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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/151,180 filed on 07/25/2025.
• Claims 1-15, 17-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The abstract has more than 150 words.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 22 are objected to because the term of “operational design domain, ODD” should be in the parentheses as operational design domain (ODD).
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following: Claim 21 is directed towards a vehicle but it is dependent on claim 1 which is directed towards a vehicle control method. Therefore, claim 21 appears to be directed towards two separate (but not distinct) inventions. It is recommended that the claim 21 should be re-write so that it is in independent form and includes all the limitations from claim 1.
Claims 23-24 are objected to because of the following: Claim 23 is directed towards a computer program and computer-readable storage medium but it is dependent on claim 22 which is directed towards a vehicle control method. Therefore, claims 23-24 appear to be directed towards two separate (but not distinct) inventions. It is recommended that the claims 23-24 should be re-write so that it is in independent form and includes all the limitations from claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 22 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a machine, claim 22 is directed towards a method.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claims 1, 22 recite “estimate a motion response by the vehicle to a control command based on the set of configured vehicle parameters… estimate a vehicle response to the vehicle control command based on the vehicle model and on the vehicle control command… determine a difference between the sensor measurements of the state variables and the corresponding observable state variables of the vehicle model”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of performed “by a computer system”. That is, other than reciting “by a computer system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a computer system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected by vehicle sensor(s), and estimate the vehicle’s response and determine a difference between the sensor measurements of the state variables and the corresponding observable state variables of the vehicle model. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims 1, 22 recite a mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of “obtain a vehicle model comprising a set of configured vehicle parameters …receive a vehicle control command issued to control motion by the vehicle… obtain sensor measurements of state variables of the heavy-duty vehicle”, which involves obtaining data from the vehicle model and vehicle sensing equipment, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims also recite additional elements of automatically trigger an action by the heavy-duty vehicle in case the difference does not satisfy a predetermined acceptance criterion, wherein the triggered action by the heavy-duty vehicle comprises a change in operational design domain, ODD, of the vehicle. The examiner understands that the “a change in operational design domain, ODD, of the vehicle” is not a transformation of a particular article to a different state, but may merely be “comprise a change in operational design domain (ODD) of the vehicle, such as a reduction in maximum vehicle allowable speed over ground by the vehicle or a maximum curvature or lateral force generated on one or more tyres of the vehicle” as described in specification page 4, line 31, e.g., as insignificant post-solution activity recited at a high level of generality. The “by a computer” describes a generic work vehicle and a generic processor or controller that automatically performs the otherwise mental update process and merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the examiner understands that the “a change in operational design domain, ODD, of the vehicle” is not a transformation of a particular article to a different state, but may merely be “comprise a change in operational design domain (ODD) of the vehicle, such as a reduction in maximum vehicle allowable speed over ground by the vehicle or a maximum curvature or lateral force generated on one or more tyres of the vehicle” as described in specification page 4, line 31, e.g., as insignificant post-solution activity recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claim 18 is patent eligible because the limitation of “an emergency stop operation” is not an abstract idea of mental process. Instead, it is a transformation of a particular article to a different state.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17, 19-21, 23-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15, 17, 19-21, 23-24 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1 and 22.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed towards a “computer program product.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this phrase includes transitory media such as signals and carrier waves which are transitory and, therefore, non-statutory. The Office recommends amending the preamble of these claims so that the term “non-transitory” is recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, 14-15, 18-19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US9315178B1) in view of Ohnishi(US20210255632A1).
Regarding to clams 1 and 21-24:
Ferguson teaches:
A computer system for controlling a heavy-duty vehicle, the computer system: (Ferguson, Col.4, lines 60-61, “a computer system could control the vehicle” )
obtain a vehicle model comprising a set of configured vehicle parameters, where the vehicle model is arranged to estimate a motion response by the vehicle to a control command based on the set of configured vehicle parameters, (Ferguson, Col.11, lines 59-65, “The vehicle may have mathematical models for the speed and acceleration output of the vehicle based on at least an applied throttle signal and/or brake signal. For example, the mathematical model may take as an input some or all of (i) the throttle signal, (ii) the brake signal, (iii) the parameters of the environment of the vehicle 308, and (iv) the current vehicle parameters.”)
receive a vehicle control command issued to control motion by the vehicle, estimate a vehicle response to the vehicle control command based on the vehicle model and on the vehicle control command, (Ferguson, Col.11, lines 59-65, “The vehicle may have mathematical models for the speed and acceleration output of the vehicle based on at least an applied throttle signal and/or brake signal… the mathematical model may take as an input some or all of (i) the throttle signal, (ii) the brake signal”)
where the vehicle response comprises a number of observable state variables and a number of non-observable state variables, (Ferguson, Col.11, lines 59-65, “The vehicle may have mathematical models for the speed and acceleration output of the vehicle”) Examiner note: acceleration of vehicle is an observable state variable and vehicle speed is a non-observable state variable according to the classification described in specification page 17 as “vehicle speed …may not be observable … Vehicle acceleration may be an observable state variable”.
obtain sensor measurements of state variables of the heavy-duty vehicle corresponding to the observable state variables of the vehicle model, (Ferguson, Col.12, line 38, “sensors, such as a GPS sensor, speed sensor”, Col.5, lines 62-66, “The sensor system 104 may include several elements such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) 122, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 124, a RADAR 126, a laser rangefinder/ LIDAR 128, a camera 130, a steering sensor 123, and a throttle/brake sensor”)
determine a difference between the sensor measurements of the state variables and the corresponding observable state variables of the vehicle model, (Ferguson, Col.12, line 42-45,” The vehicle 308 may compare the predicted output value with the actual output value of the vehicle 308. If the difference between predicted and actual output values is greater than a threshold, the vehicle 308 may create an alert indicator”)
and to automatically trigger an action by the heavy-duty vehicle in case the difference does not satisfy a predetermined acceptance criterion, (Ferguson, Col.12, line 42-45,” If the difference between predicted and actual output values is greater than a threshold, the vehicle 308 may create an alert indicator”)
Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Ohnishi teaches:
wherein the triggered action by the vehicle comprises a change in operational design domain, ODD, of the vehicle. (Ohnishi, para [35], “operational design domain is updated according to a state of update of the score”, and para [29], “the operational design domain is updated to be appropriate to the autonomous vehicle”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Ohnishi in order to include wherein the triggered action by the vehicle comprises a change in operational design domain, ODD, of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Regarding to claim 8:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where the sensor measurements of the state variables of the heavy-duty vehicle comprises any of: inertial measurement unit, IMU, data indicative of vehicle acceleration, wheel speed sensor data indicative of wheel rotary motion, steering angle data, and wheel torque data. (Ferguson, Col.6, lines 5-6, “The IMU 124 could include a combination of accelerometers and gyroscopes”)
Regarding to claim 9:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where processing circuitry is configured to process the observable state variables of the vehicle model using respective sensor models. (Ferguson, Col.11, lines 59-65, “The vehicle may have mathematical models for the …acceleration output of the vehicle”) Examiner note: acceleration of vehicle is an observable state variable and vehicle speed is a non-observable state variable according to the classification described in specification page 17 as “Vehicle acceleration may be an observable state variable”.
Regarding to claim 10:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where the acceptance criterion comprises a comparison of the difference in relation to a predetermined threshold value or acceptable range of differences. (Ferguson, Col.12, line 42-45,” The vehicle 308 may compare the predicted output value with the actual output value of the vehicle 308. If the difference between predicted and actual output values is greater than a threshold, the vehicle 308 may create an alert indicator”)
Regarding to claim 14:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson teaches:
The computer system of claim 1,where the triggered action by the heavy-duty vehicle comprises a warning signal issued to a driver of the vehicle. (Ferguson, Col.12, line 42-45,” If the difference between predicted and actual output values is greater than a threshold, the vehicle 308 may create an alert indicator”)
Regarding to claim 15:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where the triggered action by the heavy-duty vehicle. (Ferguson, abstract, “ a vehicle configured to operate in an autonomous mode ”, and Col.12, line 42-45,” If the difference between predicted and actual output values is greater than a threshold, the vehicle 308 may create an alert indicator”)
Regarding to claim 18:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where the triggered action by the heavy-duty vehicle. (Ferguson, Col.3, line 62,” slowing the vehicle to a stop”)
Regarding to claim 19:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where the vehicle model comprises a plurality of vehicle sub-models based on different sets of configured vehicle parameters. (Ferguson, Col.11, lines 59-65, “The vehicle may have mathematical models for the speed and acceleration output of the vehicle based on at least an applied throttle signal and/or brake signal. For example, the mathematical model may take as an input some or all of (i) the throttle signal, (ii) the brake signal, (iii) the parameters of the environment of the vehicle 308, and (iv) the current vehicle parameters.”, Col.12, line 42-45,” If the difference between predicted and actual output values is greater than a threshold, the vehicle 308 may create an alert indicator”, Col.3, line 62,” slowing the vehicle to a stop”)
Claim(s) 2-7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US9315178B1) in view of Ohnishi(US20210255632A1), further in view of Arikere (US20220126799A1).
Regarding to claim 2:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Arikere teaches:
The computer system of claim 1, where the set of configured vehicle parameters comprises a relationship between wheel slip and wheel longitudinal force and/or a relationship between wheel slip and wheel lateral force capability. (Arikere, para [48], “ the relationship between wheel slip and longitudinal force ”, and para [105], “lateral force capability, or lateral slip”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Arikere in order to include where the set of configured vehicle parameters comprises a relationship between wheel slip and wheel longitudinal force and/or a relationship between wheel slip and wheel lateral force capability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Regarding to claim 3:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Arikere teaches:
The computer system of claim 1, where the set of configured vehicle parameters. (Arikere, para [15], “road friction coefficient”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Arikere in order to include where the set of configured vehicle parameters comprises any of: a road friction coefficient, a road surface normal force, a tyre radius, and a tyre slip stiffness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Regarding to claim 4:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Arikere teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1, where the set of configured vehicle parameters . (Arikere, para [02], “The invention can be applied in heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks, buses and construction machines.”, and para [62], “Newtons second law type of relationships, where both mass m and accelerations a are possible to measure using basic sensor technology together with current wheel slip”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Arikere in order to include where the set of configured vehicle parameters comprises any of: a geometry of the heavy-duty vehicle, a weight of the heavy-duty vehicle, a suspension pressure on an axle of the heavy-duty vehicle, and a center of gravity of the heavy-duty vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Regarding to claim 5:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Arikere teaches:
The computer system of claim 1,where the vehicle model (Arikere, para [74-75], “vx—Longitudinal speed over ground, vy—Lateral speed over ground”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Arikere in order to include where the vehicle model is arranged to determine any of: a lateral and/or longitudinal speed, a lateral and/or longitudinal acceleration, a yaw rate, a pitch rate, a roll rate, of the modelled vehicle in response to the control command, based on the set of configured vehicle parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Regarding to claim 6:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Arikere teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where the vehicle control command comprises a requested acceleration and/or a requested curvature by the vehicle. (Arikere, para [98], “make the vehicle follow a desired acceleration profile and/or a desired curvature”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Arikere in order to include where the vehicle control command comprises a requested acceleration and/or a requested curvature by the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Regarding to claim 7:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Arikere teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where the vehicle control command comprises a motion support device control allocation. (Arikere, para [31], “a motion support device arrangement;”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Arikere in order to include where the vehicle control command comprises a motion support device control allocation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Regarding to claim 12:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Arikere teaches:
The computer system of claim 1,where the vehicle model (410) comprises a model of vehicle dynamics.( Arikere, para [53], “Longitudinal wheel slip A may, in accordance with SAE J670 (SAE Vehicle Dynamics Standards Committee Jan. 24, 2008) be defined as λ=Rωx-vxmax(Rω,vx)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Arikere in order to include where the vehicle model (410) comprises a model of vehicle dynamics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US9315178B1) in view of Ohnishi(US20210255632A1), further in view of Hayakawa (US 20100030430 A1).
Regarding to claim 11:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Hayakawa teaches:
The computer system of any of claim 1,where the acceptance criterion comprises a statistical test applied to the difference.( Hayakawa, para [70], “The statistical computation uses, for example, an average value of the differences, a standard deviation, or a total value”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Hayakawa in order to include where the acceptance criterion comprises a statistical test applied to the difference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US9315178B1) in view of Ohnishi(US20210255632A1), further in view of Zhang (US20240166192A1).
Regarding to claim 13:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Zhang teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where the vehicle model comprises a machine learning structure.( Zhang, para [04], “training a tractive limit model using a machine learning regression algorithm”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Zhang in order to include where the vehicle model comprises a machine learning structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US9315178B1) in view of Ohnishi(US20210255632A1), further in view of Degand (US 20200047628 A1).
Regarding to claim 17:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Degand teaches:
The computer system oclaim 1,where the triggered action by the heavy-duty vehicle comprises a reduction in maximum vehicle speed over ground.( Degand, para [81], “reduced maximum speed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Degand in order to include where the triggered action by the heavy-duty vehicle comprises a reduction in maximum vehicle speed over ground. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US9315178B1) in view of Ohnishi(US20210255632A1), further in view of Xu (US 20180368095 A1).
Regarding to claim 20:
Ferguson in view of Ohnishi, shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Ferguson teaches:
the differences between the sensor measurements of the state variables and the corresponding observable state variables. (Ferguson, Col.12, line 42-45,” The vehicle 308 may compare the predicted output value with the actual output value of the vehicle 308. If the difference between predicted and actual output values is greater than a threshold, the vehicle 308 may create an alert indicator”)
Ferguson does not explicitly teach, but Xu teaches:
The computer system of claim 19, where the processing circuitry is configured to select a vehicle sub-model out of the plurality of vehicle sub-models based on (Xu, para [73], “when the movement model includes a plurality of sub-models, system 200 may select a sub-model based on”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the model checking for autonomous vehicles method from Ferguson to include these above teachings from Xu in order to include where the processing circuitry is configured to select a vehicle sub-model out of the plurality of vehicle sub-models based on the differences between the sensor measurements of the state variables and the corresponding observable state variables of the vehicle sub-models. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect the mismatches between expected and actual motion in the vehicle early and react automatically.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US20200257291A1) teaches an automated vehicle control system that can keep estimating the vehicle’s position even when GPS or other primary position sensors are unreliable. It uses vehicle motion data such as longitudinal speed] |, steering angle, and yaw rate to estimate how the vehicle is moving sideways and turning. A vehicle dynamics model computes an estimated yaw rate and lateral velocity from those inputs. The system Produces compares the estimated yaw rate to the yaw rate measured by a sensor. If there is a mismatch, a PID-type controller corrects the model so the position estimate stays accurate. The corrected estimate is then used to determine the vehicle’s current location. If a GNSS position is unavailable, the vehicle can rely on this backup positioning process.
Hansson (US20240157957A1) teaches a way to keep a heavy-duty vehicle, such as a truck with a trailer, within safe motion limits. The system estimates the vehicle’s current state, including things like speed and acceleration, and also predicts where the vehicle will be shortly in the future. It does not rely on a single exact prediction; instead, it also tracks uncertainty in the sensor data and in the prediction model. The predicted future state is compared against a “control envelope,” which is a defined safe operating range for the vehicle. If the system thinks there is too much risk that the vehicle will leave that safe range, it limits the vehicle’s motion capability. That limitation can mean reducing speed, acceleration, steering angle, yaw moment, or axle/wheel capability. The approach is meant to prevent hazardous events such as understeer, oversteer, jack-knifing, trailer swing, skid, or rollover. The system is especially suited for articulated vehicles with multiple vehicle units, where different parts of the combination may be handled separately. It also supports using wheel slip or wheel speed requests rather than only torque requests to improve control responsiveness.
Cella (US20230058169A1) teaches a digital twin system for a transportation environment, such as a facility, network, or roadway system. The system stores a digital version of the overall transportation system and also stores smaller digital twins for elements inside it, including mobile elements like workers or vehicles. The processors periodically determine where a mobile element is and update that element’s digital twin to match its current position. The update can be triggered by time, proximity, density, or detected movement conditions. The system can also use navigation or sensor data to infer motion and route information. In some embodiments, the system tracks workers; in others, it tracks vehicles. The timing of updates can change based on whether activity is low, abnormal, or whether a mobile element has moved recently. The disclosure also contemplates using optimized path information to guide mobile elements through the transportation system. It aims to keep the digital twin current enough to support monitoring and operational decisions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights