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Withdrawn from consideration:
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on has been entered.
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.
Contrary to applicant’s assertion, the system in Kim clearly relies on driver input steering as the trigger for evasive maneuver detection. The Examiner notes that the updated rejection made in response to the claim amendments clearly teaches the limitation as claimed. See at least Kim: ¶¶, 0047-0057, 0060, 0088;
Therefore, the rejection, as updated, has been maintained.
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claims , Applicant's arguments are based only upon dependencies from claim . Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
--Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
However, the instant specification disclosure contains only reference to a calculation to provide enough breaking force on at least one roadwheel to generate a yaw torque, which in turn generates a lateral force that supplements the lateral force induced by the driver's manual steering to allow the vehicle to achieve a higher yaw rated during an evasive maneuver (See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶). No reference is made in the specification to a request for application of a differential braking force to roadwheels of a vehicle to increase the yaw rate of the vehicle is based solely on the manual driver input via the vehicle steering system. Therefore, the specification does not provide adequate written description of “.” Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim ,
Lines recite “.” which is deemed a negative limitation.
The instant specification fails to provide basis in the original disclosure for the exclusionary proviso “.” Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. The instant specification fails to provide a reason for . Therefore, the specification does not provide adequate written description of “.” Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim ultimately depends from a claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement and is/are rejected for depending therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in lines . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
However, the claim further recites the limitation "" in Lines .
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, it is unclear how the request for application of a differential braking force can be based solely on manual driver input while also requiring that the electric power steering system assist is operational, failing or partially operational, or has failed.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to read as follows:
“”.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Line .
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The subjective term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim as vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Dependent Claim ,
The claim ultimately depends from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and are rejected for depending therefrom.
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 are 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 (¶¶);
converting, comprising using the at least one electronic processor, a steering command request represented by the manual driver input into a differential braking command, See at least ¶¶, 0047-0057, 0060, 0088; “ESA is an assistance system not fully autonomous system so that it shall be initiated by driver then it shall start to steer the vehicle and the chassis systems of brake, electronic damper, and all-wheel drive assist the emergency evasion of the front obstacles”; “each step of the present disclosure may be implemented by a universal computing device, and the modules or steps may be concentrated on a single computing device or distributed on a network formed by a plurality of computing devices, and may in an embodiment be implemented by program codes executable for the computing devices, so that the modules or the steps may be stored in a storage device for execution with the computing devices, the shown or described steps may be executed in sequences different from those described here in some circumstances, or may form individual integrated circuit module respectively, or multiple modules or steps therein may form a single integrated circuit module for implementation.” 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 a yaw rate of the vehicle while the driver is attempting the evasive steering maneuver; See at least ¶¶, 0047-0057
wherein the request for the application of the differential braking force comprises the differential braking command, See at least ¶¶
wherein the differential 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 a reverse direction of travel of the vehicle. See at least ¶¶
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 steering 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 (: ¶¶.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A method comprising receiving manual driver input via a vehicle steering system having an electric power steering assist, See at least ¶¶
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; See at least ¶¶
wherein the request for application of a differential braking force to roadwheels of a vehicle to increase the yaw rate of the vehicle is based solely on the manual driver input via the vehicle st--eering system, while an electric power steering assist is operational, failing or partially operational, or has failed; See at least ¶¶, 0047-0057, 0060, 0088
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. See at least ¶¶
fail to explicitly disclose:
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)).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights