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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 12 is directed to a method for controlling longitudinal or lateral guidance of a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 12 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed
to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 12 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 12 recites:
A method for controlling longitudinal or lateral guidance of a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining a first setpoint torque predetermined by a first unit as a specification for a longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator of the vehicle;
determining a second setpoint torque predetermined by a second unit as a specification for the longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator of the vehicle; and
determining a resulting setpoint torque for actuating the longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator based on the first setpoint torque, the second setpoint torque, and a changeover function for a changeover between the first setpoint torque and the second setpoint torque.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Additionally, the “determining” step is not too complicated to be performed with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas.
Accordingly, there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 12 does not include
additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to
those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer network component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similar analysis applied to independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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 2-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 20030109979 A1; hereinafter Schuster) in view of Kuemmel et al. (US 20220126880 A1; hereinafter Kuemmel).
Regarding claim 1, Schuster teaches a device configured to control longitudinal guidance of a vehicle (see at least, [0010] control systems that influence the longitudinal movement of the vehicle), wherein the device is configured to: determine a first setpoint torque predetermined by a first unit as a specification for a longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator of the vehicle (see at least, [0014] control unit 10 may receive a variable that transmits the position of an operating element actuable by the driver, such as an accelerator pedal. A setpoint torque value may be derived therefrom); determine a second setpoint torque predetermined by a second unit as a specification for the longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator of the vehicle (see at least, [0018] a setpoint wheel torque Mdk00 is determined in converter 106 from setpoint acceleration aPT for the drive train); and determine a resulting setpoint torque for actuating the longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator based on the first setpoint torque, the second setpoint torque (see at least, [0018] a resulting wheel torque is determined from the supplied setpoint wheel torques…consist of setpoint wheel torque Mdk00 of coordinator 100 and of driver input torque MdPED. The latter is derived from accelerator-pedal position 13 and vehicle speed VFZ), and a changeover function for changing over between the first setpoint torque and the second setpoint torque (see at least, [0014] Microcomputer 12 contains a propulsion coordinator in the form of a computer program, which coordinates all of the setpoint signals influencing the longitudinal movement, i.e. linking them to one another and generating resulting setpoint acceleration and/or deceleration signals).
Schuster discloses a device configured to control longitudinal guidance of a vehicle; but does not explicitly teach a device configured to control both longitudinal and lateral guidance of a vehicle. However, Kuemmel teaches this limitation.
Kuemmel teaches a device configured to control longitudinal (see at least, [0010] a longitudinal guidance actuator control device) and lateral guidance (see at least, [0011] a lateral guidance actuator
control device) of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuster to include a device configured to control both longitudinal and lateral guidance of a vehicle as taught by Kuemmel to avoid an event in which only the longitudinal
guidance is controlled, there is the risk that the vehicle leaves the traffic lane laterally, in particular if the vehicle is presently situated at the beginning or end of a cornering maneuver (Kuemmel, [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel teaches the device according to claim 1. Kuemmel further teaches wherein the changeover function specifies a changeover value as a function of time; and the device is configured, at each point in time from a sequence of successive points in time (see at least, [0089] particular setpoint longitudinal guidance parameters are executed at a particular point in time and may differ at the particular points in time. For example, a setpoint braking torque at a first point in time is lower than the setpoint braking torque at a later point in time), to: determine the changeover value of the changeover function for a respective point in time; and determine the resulting setpoint torque for the respective point in time based on the first setpoint torque for the respective point in time, the second setpoint torque for the respective point in time, and the changeover value for the respective point in time (see at least, [0090] a single value is provided for the setpoint lateral guidance parameter, which is then…handed over to the at least one lateral guidance actuator for execution…a particular setpoint steering angle is determined which is then executed by way of the lateral guidance actuator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuster to include the changeover function specifies a changeover value as a function of time; and the device is configured, at each point in time from a sequence of successive points in time, to: determine the changeover value of the changeover function for a respective point in time; and determine the resulting setpoint torque for the respective point in time based on the first setpoint torque for the respective point in time, the second setpoint torque for the respective point in time, and the changeover value for the respective point in time as taught by Kuemmel to avoid an event in which only the longitudinal guidance is controlled, there is the risk that the vehicle leaves the traffic lane laterally, in particular if the vehicle is presently situated at the beginning or end of a cornering maneuver (Kuemmel, [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel teaches the device according to claim 1. Kuemmel further teaches wherein the device is configured to: use the second setpoint torque as the resulting setpoint torque based on a determination that the longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle is controlled by the second unit (see at least, [0129] setpoint steering angles 44 are derived by way of the lateral guidance actuator control device); use the first setpoint torque as the resulting setpoint torque based on a determination that the longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle is controlled by the first unit (see at least, [0129] Setpoint braking torques 33 are derived by way of the longitudinal guidance actuator control device 3); and in a transition of the control of the longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle between the first unit and the second unit, use a value between the first setpoint torque and the second setpoint torque, which depends on a changeover value dependent on the changeover function, as the resulting setpoint torque (see at least, [0131] the speed of the vehicle
10 is reduced owing to the setpoint braking torques 33 that are implemented or to be implemented
…in the case of the deceleration of the vehicle being realized by way of the brake system, a slower turn-in is simultaneously realized by way of the steering system. The setpoint steering angles 44
are thus adapted to the setpoint braking torques 33 in relation to the route, in this case a corner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuster to include use the second setpoint torque as the resulting setpoint torque based on a determination that the longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle is controlled by the second unit; use the first setpoint torque as the resulting setpoint torque based on a determination that the longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle is controlled by the first unit; and in a transition of the control of the longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle between the first unit and the second unit, use a value between the first setpoint torque and the second setpoint torque, which depends on a changeover value dependent on the changeover function, as the resulting setpoint torque as taught by Kuemmel to avoid an event in which only the longitudinal guidance is controlled, there is the risk that the vehicle leaves the traffic lane laterally, in particular if the vehicle is presently situated at the beginning or end of a cornering maneuver (Kuemmel, [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel teaches the device according to claim 1. Kuemmel further teaches wherein the device is configured to: determine at a first point in time that a transition of the control of the longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle from the second unit to the first unit takes place (see at least, [0053] If the longitudinal guidance control commands are for example setpoint braking torques, then the longitudinal guidance actuator is caused to implement particular setpoint braking torques over a particular period of time, such as 15 seconds); and in reaction to the determination, in a time interval which extends from the first point in time to a second point in time, to change over the resulting setpoint torque from the second setpoint torque to the first setpoint torque depending on the changeover function (see at least, [0053] longitudinal guidance
actuator, in executing a particular setpoint braking torque, does not wait for the parallel execution of a lateral-guidance-specific control command by the lateral guidance actuator…both longitudinal-guidance-specific and lateral-guidance-specific control commands, these control commands are processed by the respective control devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuster to include determine at a first point in time that a transition of the control of the longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle from the second unit to the first unit takes place; and in reaction to the determination, in a time interval which extends from the first point in time to a second point in time, to change over the resulting setpoint torque from the second setpoint torque to the first setpoint torque depending on the changeover function as taught by Kuemmel to avoid an event in which only the longitudinal guidance is controlled, there is the risk that the vehicle leaves the traffic lane laterally, in particular if the vehicle is presently situated at the beginning or end of a cornering maneuver (Kuemmel, [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel teaches the device according to claim 6. Schuster further teaches wherein the changeover function specifies changeover values for the changeover between the first setpoint torque and the second setpoint torque as a function of time (see at least, [0089] particular setpoint longitudinal guidance parameters are executed at a particular point in time and may differ at the particular points in time. For example, a setpoint braking torque at a first point in time is lower than the setpoint braking torque at a later point in time); the changeover values of the changeover function in the time interval from the first point in time to the second point in time pass fluidly from a second value to a first value; the resulting setpoint torque corresponds to the second setpoint torque based on a determination that the changeover value has the second value (see at least, [0053] If the longitudinal guidance control commands are for example setpoint braking torques, then the longitudinal guidance actuator is caused to implement particular setpoint braking torques over a particular period of time, such as 15 seconds); the resulting setpoint torque corresponds to the first setpoint torque based on a determination that the changeover value has the first value; and the resulting setpoint torque has a value between the second setpoint torque and the first setpoint torque based on a determination that the changeover value is between the second value and the first value (see at least, [0090] For example, the longitudinal guidance control commands may be a series of setpoint longitudinal guidance parameters as a function of a profile with respect to time….a
setpoint braking torque that changes over a particular period of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuster to include the changeover function specifies changeover values for the changeover between the first setpoint torque and the second setpoint torque as a function of time; the changeover values of the changeover function in the time interval from the first point in time to the second point in time pass fluidly from a second value to a first value; the resulting setpoint torque corresponds to the second setpoint torque based on a determination that the changeover value has the second value; the resulting setpoint torque corresponds to the first setpoint torque based on a determination that the changeover value has the first value; and the resulting setpoint torque has a value between the second setpoint torque and the first setpoint torque based on a determination that the changeover value is between the second value and the first value as taught by Kuemmel to avoid an event in which only the longitudinal guidance is controlled, there is the risk that the vehicle leaves the traffic lane laterally, in particular if the vehicle is presently situated at the beginning or end of a cornering maneuver (Kuemmel, [0005]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel teaches the device according to claim 7. Kuemmel further teaches wherein the changeover function has a changing time gradient in a time interval from the first point in time to the second point in time (see at least, [0090] For example, the longitudinal guidance control commands may be a series of setpoint longitudinal guidance parameters as a function of a profile with respect to time….a setpoint braking torque that changes over a particular period of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuster to include the changeover function has a changing time gradient in a time interval from the first point in time to the second point in time as taught by Kuemmel to avoid an event in which only the longitudinal guidance is controlled, there is the risk that the vehicle
leaves the traffic lane laterally, in particular if the vehicle is presently situated at the beginning or end of a cornering maneuver (Kuemmel, [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel teaches the device according to claim 1. Schuster further teaches wherein the device is configured to determine the first setpoint torque based on a setpoint acceleration predetermined by the first unit (see at least, [0017] the setpoint wheel torque, the setpoint transmission output torque or the setpoint drive force are calculated from the setpoint acceleration by an estimated value).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel teaches the device according to claim 1. Schuster further teaches wherein the first unit or the second unit comprises: a driver assistance function for automated longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle; or an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal and a steering wheel for the manual longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle by a driver of the vehicle ([0014] control unit 10 may receive a variable that transmits the position of an operating element actuable by the driver, such as an accelerator pedal. A setpoint torque value may be derived therefrom).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel teaches the device according to claim 1. Schuster further teaches wherein the device is configured to operate the longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator depending on the resulting setpoint torque to guide the vehicle longitudinally or laterally ([0014] control unit 10 may receive a variable that transmits the position of an operating element actuable by the driver, such as an accelerator pedal. A setpoint torque value may be derived therefrom, which, while being linked to other setpoint torque variables, is converted into the controlled variables for controlling the drive unit).
Regarding claim 12, Schuster teaches a method for controlling longitudinal guidance of a vehicle (see at least, [0010] control systems that influence the longitudinal movement of the vehicle), the method comprising: determining a first setpoint torque predetermined by a first unit as a specification for a longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator of the vehicle (see at least, [0014] control unit 10 may receive a variable that transmits the position of an operating element actuable by the driver, such as an accelerator pedal. A setpoint torque value may be derived therefrom); determining a second setpoint torque predetermined by a second unit as a specification for the longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator of the vehicle (see at least, [0018] a setpoint wheel torque Mdk00 is determined in converter 106 from setpoint acceleration aPT for the drive train); and determining a resulting setpoint torque for actuating the longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator based on the first setpoint torque, the second setpoint torque (see at least, [0018] a resulting wheel torque is determined from the supplied setpoint wheel torques…consist of setpoint wheel torque Mdk00 of coordinator 100 and of driver input torque MdPED. The latter is derived from accelerator-pedal position 13 and vehicle speed VFZ), and a changeover function for a changeover between the first setpoint torque and the second setpoint torque (see at least, [0014] Microcomputer 12 contains a propulsion coordinator in the form of a computer program, which coordinates all of the setpoint signals influencing the longitudinal movement, i.e. linking them to one another and generating resulting setpoint acceleration and/or deceleration signals).
Schuster discloses a method for controlling longitudinal guidance of a vehicle; but does not explicitly teach a method for controlling both longitudinal and lateral guidance of a vehicle. However, Kuemmel teaches this limitation.
Kuemmel teaches a method for controlling longitudinal (see at least, [0010] a longitudinal guidance actuator control device) and lateral guidance (see at least, [0011] a lateral guidance actuator
control device) of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuster to include a method for controlling both longitudinal and lateral guidance of a vehicle as taught by Kuemmel to avoid an event in which only the longitudinal
guidance is controlled, there is the risk that the vehicle leaves the traffic lane laterally, in particular if the vehicle is presently situated at the beginning or end of a cornering maneuver (Kuemmel, [0005]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 20030109979 A1; hereinafter Schuster) in view of Kuemmel et al. (US 20220126880 A1; hereinafter Kuemmel) in further view of Hu et al. (US 20220258723 A1; hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel teaches the device according to claim 2. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the device is configured, at each point in time from a sequence of successive points in time, to determine the resulting setpoint torque for the respective point in time as a weighted mean value of the first setpoint torque for the respective point in time and the second setpoint torque for the respective point in time; and weights for determining the weighted mean value depend on the changeover value for the respective point in time. However, Hu teaches these limitations.
Hu teaches wherein the device is configured, at each point in time from a sequence of successive points in time (see at least, [0056] optimization block 51B is aware of allocations from a prior time step to determine optimal torque distribution at a next time step, i.e., the optimization logic block 51B is iterative), to determine the resulting setpoint torque for the respective point in time as a weighted
mean value of the first setpoint torque for the respective point in time and the second setpoint torque for the respective point in time (see at least, [0043] Optimization as performed herein may use such a dynamic model to predict an expected vehicle response from actuator setpoints, and then select appropriate actuator setpoints that collectively optimize the cost function 51 for the predicted trajectories); and weights for determining the weighted mean value depend on the changeover value for the respective point in time (see at least, [0061] Relative weighting of the associate costs or penalties are used to select a priority between different control objectives…coordinating operation of different torque actuators arranged on different drive axles to achieve both longitudinal and lateral vehicle control objectives).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Schuster and Kuemmel to include at each point in time from a sequence of successive points in time, to determine the resulting setpoint torque for the respective point in time as a weighted mean value of the first setpoint torque for the respective point in time and the second setpoint torque for the respective point in time; and weights for determining the weighted mean value depend on the changeover value for the respective point in time as taught by Hu in order to control the vehicle in accordance with a model-generated torque vector to affect vehicle/
platform dynamics in an optimum manner as set forth herein (Hu, [0003]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 20030109979 A1; hereinafter Schuster) in view of Kuemmel et al. (US 20220126880 A1; hereinafter Kuemmel) in further view of Hu et al. (US 20220258723 A1; hereinafter Hu) and Harmann et al. (US 20080236540 A1; Harmann).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schuster, Kuemmel and Hu teaches the device according to claim 3. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the changeover function adopts changeover values between 0 and 1; a first weight for weighting the first setpoint torque corresponds to the changeover value; and a second weight for weighting the second setpoint torque corresponds to 1 minus the changeover value. However, Hartmann teaches this limitation.
Hartmann teaches wherein the changeover function adopts changeover values between 0 and 1; a first weight for weighting the first setpoint torque corresponds to the changeover value (see at least, [0012] Maximum value mimax for first setpoint value mi1 of the internal torque is set when dimensionless
factor wped' is equal to 1, i.e., the gas pedal has been pushed all the way to the floor); and a second weight for weighting the second setpoint torque corresponds to 1 minus the changeover value (see at least, [0018] second compensation factor memory 80 selects the value zero as the compensation
factor, yielding the value zero as second resulting setpoint value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Schuster, Kuemmel and Hu to include the changeover function adopts changeover values between 0 and 1; a first weight for weighting the first setpoint torque corresponds to the changeover value; and a second weight for weighting the second setpoint torque corresponds to 1 minus the changeover value as taught by Harmann in order to as accurately as possible and for comfortable operation of the internal combustion engine (Harmann, [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saigo et al. (US 20240101194 A1) discloses determine a resulting setpoint torque for actuating the longitudinal or lateral guidance actuator based on the first setpoint torque, the second setpoint torque (e.g., [0029] the first torque gain by the reference second torque gain. Assuming that the first torque gain is τA, the second torque gain is τB2, the reference second torque gain is τB).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights