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 Amendment
Amendments received 11-06-2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 2, 9, 12, 17, and 19-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3-8 and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term "normally" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "normally" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 3-8 and 10 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected claim.
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.
CLAIM 13 (AND CLAIM 4, DUPLICATE CLAIM FOR A SYSTEM) IS REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a method of controlling a system (i.e., process). Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 13 Recites:
The method of claim 11, wherein
the master controller among the controllers is configured to determine an understeer determination coefficient according to angles of the front wheels and the rear wheel and a speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels,
wherein the SBW controller and the RWS controller are configured to control steering of the vehicle until the understeer determination coefficient is converged to zero,
the understeer determination coefficient is defined by K=(w_f/C_a)-(w_r/C_a)
wherein w_f denotes a front wheel speed,
w_r denotes a rear wheel speed,
C_a denotes a cornering stiffness, and
K denotes the understeer determination coefficient.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because the claim recites a mathematical formula. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
The courts have stated ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws”. When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept. See, e.g., Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902-03 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using ‘mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame’."). For example, a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I, Para. 3)). A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I, B Para. 1)).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 13 Recites:
The method of claim 11, wherein
the master controller among the controllers is configured to determine an understeer determination coefficient according to angles of the front wheels and the rear wheel and a speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels,
wherein the SBW controller and the RWS controller are configured to control steering of the vehicle until the understeer determination coefficient is converged to zero,
the understeer determination coefficient is defined by K=(w_f/C_a)-(w_r/C_a)
wherein w_f denotes a front wheel speed,
w_r denotes a rear wheel speed,
C_a denotes a cornering stiffness, and
K denotes the understeer determination coefficient.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no additional limitations beyond describing the mathematical concept and how it will be applied.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
The examiner submits, as cited above, the additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no additional limitations beyond the mathematical concept, the description of the variables, and how it is applied. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 13 (and claim 4, duplicate claim for a system and rejected under the same reasoning as claim 13) is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10-11, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer (US 7734406 B1) in view of Hidaka (US 20200377150 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Oppenheimer discloses, BBW devices (Oppenheimer: FIGS. 4A-4D are graphical plots of desired braking of a brake pedal applied to a brake-by-wire (BBW) system (Col. 2, Ln. 29-30)) including electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: the vehicle 10 may include drum brakes, other disc brake system arrangements, and/or a variety of (electro-) hydraulic and (electro-) mechanical brake actuators (Col. 3, Ln. 51-54)) provided for respective wheels of a vehicle (Oppenheimer: Each brake assembly 21, 22, 23, 24 may include LF, RF, LR, RR wheels 25, 26, 27, 28 coupled to a suspension (Col. 3, Ln. 8-10)), the electro-mechanical brakes being configured to independently perform braking of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: four independently actuated brakes (RF--right front, RR right rear, LF=left front, and LR=left rear) (Col. 5, Ln. 54-56)), and the BBW devices further including controllers electrically connected to the electro-mechanical brakes, respectively (Oppenheimer: the vehicle 10 may include drum brakes, other disc brake system arrangements, and/or a variety of (electro-) hydraulic and (electro-) mechanical brake actuators (Col. 3, Ln. 50-54)); a steer-by-wire (SBW) controller (Oppenheimer: active brake-by-wire (BBW) and steer-by-wire (SBW) systems (Col. 2, Ln. 62-63)) configured to control front wheels of the vehicle through an electronic signal (Oppenheimer: the ECU 35 for controlling the steering angle of the wheels 25, 26 (Col. 4, Ln. 37-38)); wherein when one of the controllers of the BBW device fails (Oppenheimer: The actuators 109 control brake forces (Col. 5, Ln. 60); Fault detection and Identification (FDI) process (block 111) of the braking control algorithm 100 is used to determine if an actuator 109 has failed (Col. 6, Ln. 6-8)), at least one of the SBW controller and the RWS controller is configured to control steering of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified. If the vehicle is equipped with steer by wire, an automatic steering correction may be generated in order to balance at least part of the yaw moment generated by asymmetric braking (Col. 1, Ln. 50-56); (18) The input signals 85 may include both vehicle operator steering input from the steering wheel 88 as well as steering input correction(s) provided by the algorithm of the present invention during brake failure … Those skilled in the art will recognize that numerous SBW systems 16 may be adapted for use with the present invention including, but not limited to, two-and four-wheel SBW systems. For example, the vehicle 10 may additionally include an active rear steer (ARS) system (Col. 4, Ln. 38-48)) based on whether a required braking force of a driver (Oppenheimer: Operation of the brake systems 31, 32, 33, 34 may involve an operator depressing a brake pedal 55 which is sensed by one or more brake pedal force sensor(s) (Col. 3, Ln. 35-37); A brake pedal 102 has a current brake pedal force characteristic that is also set by the driver as an input to the braking control (Col. 5, Ln. 11-13)) exceeds a maximum braking force that is generated by one of the front wheels and the rear wheels (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake), wherein the maximum braking force refers to a braking force of the vehicle using remaining two BBW devices (Oppenheimer: [ABS] The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; The main objective of the control algorithm during the failure mode is to redistribute the control tasks to the functioning actuators (Col. 1, Ln. 34-36)) except for BBW devices positioned on a side to which the failed controller is connected among the front wheels or the rear wheels (Oppenheimer: [ABS] The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; The main objective of the control algorithm during the failure mode is to redistribute the control tasks to the functioning actuators (Col. 1, Ln. 34-36)), wherein when the required braking force exceeds the maximum braking force (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)), the controllers are configured to generate a braking force of the vehicle by use of three remaining electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)) except for an electro-mechanical brake which is connected to the failed controller, among the electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)), and wherein when the required braking force is equal to or less than the maximum braking force, the controllers are configured to generate a braking force of the vehicle by use of two electro-mechanical brakes that are provided at the front wheels or the rear wheels, among the electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)) and are configured for normally controlling braking of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: This document describes a new control strategy for dealing with failure of brake actuators in vehicles equipped with brake-by-wire systems and possibly with steer-by-wire systems. Brake-by-wire systems refer to any brake system in which brake actuators at each wheel can be controlled independently of the driver input and of each other (Col. 1, Ln. 19-24)).
Oppenheimer does not explicitly disclose, a rear wheel steering (RWS) controller configured to control steering of rear wheels of the vehicle so that a steering angle of the rear wheels is controlled in an in-phase or an antiphase of a steering angle of the front wheels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hidaka discloses, a rear wheel steering (RWS) controller configured to control steering of rear wheels of the vehicle so that a steering angle of the rear wheels is controlled in an in-phase or an antiphase of a steering angle of the front wheels (Hidaka: [0101] the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine whether offset is possible, depending on whether the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase. Specifically, the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine that offset is possible, if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase, or determine that offset is not possible if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in the same phase), for the benefit of the second steering controller controls the second steering driver in accordance with a second corrected steering angle, if the steering of the first wheel pair exhibits anomaly.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Oppenheimer to coordinating wheel phases taught by Hidaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the second steering driver in accordance with a second corrected steering angle, if the steering of the first wheel pair exhibits anomaly.
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Oppenheimer also discloses, at least one of the SBW controller and the RWS controller is configured to control steering of the vehicle to compensate for a partial braking that occurs during braking control through the three electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: (col 2, lines 63-65); (col 3, lines 1-4)).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Oppenheimer also discloses, a master controller among the controllers is configured to stop an operation of the BBW device including the failed controller (Oppenheimer: (Col. 2, Ln. 63-65)).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Oppenheimer discloses, determining, by controllers, whether BBW devices have failed (Oppenheimer: (18); The actuators 109 control brake forces (Col. 5, Ln. 60); The actuators 109 control brake forces (Col. 6, Ln. 6-8); Fault detection and Identification (FDI) process (block 111) of the braking control algorithm 100 is used to determine if an actuator 109 has failed (Col. 6, Ln. 6-8)), wherein the BBW devices include electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: the vehicle 10 may include drum brakes, other disc brake system arrangements, and/or a variety of (electro-) hydraulic and (electro-) mechanical brake actuators (Col. 3, Ln. 51-54)) provided for respective wheels of a vehicle (Oppenheimer: Each brake assembly 21, 22, 23, 24 may include LF, RF, LR, RR wheels 25, 26, 27, 28 coupled to a suspension (Col. 3, Ln. 8-10)), the electro-mechanical brakes are configured to independently perform braking of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: four independently actuated brakes (RF--right front, RR right rear, LF=left front, and LR=left rear) (Col. 5, Ln. 54-56)), and the BBW devices further includes the controllers electrically connected to the electro-mechanical brakes, respectively (Oppenheimer: The actuators 109 control brake forces (Col. 5, Ln. 60)); stopping, by a master controller among the controllers of the BBW devices, an operation of the BBW device that has failed (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)); determining and comparing, by the master controller, a maximum braking force according to two of the BBW devices (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)) and a required braking force of a driver (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)), wherein the two BBW devices are connected to front wheels or rear wheels among the respective wheels where the BBW devices are normally operated (Oppenheimer: brake actuators at each wheel can be controlled independently of the driver input and of each other (Col. Ln. 23-24)); and performing steering control of the vehicle by at least one of a steer-by-wire (SBW) controller (Oppenheimer: active brake-by-wire (BBW) and steer-by-wire (SBW) systems (Col. 2, Ln. 62-63)) based on whether the required braking force exceeds the maximum braking force (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake), wherein the maximum braking force refers to a braking force of the vehicle using remaining two BBW devices except for BBW devices positioned on a side to which the failed controller is connected among the front wheels or the rear wheels (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)), wherein when the required braking force exceeds the maximum braking force (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)), the controllers are configured to generate a braking force of the vehicle by use of three remaining electro-mechanical brakes except for an electro-mechanical brake which is connected to the failed controller, among the electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)), and wherein when the required braking force is equal to or less than the maximum braking force, the controllers are configured to generate a braking force of the vehicle by use of two electro-mechanical brakes that are provided at the front wheels or the rear wheels, among the electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: [ABS] a system for braking a vehicle during brake failure. The method and computer usable medium include the steps of determining a brake force lost corresponding to a failed brake, and determining a brake force reserve corresponding to at least one non-failed brake. At least one commanded brake force is determined based on the brake force lost and the brake force reserve. Then at least one command brake force is applied to the at least one non-failed brake wherein at least one of an undesired yaw moment and a yaw moment rate of change are limited to predetermined values. The system includes a plurality of brake assemblies wherein a commanded brake force is applied to at least one non-failed brake; During normal braking without failures, brake force distribution among four wheels is typically symmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of vehicle symmetry. When one of the brake actuators fails it does not generate the desired force. This has two undesirable effects on vehicle dynamics: 1) vehicle deceleration is less than desired since the total braking force acting on the vehicle is reduced; and 2) brake force distribution becomes asymmetric, pulling the vehicle to the side as a result of unbalanced yaw moment acting on the vehicle. In order to maintain the desired level of deceleration, while minimizing the unbalanced yaw moment, the brake force distribution among the remaining three wheels must be modified (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)) and are configured for controlling braking of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: This document describes a new control strategy for dealing with failure of brake actuators in vehicles equipped with brake-by-wire systems and possibly with steer-by-wire systems. Brake-by-wire systems refer to any brake system in which brake actuators at each wheel can be controlled independently of the driver input and of each other (Col. 1, Ln. 19-24)).
Oppenheimer does not explicitly disclose, a rear wheel steering (RWS) controller, in which the SBW controller and the RWS controller respectively control steering of the front wheels and the rear wheels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hidaka discloses, a rear wheel steering (RWS) controller, in which the SBW controller and the RWS controller respectively control steering of the front wheels and the rear wheels (Hidaka: [0101] the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine whether offset is possible, depending on whether the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase. Specifically, the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine that offset is possible, if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase, or determine that offset is not possible if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in the same phase), for the benefit of the second steering controller controls the second steering driver in accordance with a second corrected steering angle, if the steering of the first wheel pair exhibits anomaly.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Oppenheimer to coordinating wheel phases taught by Hidaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the second steering driver in accordance with a second corrected steering angle, if the steering of the first wheel pair exhibits anomaly.
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 11. Further, Oppenheimer also discloses, an average value of steering angles of left and right wheels of the front wheels is defined as a normal steering angle (Oppenheimer: [FIG. 1-5]; (Col. 5, Ln. 54-56)), and the SBW controller is configured to independently control steering of each of the left and right wheels of the front wheels so that the steering angle of each of the left and right wheels of the front wheels is equal to the normal steering angle (Oppenheimer: [FIG. 1-5]; (Col. 5, Ln. 54-56)).
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Oppenheimer also discloses, A non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a program for performing the method of claim 11 is recorded (Oppenheimer: [ABS] A method, computer usable medium including a program).
Claim(s) 4, 6-8, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer (US 7734406 B1) in view of Hidaka (US 20200377150 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 11 above, and further in view of Tokimasa (US 20120109460 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 3. Further, Hidaka also discloses, wherein the understeer determination coefficient is defined by K=(w_f/C_a)-(w_r/C_a), and wherein W_f denotes a front wheel speed, W_r denotes a rear wheel speed, C_a denotes a cornering stiffness, and K denotes the understeer determination coefficient (Hidaka: see expression 1-4 in ¶'s 0079 and 0082, and figure 4 for math used to keep front and rear wheels "in phase").
Oppenheimer, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, a master controller among the controllers is configured to determine an understeer determination coefficient according to angles of the front wheels and the rear wheel and a speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels, wherein the SBW controller and the RWS controller are configured to control the steering of the vehicle so that the understeer determination coefficient is converged to zero.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokimasa discloses, a master controller among the controllers (Tokimasa: [ABS] A vehicle dynamic control apparatus is designed to control a plurality of controlled objects according to a request value of a first parameter from an application associated with motion of a vehicle in a same direction to fulfill the request value of the first parameter) is configured to determine an understeer determination coefficient (Tokimasa: [0003] the amount of understeer or oversteer as an example of lateral motions of the vehicle, and thereafter corrects the steering angles if the amount of understeer or oversteer increases) according to angles of the front wheels and the rear wheel (Tokimasa: [0236] a controllable range calculator 72a, a margin calculator 72b, a comparator 72c, and a selector) and a speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels (Tokimasa: see [0116-0117] and [0125-0126] for measuring front and rear angular velocity and a controllable range), wherein the SBW controller and the RWS controller are configured to control the steering of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: [0133] a front-wheel steering limiter 53a, a rear-wheel steering limiter 53b, a braking limiter 53c, and a total controllable-range calculator) so that the understeer determination coefficient is converged to zero (Tokimasa: [0003] thereafter corrects the steering angles if the amount of understeer or oversteer increases; [0136]), for the benefit of applying a brake force to correct an undesired yaw moment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Oppenheimer to include correcting oversteer and understeer taught by Tokimasa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to apply a brake force to correct an undesired yaw moment.
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 4. Further, Hidaka also discloses, when the understeer determination coefficient exceeds zero (Hidaka: [0095] is non-normal if an error between the front-wheel steering detection angle θ.sub.FD of the front wheels 14F and the set front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F is equal to or greater than a preset anomaly determination threshold), the vehicle is in an understeer state (Hidaka: [0095] is non-normal if an error between the front-wheel steering detection angle θ.sub.FD of the front wheels 14F and the set front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F is equal to or greater than a preset anomaly determination threshold), and the RWS controller is configured to perform an antiphase control which is steering the rear wheels in an opposite direction to the front wheels (Hidaka: [0101] the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine whether offset is possible, depending on whether the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase. Specifically, the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine that offset is possible, if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase, or determine that offset is not possible if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in the same phase).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 4. Further, Hidaka also discloses, when the understeer determination coefficient is less than zero, the vehicle is in an oversteer state (Hidaka: [0095] is non-normal if an error between the front-wheel steering detection angle θ.sub.FD of the front wheels 14F and the set front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F is equal to or greater than a preset anomaly determination threshold), and the RWS controller is configured to perform an in-phase control which is steering the rear wheels in a same direction to the front wheels (Hidaka: [0101] the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine whether offset is possible, depending on whether the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase. Specifically, the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine that offset is possible, if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase, or determine that offset is not possible if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in the same phase).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 4. Further, Oppenheimer also discloses, an average value of steering angles of left and right wheels of the front wheels is defined as a normal steering angle, and the SBW controller is configured to independently control steering of the left and right wheels of the front wheels so that the steering angle of each of the left and right wheels of the front wheels is equal to the normal steering angle (Oppenheimer: [FIG. 1-5]; (Col. 5, Ln. 54-56)).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 11. Further, Hidaka also discloses, wherein the understeer determination coefficient is defined by K=(w_f/C_a)-(w_r/C_a), and wherein W_f denotes a front wheel speed, W_r denotes a rear wheel speed, C_a denotes a cornering stiffness, and K denotes the understeer determination coefficient (Hidaka: see expression 1-4 in ¶'s 0079 and 0082, and figure 4 for math used to keep front and rear wheels "in phase").
Oppenheimer, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, a master controller among the controllers is configured to determine an understeer determination coefficient according to angles of the front wheels and the rear wheel and a speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels, wherein the SBW controller and the RWS controller are configured to control the steering of the vehicle so that the understeer determination coefficient is converged to zero.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokimasa discloses, a master controller among the controllers (Tokimasa: [ABS] A vehicle dynamic control apparatus is designed to control a plurality of controlled objects according to a request value of a first parameter from an application associated with motion of a vehicle in a same direction to fulfill the request value of the first parameter) is configured to determine an understeer determination coefficient (Tokimasa: [0003] the amount of understeer or oversteer as an example of lateral motions of the vehicle, and thereafter corrects the steering angles if the amount of understeer or oversteer increases) according to angles of the front wheels and the rear wheel (Tokimasa: [0236] a controllable range calculator 72a, a margin calculator 72b, a comparator 72c, and a selector) and a speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels (Tokimasa: see [0116-0117] and [0125-0126] for measuring front and rear angular velocity and a controllable range), wherein the SBW controller and the RWS controller are configured to control the steering of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: [0133] a front-wheel steering limiter 53a, a rear-wheel steering limiter 53b, a braking limiter 53c, and a total controllable-range calculator) so that the understeer determination coefficient is converged to zero (Tokimasa: [0003] thereafter corrects the steering angles if the amount of understeer or oversteer increases; [0136]), for the benefit of applying a brake force to correct an undesired yaw moment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Oppenheimer to include correcting oversteer and understeer taught by Tokimasa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to apply a brake force to correct an undesired yaw moment.
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 13. Further, Hidaka also discloses, when the understeer determination coefficient exceeds zero (Hidaka: [0095] is non-normal if an error between the front-wheel steering detection angle θ.sub.FD of the front wheels 14F and the set front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F is equal to or greater than a preset anomaly determination threshold), the vehicle is in an understeer state (Hidaka: [0095] is non-normal if an error between the front-wheel steering detection angle θ.sub.FD of the front wheels 14F and the set front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F is equal to or greater than a preset anomaly determination threshold), and the RWS controller is configured to perform an antiphase control which is steering the rear wheels in an opposite direction to the front wheels (Hidaka: [0101] the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine whether offset is possible, depending on whether the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase. Specifically, the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine that offset is possible, if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase, or determine that offset is not possible if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in the same phase).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 13. Further, Hidaka also discloses, when the understeer determination coefficient is less than zero, the vehicle is in an oversteer state (Hidaka: [0095] is non-normal if an error between the front-wheel steering detection angle θ.sub.FD of the front wheels 14F and the set front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F is equal to or greater than a preset anomaly determination threshold), and the RWS controller is configured to perform an in-phase control which is steering the rear wheels in a same direction to the front wheels (Hidaka: [0101] the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine whether offset is possible, depending on whether the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase. Specifically, the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine that offset is possible, if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in opposite phase, or determine that offset is not possible if the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F and the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.R are controlled in the same phase).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer (US 7734406 B1) in view of Hidaka (US 20200377150 A1) in further view of Tokimasa (US 20120109460 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fujita (US 20230042441 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 4. Further, Hidaka also discloses, transmit signals to the SBW controller and the RWS controller (Hidaka: [ABS] a first steering controller that controls the first steering driver in accordance with a first steering angle, and a second steering controller that controls the second steering driver in accordance with a second steering angle), in which the signals are a failure determination signal of one of the controllers (Hidaka: [0095] the front-wheel steering controller 68 may determine that the steering of the front wheels 14F is non-normal if an error between the front-wheel steering detection angle θ.sub.FD of the front wheels 14F and the set front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F).
Hidaka does not explicitly disclose, information on the understeer determination coefficient.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokimasa discloses, information on the understeer determination coefficient (Tokimasa: [0236] a controllable range calculator 72a, a margin calculator 72b, a comparator 72c, and a selector), for the benefit of applying a brake force to correct an undesired yaw moment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Oppenheimer to a margin calculator taught by Tokimasa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to apply a brake force to correct an undesired yaw moment.
Oppenheimer, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, a signal indicative of information on a determination result of the required braking force and the maximum braking force.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fujita discloses, “[0045] if failure occurs in one line in the brake system, a sufficient braking force (for example, a deceleration of 0.65 G or more) be secured as a remaining braking force from other lines;
[0057] a case in which malfunction of the first ECU 10 causes failure associated with actuation of the right front electric brake mechanism 5R (and the left rear electric brake mechanism 6L) ... the flow diagram (flowchart) of FIG. 3 will be explained as control processing that is performed in the second ECU 11 (control portion 11A) in the event of failure associated with actuation of the right front electric brake mechanism 5R due to malfunction of the first ECU 10 or another reason”, for the benefit of electrically controlling a braking mechanism based on the information as to the failure and the physical amount relating to the required braking force.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Oppenheimer to include corresponding actuation with failures taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to electrically controlling a braking mechanism based on the information as to the failure and the physical amount relating to the required braking force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the amendments changed the scope and result in new ground of rejection that does not rely on the combined references applied in the prior rejection of record for matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the 112(b) rejection for clarity have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection for clarity has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding §101, abstract idea (mathematical concept) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As cited above and in the prior office action, claims 4 and 13 contain mathematical concepts (equation or formula), definition of variables, and how they are applied. Thus, not integrating the abstract idea into something significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663