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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12-17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 2005/0057095 A1), Milot (US 2006/0190150 A1), Jensen et al. (US 2019/0285501 A1) and Lu et al. (US 2011/0166744 A1).
For claims 1, 14, and 15, Hac discloses a vehicle comprising: a steerable vehicle axle; an electronically controllable brake system; an electronically controllable steering system for setting a steering angle required (LSet) on said steerable vehicle axle (Fig. 1;
a control system for controlling said vehicle in the event of an unexpected braking with braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle (Fig. 2, para. 0010); and,
said control system being configured to do the following: to determine whether said unexpected braking with braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle is present and to determine the yaw direction (RG) in which said vehicle yaws as a result of said braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides (Fig. 2, para. 0008-0010, where the control system is configured to determine unexpected braking with braking forces due to brake failure is present determining the yaw direction of the vehicle, in which the braking forces generated asymmetrically);
to specify said steering angle requirement (LSet) and to adjust said steering angle requirement (LSet) via said electronically controllable steering system as soon as said unintentional braking with braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle has been determined (Para. 0008-0010, 0036, where steering of the vehicle is being corrected when unintentional braking with braking forces due to brake failure creating asymmetric braking); and,
wherein said steering angle requirement (LSet) can be specified depending on the determined yaw direction (RG) so as to cause a braking yaw rate (GB) to be compensated directly on said steerable vehicle axle after an adjustment of said steering angle requirement (LSet) (Fig. 4, para. 0008-0010, 0035, 0037, 0049, where a steering correction is determined based on the yaw moment or direction of the yaw to compensate the undesired yaw direction of the vehicle by setting the steering axle of the vehicle, automatically by the control system).
Hac does not specifically disclose said steering angle requirement (LSet) is specified depending on at least one of the following: a) tires selected for use on the vehicle; and, b) an axle load. Milot in the same field of the art discloses the steering angle requirement is specified depending on tires selected for use on the vehicle (Para. 0018, 0019, 0023, 0033-0035, 0040, where the steering angle adjustment is based on the tire specification and type selected for use on the vehicle). Jensen in the same field of the art discloses the steering angle requirement is specified depending on an axle load (Fig. 4, para. 0013, 0015, 0017, 0041, where the autonomous vehicle control system adjust the steering angle of the vehicle based on the load and force on the axle of the vehicle). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to determine said steering angle requirement specified depending on tires selected for use on the vehicle and an axle load, as taught by Milot and Jensen to improve the stability and accuracy of the vehicle when compensating for the yaw rate in account for the vehicle specifications and weight/load distributions relate to the vehicle.
Hac further does not specifically disclose the unexpected braking is not caused by a brake failure or defect. Lu in the same field of the art disclose the vehicle stability control is known to determine when there is unexpected braking not caused by brake failure or defect (Para. 0007). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to determine when there is unexpected braking not caused by brake failure or defect, as known and taught by Lu to ensure the stability of the vehicle based on different vehicle dynamics and instability situations.
For claim 2, Hac discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an unexpected braking with braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides on said steerable front axle is determined (At least in para. 0065, 0067, the difference in brake forces on different sides of the vehicle axles are determined).
For claim 3, Hac discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an unexpected braking with said braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle is determined only in the presence of a braking specification (BV) (At least in para. 0065, 0067, where the determination of the unintentional braking is based on the specific braking conditions and brake force measurements as described).
For claim 10, Hac discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said steering angle requirement (LSet) is automatically implemented on said steerable vehicle axle by an electrically controllable steering system (Para. 0037, 0038).
For claim 13, Hac discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said unexpected braking with said braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle is present due to at least one of the following: a) split braking (Bmu) (Para. 0039, where ABS systems on split surfaces may provide braking forces differently on said respective sides of the steerable vehicle axle); b) defect or failure of at least one of ABS control valves or wheel brakes assigned to the braked wheels of said steerable vehicle axle; c) a defect or failure of at least one wheel bearing of the braked wheels of said steerable vehicle axle; and, d) a defect or failure of a component of said vehicle which individually affects said braking force (FAr, FAI) on said steerable vehicle axle (Para.0038, 0042, where brake actuator may fail). It is noted number of factors may have caused the braking forces acting differently on said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle and the above listed possibilities for causing the condition cannot be an inventive concept.
Claim(s) 19, 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 2005/0057095 A1), Milot (US 2006/0190150 A1), Jensen et al. (US 2019/0285501 A1) and Lu et al. (US 2011/0166744 A1).as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasui et al. (US 2009/0095562 A1).
For claims 19, 23 and 27, Hac does not specifically disclose said steering angle requirement (LSet) is specified depending on a road condition. Yasui in the same field of the art discloses the steering angle requirement is specified depending on road condition (Para. 0072, 0087, where the steering angle adjustment is based on the friction coefficient of the road). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to determine said steering angle requirement specified depending on a road condition, as taught by Yasui to improve the stability and accuracy of the vehicle when compensating for the yaw rate in account for the conditions of the road.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 2005/0057095 A1), Milot (US 2006/0190150 A1), Jensen et al. (US 2019/0285501 A1) and Lu et al. (US 2011/0166744 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boecker et al. (10,589,738).
For claim 4, Hac, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said steering angle requirement (LSet) on said steerable vehicle axle is specified (See at least para. 0075, 0078-0081, where steering angle requirement is specified to correct the required steering of the vehicle to compensate for the braking difference), but does not specifically disclose set in the context of a steering control (LG) in such a way that a currently present actual yaw rate (Gist) approximates to a specified target yaw rate (GSet) until the actual yaw rate (Gist) corresponds to the specified target yaw rate (GSet) (See at least col. 7, lines 28-38, col. 14, lines 48-67, col. 19, lines 33-51, where the target yaw rate for controlling the vehicle to approximate or follow the desired trajectory). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to set in the context of a steering control in such a way that a currently present actual yaw rate approximates to a specified target yaw rate until the actual yaw rate corresponds to the specified target yaw rate, taught by Boecker to improve the stability and control of the vehicle to travel along the desired trajectories.
For claim 5, Hac, as modified, discloses the method of claim 4, wherein said target yaw rate (GSet) is derived from the actual yaw rate (Gist) present in said vehicle before said unexpected braking with said braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle was determined (Boecker - See at least col. 7, lines 28-38, col. 14, lines 48-67, col. 19, lines 33-51, where the target yaw rate for controlling the vehicle to approximate or follow the desired trajectory while the vehicle is autonomously of providing assisted controls).
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 2005/0057095 A1), Milot (US 2006/0190150 A1), Jensen et al. (US 2019/0285501 A1) and Lu et al. (US 2011/0166744 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weeber et al. (US 2005/0253452 A1) as support document.
For claim 6, Hac, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determination of whether said unexpected braking with braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle is present (See at least para. 0063-0067), but does not explicitly disclose the determination is carried out depending on at least one of the following: a) a brake pressure difference (dp) between brake pressures (pAr, pAI) on wheels of the steerable vehicle axle which are braked differently on said respective sides; b) a wheel revolution rate difference (dn) between wheel revolution rates (nAr, nAl) on the wheels of said steerable vehicle axle which are braked differently on said respective sides; and, c) a wheel speed difference (dv) between wheel speeds (vAr, vAI) on the wheels of said steerable vehicle axle which are braked differently on said respective sides. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art the braking forces being acted differently on respective sides of the vehicle axles I closely related to at least the difference in brake pressure between brake pressures on wheels being braked differently on said respective sides. Even so, Weeber in the same field of the art as evidence that at least determination is carried out depending on at least one of the following: a) a brake pressure difference between brake pressures on wheels of the steerable vehicle axle which are braked differently on said respective sides (At least in para. 0009, 0021, where the differential in brake pressures exceeding a threshold determines the braking forces acted differently on respective sides).
For claim 7, Hac discloses the method of claim 6, wherein said unexpected braking with braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose the condition is concluded when at least one of the following is present: a) the brake pressure difference (dp) exceeds a maximum brake pressure difference (dpmax); b) the wheel revolution rate difference (dn) exceeds a maximum wheel revolution rate difference (dnmax); and, c) the wheel speed difference (dv) exceeds a maximum wheel speed difference (dvmax). Weeber in the same field of the art discloses at least the condition is concluded when at least the brake pressure difference exceeds a maximum brake pressure difference, which is exceeding a differential threshold (See at least para. 0021, 0023, 0025). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to concluded the condition is presence when at least the brake pressure difference exceeds a maximum brake pressure difference, taught by Weeber to provide accurate determination of the unexpected braking event based or set pressure difference exceeding a certain value.
For claim 9, Hac, as discussed in above, the method of claim 6, wherein said brake pressure difference (dp) is estimated from ABS control signals (SAr, SAI, SBr, SBI), wherein brake pressures (pAr, pAl, pBr, pBl) controlled at the wheel brakes are side- specifically adapted by ABS control valves depending on the ABS control signals (SAr, SAI, SBr, SBI) to form at least one of the following: a) said brake pressure difference (dp) (Para. 0039, 0062-0065, where modern ABS systems on split surfaces may apply brake pressure differences on such surfaces); .
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 2005/0057095 A1), Milot (US 2006/0190150 A1), Jensen et al. (US 2019/0285501 A1), Lu et al. (US 2011/0166744 A1) and Weeber et al. (US 2005/0253452 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Schwarz et al. (US 2006/0100766 A1).
For claim 8, Hac, as modified, discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the determination of the yaw direction (RG) is carried out (Fig. 3, 4, 8, 9, para. 0036), but does not explicitly disclose the yaw direction is carried out in dependence upon at least one of the following: a) the brake pressure difference (dp); and, b) the wheel revolution rate difference (dn); and, c) the wheel speed difference (dv). Schwarz in the same field of the art discloses the determination of the yaw direction is carried out in dependence upon at least one of the brake pressure difference (Fig. 2, para. 0065, 0087, 0091). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to determination of the yaw direction is carried out in dependence upon at least one of the brake pressure difference, taught by Schwarz to utilize measured braking parameters to improve safety when operating the vehicle having unbalanced brake pressure.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 2005/0057095 A1), Milot (US 2006/0190150 A1, Jensen et al. (US 2019/0285501 A1) and Lu et al. (US 2011/0166744 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Igarashi et al. (US 2020/0039584 A1).
For claim 12, Hac, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein a steering angle (L) of said steerable vehicle axle are adjusted depending on a steering torque (LM) applied by a steering wheel, wherein, as a result of the applied steering torque (LM), a driver yaw rate (GF) acts on said vehicle, wherein the applied steering torque (LM) is allowed when the acting driver yaw rate (GF) counteracts the braking yaw rate (GB) and otherwise is suppressed. Igarashi in the same field of the art discloses wherein a steering angle (L) of said steerable vehicle axle are adjusted depending on a steering torque (LM) applied by a steering wheel, wherein, as a result of the applied steering torque (LM), a driver yaw rate (GF) acts on said vehicle, wherein the applied steering torque (LM) is allowed when the acting driver yaw rate (GF) counteracts the braking yaw rate (GB) and otherwise is suppressed (Abstract, para. 0077, where the control system suppress the driver input when the driver mistakenly steers the direction opposite to the intended travel direction). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to adjust a steering angle depending on a steering torque applied by a steering wheel, wherein, as a result of the applied steering torque, a driver yaw rate acts on said vehicle, wherein the applied steering torque is allowed when the acting driver yaw rate counteracts the braking yaw rate and otherwise is suppressed, taught by Igarashi to improve the safety and stability of the vehicle and to ensure the vehicle is correctly and appropriately controlled to travel in the intended direction by suppressing driver inputs that would destabilize the vehicle.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 2005/0057095 A1), Milot (US 2006/0190150 A1), Jensen et al. (US 2019/0285501 A1), Lu et al. (US 2011/0166744 A1) and Fujita et al. (US 2013/0261898 A1).
For claim 16, Hac discloses a method for controlling a vehicle in an event of unexpected braking with braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on respective sides on a steerable vehicle axle (Fig. 2, para. 0010), the method comprising: determining whether there is unexpected braking with said braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle is present and to determine the yaw direction (RG) in which said vehicle yaws as a result of said braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting differently on said respective sides (Fig. 2, para. 0008-0010, where the control system is configured to determine unintentional braking with braking forces due to brake failure is present determining the yaw direction of the vehicle, in which the braking forces generated asymmetrically);
specifying and setting a steering angle requirement (LSet) immediately upon detection of unexpected braking with said different braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting on said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle (Para. 0008-0010, 0036, where steering of the vehicle is being corrected when unintentional braking with braking forces due to brake failure creating asymmetric braking);
with said steering angle requirement (LSet) being specified in dependence upon said yaw direction (RG) so as to cause said braking yaw rate (GB) to be compensated directly on said steerable vehicle axle after setting said steering angle requirement (LSet) (Fig. 4, para. 0008-0010, 0035, 0049, where a steering correction is determined based on the yaw moment or direction of the yaw to compensate the undesired yaw direction of the vehicle by setting the steering axle of the vehicle, automatically by the control system).
Hac discloses brake force differences between the left and right side of the vehicle that causes said vehicle to yaw (Fig. 3-9, para. 0009, 0010), but does not specifically disclose said braking forces acting stronger than expected on one of said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle causing said vehicle to yaw at a braking yaw rate (GB) in a yaw direction (RG) because of said braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting stronger than expected on said one of said respective sides on the steerable vehicle axle; said vehicle will yaw as a result of said braking forces (FAr, FAI) acting stronger than expected on one of said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art the brake force differences experienced between the left and right side of the vehicle, taught by Hac that causes the vehicle to yaw is due to a side of the vehicle has a higher or stronger braking force than expected on the other side of the vehicle. It is due to the fact that the force acting on one side is greater than the other, causing an unbalance in force acting on the wheels and causing the vehicle to have a yaw motion. Even so, Fujita in the same field of the art discloses said braking forces acting stronger than expected on one of said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle causing said vehicle to yaw at a braking yaw rate in a yaw direction because of said braking forces acting stronger than expected on said one of said respective sides on the steerable vehicle axle; said vehicle will yaw as a result of said braking forces acting stronger than expected on one of said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle (Para. 0122, 0123). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hac and Fujita that said braking forces acting stronger than expected on one of said respective sides on said steerable vehicle axle causing said vehicle to yaw at a braking yaw rate in a yaw direction because of said braking forces acting stronger than expected on said one of said respective sides on the steerable vehicle axle because said vehicle will yaw as a result of said braking forces acting greater on one of said respective sides on said vehicle.
Hac further does not specifically disclose said steering angle requirement (LSet) is specified depending on at least one of the following: a) tires selected for use on the vehicle; and, b) an axle load. Milot in the same field of the art discloses the steering angle requirement is specified depending on tires selected for use on the vehicle (Para. 0018, 0019, 0023, 0033-0035, 0040, where the steering angle adjustment is based on the tire specification and type selected for use on the vehicle). Jensen in the same field of the art discloses the steering angle requirement is specified depending on an axle load (Fig. 4, para. 0013, 0015, 0017, 0041, where the autonomous vehicle control system adjust the steering angle of the vehicle based on the load and force on the axle of the vehicle). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to determine said steering angle requirement specified depending on tires selected for use on the vehicle and an axle load, as taught by Milot and Jensen to improve the stability and accuracy of the vehicle when compensating for the yaw rate in account for the vehicle specifications and weight/load distributions relate to the vehicle.
Hac further does not specifically disclose the unexpected braking is not caused by a brake failure or defect. Lu in the same field of the art disclose the vehicle stability control is known to determine when there is unexpected braking not caused by brake failure or defect (Para. 0007). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to determine when there is unexpected braking not caused by brake failure or defect, as known and taught by Lu to ensure the stability of the vehicle based on different vehicle dynamics and instability situations.
Claim(s) 17, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 2005/0057095 A1), Milot (US 2006/0190150 A1), Jensen et al. (US 2019/0285501 A1) and Lu et al. (US 2011/0166744 A1), as applied to claims 1, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0170784 A1).
For claims 17, 21, and 25, Hac does not specifically disclose said steering angle requirement (LSet) is specified dependent upon a speed of the vehicle. Kim in the same field of the art discloses said steering angle requirement is specified dependent upon a speed of the vehicle (Para. 0090-0092). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hac to determine said steering angle requirement dependent upon a speed of the vehicle, as taught by Kim to improve the stability control of the vehicle along with the factor involve the speed of the vehicle to adjust the vehicle motion appropriately.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2022/0314966 A1) Henderson et al. discloses an active steering control system for a vehicle compensating yaw (Para. 0010, 0011).
(US 2018/0188744 A1) Switkes et al. discloses a vehicle controls for dynamics accounting for specification of the tires.
(US 2007/0112477 A1) Van Zanten et al. discloses a vehicle dynamic control system using tire information including the specification of the tires mounted to the vehicle.
(US 2008/0015778 A1) Matsuura et al. discloses vehicle motion control device experiencing yaw movement due to brake force differences between the sides of the vehicle and yaw correction controls.
(US 2005/0080532 A1) Kato et al. discloses a vehicle steering control system that suppresses the steering assist control where driver’s input is given a higher priority.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657