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 communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Canceled:
Withdrawn from consideration:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant presents the following arguments:
Claims 7, 16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0144252) hereinafter Kim in view of Jonasson et al. (US 2016/0229910), hereinafter Jonasson.
The Examiner relies on Kim and Jonasson for obviousness. However, neither reference teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 7, as presented in this paper, of "receiving manual driver input ... and determining ... that the driver is attempting an evasive steering maneuver." Kim discloses an autonomous ESA system that generates a trajectory and allocates yaw moment across actuators (ABS, AWD, EPS). The system disclosed in Kim does not rely on driver steering input as the trigger for evasive maneuver detection. Rather, it computes target yaw rate and distributes commands without regard to manual driver steering torque. Jonasson discloses stability control applying braking forces based on vehicle dynamics, but likewise does not teach detection of a driver's evasive intent from manual input.
Applicant's specification expressly supports that the claimed method uniquely relies on driver steering input signals (for example, but not limited to, steering angle, torque, wheel angle) to determine evasive maneuver intent. This is a fundamental distinction from Kim's automated trajectory generation and Jonasson's stability control logic. Accordingly, Claim 7 is not rendered obvious by the of Kim and Jonasson.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference combination clearly teaches “receiving manual driver input ... and determining ... that the driver is attempting an evasive steering maneuver." See at least: Jonasson et al.: ¶¶ “The evasive maneuver system further detects a driver initiated collision avoidance maneuver. Moreover, the evasive maneuver system intervenes in the control of the vehicle, such that the vehicle is maintained within the drivable zone … Thereby, an approach is provided which assists the driver in avoiding a collision in a manner pertinent to how the driver controls the vehicle in his/her attempt to avoid said impending or probable collision. … Moreover, the expression of driver initiated “collision avoidance maneuver” may refer to driver initiated “collision avoidance control”, “collision avoidance activity” and/or “collision avoidance steering”…”
Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues:
Claim 16 recites, among other things, "The method as set forth in claim 7 wherein the determining ... further comprises using at least one of lateral acceleration of the vehicle, yaw rate of the vehicle, steering angle, steering torque, or steering wheel angle to determine that the driver is attempting an evasive steering maneuver."
Neither Kim nor Jonasson discloses combining manual driver input with vehicle dynamic signals to identify evasive maneuvers. Kim calculates yaw moment for autonomous control, while Jonasson detects stability conditions, but neither integrates driver torque/angle input with vehicle dynamics to confirm evasive maneuvers.
Applicant's disclosure (for example, see FIG. 3) shows such integration. Thus, Claim 16 is non-obvious.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference combination clearly teaches combining manual driver input with vehicle dynamic signals to identify evasive maneuvers. See at least: Jonasson et al.: ¶¶ “The evasive maneuver system further detects a driver initiated collision avoidance maneuver. Moreover, the evasive maneuver system intervenes in the control of the vehicle, such that the vehicle is maintained within the drivable zone … Since the evasive maneuver system further detects a driver initiated collision avoidance maneuver, there is established that an attempt has been initiated by the driver to avoid the impending or probable collision. Detecting the driver initiated collision avoidance maneuver may be accomplished in any arbitrary known manner, e.g. with support from one or more of a driver maneuver detecting sensor, such as a steering angle sensor, a torsion bar torque sensor, a pinion angle sensor, a road wheel turning sensor, a driver heartbeat rate sensor, and/or a sensor for detecting dilated driver pupils, which one or more sensors are known per se to the person skilled in the art, and from which the detected driver initiated collision avoidance maneuver may be derived by the evasive maneuver system… Thereby, an approach is provided which assists the driver in avoiding a collision in a manner pertinent to how the driver controls the vehicle in his/her attempt to avoid said impending or probable collision. … Moreover, the expression of driver initiated “collision avoidance maneuver” may refer to driver initiated “collision avoidance control”, “collision avoidance activity” and/or “collision avoidance steering”…”
Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues:
Claim 21 recites evasive maneuver determination and braking request while an electric power steering assist is operational, failing or partially operational, or has failed.
This limitation distinguishes over Kim and Jonasson. Kim assumes functioning EPS/secondary actuators. Jonasson does not contemplate degraded EPS states. Applicant explicitly discloses brake-to-steer fallback during degraded or failed EPS (e.g., use of brake pressure requests when steering assist has failed).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth the cited reference clearly contemplates the limitation “evasive maneuver determination and braking request while an electric power steering assist is operational, failing or partially operational, or has failed” in the cited paragraphs.
See at least: Jonasson et al.: ¶¶ “The evasive maneuver system further detects a driver initiated collision avoidance maneuver. Moreover, the evasive maneuver system intervenes in the control of the vehicle, such that the vehicle is maintained within the drivable zone … Since the evasive maneuver system further detects a driver initiated collision avoidance maneuver, there is established that an attempt has been initiated by the driver to avoid the impending or probable collision. Detecting the driver initiated collision avoidance maneuver may be accomplished in any arbitrary known manner, e.g. with support from one or more of a driver maneuver detecting sensor, such as a steering angle sensor, a torsion bar torque sensor, a pinion angle sensor, a road wheel turning sensor, a driver heartbeat rate sensor, and/or a sensor for detecting dilated driver pupils, which one or more sensors are known per se to the person skilled in the art, and from which the detected driver initiated collision avoidance maneuver may be derived by the evasive maneuver system… Thereby, an approach is provided which assists the driver in avoiding a collision in a manner pertinent to how the driver controls the vehicle in his/her attempt to avoid said impending or probable collision. … Moreover, the expression of driver initiated “collision avoidance maneuver” may refer to driver initiated “collision avoidance control”, “collision avoidance activity” and/or “collision avoidance steering”… “Steering intervention may be applied to the vehicle in any arbitrary known manner, e.g. with support from one or more of a steering assisting device adapted to apply a steering torque.”
Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues:
Claim 22 requires using vehicle signals (yaw, lateral accel, steering torque, etc.) in evasive maneuver determination, which is not disclosed in Kim or Jonasson in conjunction with manual driver input.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth the cited reference clearly contemplates the limitation “evasive maneuver determination and braking request while an electric power steering assist is operational, failing or partially operational, or has failed” in the cited paragraphs. See at least : ¶¶.
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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above, in view of (), hereinafter “”
Claims is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2022/0144252) hereinafter in view of (US 2016/0229910), hereinafter
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A method comprising receiving manual driver input via a vehicle steering system having an electric power steering assist that is operational (¶¶0013, ),
thereafter communicating, comprising using the at least one electronic processor, a request for application of a differential braking force to roadwheels of a vehicle to increase a yaw rate of the vehicle while the driver is attempting the evasive maneuver (¶¶);
wherein the braking force is achieved by at least one of applying brake pad pressure to a brake disc or drum of roadwheel, or applying a force from a propulsion system in the reverse direction of travel of the vehicle. (¶¶).
fail to explicitly disclose:
determining comprising using at least one electronic processor and the manual driver input via the vehicle steering system, that a driver is attempting an evasive steering maneuver
However, disclose:
utilizing output of perception and decision modules in connection with evasive steering assistance implementation (¶¶)
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of Namely, the technique of (¶¶) in order to avoid collisions (¶¶).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to avoid collisions (¶¶) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the determining, comprising using the at least one electronic processor and the manual driver input via the vehicle steering system, that the driver is attempting an evasive steering maneuver further comprises using at least one of lateral acceleration of the vehicle, yaw rate of the vehicle, steering angle, steering torque, or steering wheel angle (: ¶¶).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A method comprising
communicating, comprising using the at least one electronic processor, a request for application of a differential braking force to roadwheels of a vehicle to increase the yaw rate of the vehicle while the driver is attempting the evasive maneuver while an electric power steering assist is operational, failing or partially operational, or has failed (¶¶);
wherein the braking force is achieved by at least one of applying brake pad pressure to a brake disc or drum of roadwheel, or applying a force from a propulsion system in the reverse direction of travel of the vehicle (¶¶).
fail to explicitly disclose:
receiving manual driver input via a vehicle steering system having an electric power steering assist determining, comprising using at least one electronic processor and the manual driver input via the vehicle steering system, that the driver is attempting an evasive steering maneuver
However, disclose:
utilizing output of perception and decision modules in connection with evasive steering assistance implementation (¶¶)
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of Namely, the technique of (¶¶) in order to avoid collisions (¶¶).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to avoid collisions (¶¶) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references disclose:
wherein the determining, comprising using the at least one electronic processor and the manual driver input via the vehicle steering system, that the driver is attempting an evasive steering maneuver further comprises using at least one of lateral acceleration of the vehicle, yaw rate of the vehicle, steering angle, steering torque, or steering wheel angle (: ¶¶).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references further disclose:
receiving manual driver input via a vehicle steering system having an electric power steering assist that is operational (: ¶¶),
determining, comprising using the at least one electronic processor and the manual driver input via the vehicle steering system, that the driver is attempting an evasive steering maneuver (: ¶¶, and
thereafter communicating, comprising using the at least one electronic processor, a request for application of a differential braking force to roadwheels of a vehicle to increase the yaw rate of the vehicle while the driver is attempting the evasive maneuver (: ¶¶);
wherein the braking force is achieved by at least one of applying brake pad pressure to a brake disc or drum of roadwheel, or applying a force from a propulsion system in the reverse direction of travel of the vehicle (: ¶¶.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above, in view of (), hereinafter “”
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the differential braking force is achieved by applying a force from a propulsion system in the reverse direction of travel of the vehicle comprising an electric propulsion motor of a roadwheel in the reverse direction of travel of the vehicle.
The combination of references disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of the combination of references. Namely, the technique of (¶¶0032-0033, 0095) in order to provide agility in an emergency (¶¶0032-0033, 0095).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of the combination of references would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in the combination of references in order to provide agility in an emergency (¶¶0032-0033, 0095) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
() disclose:
that a drive motor 130 may change a rotational direction and/or a revolution per minute (RPM) under a command of the controller 140, that an output torque (a motor torque or motor power) of the drive motor 130 may be adjusted under control of the controller 140, and that the controller 140 may calculate … a required amount of deceleration of the drive motor. According to embodiments of the Park et al. reference, when a driver steers a vehicle to avoid a collision in a situation where a collision risk is detected, because the vehicle controller controls a drive motor to support collision avoidance, it may improve collision avoidance performance (increase an avoidance distance) and may avoid the collision to enhance stability of the vehicle (¶¶0043, 0055, 0084).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747