environment of the vehicle is divided orthogonally to an initial path of the vehicle, into a first zone (see Fig. 11, wherein “the vehicle recovers and continues to travel forward” meet first and second zone) not containing the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) and lying between the vehicle and a first end of the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance), and a second zone (see Fig. 11, wherein “the vehicle recovers and continues to travel forward” meet first and second zone) containing the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) and lying between the first end of the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) and a second end of the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance), as long as the vehicle is in the first zone (see Fig. 11, wherein “the vehicle recovers and continues to travel forward” meet first and second zone), as soon as the yaw angle (see Fig. 1, page 30, first col. and first par.) allows the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) to be bypassed, the computed distance (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model and Fig. 7) is updated such that the computed distance no longer depends on anything but the yaw angle (see Fig. 1, page 30, first col. and first par.) and a distance between the vehicle and a target path of the vehicle (see Figs. 1 and 3).
As per claim 19, Arndt et al., teaches wherein an environment of the vehicle is divided orthogonally to an initial path of the vehicle, into a first zone (see Fig. 11, wherein “the vehicle recovers and continues to travel forward” meet first and second zone) not containing the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) and lying between the vehicle and a first end of the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance), and a second zone (see Fig. 11, wherein “the vehicle recovers and continues to travel forward” meet first and second zone) containing the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) and lying between the first end of the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance) and a second end of the obstacle (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance), as long as the vehicle is in the first zone (see Fig. 11, wherein “the vehicle recovers and continues to travel forward” meet first and second zone) or the second zone (see Fig. 11, wherein “the vehicle recovers and continues to travel forward” meet first and second zone), as soon as the yaw angle (see Fig. 1, page 30, first col. and first par.) allows the obstacle to be bypassed (see page 30, second col. first par., for obstacle avoidance), the computed distance (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model and Fig. 7) is updated such that the computed distance (see pages 32-33, Contact Force Model and Fig. 7) no longer depends on anything but the yaw angle (see Fig. 1, page 30, first col. and first par.) and a distance between the vehicle and a target path of the vehicle (see Figs. 1 and 3).
As per claim 20, Arndt et al., teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that, when executed by one or more computers of the vehicle (see Fig. 3, for microcontroller), causes the computer to execute: the control method as claimed in claim 11 (see Fig. 3 as noted above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MCDIEUNEL MARC whose telephone number is (571) 272-6964. The examiner can normally be reached on Work 9:00 AM to 7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WADE MILES can be reached on (571) 270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-3976.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
150
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/McDieunel Marc/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights