;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 .
The official correspondence is an after non-final.
Response to Amendment
Amendments received 04-16-2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 2-4, 9, 12-13, 17, and 19-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 5-8, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “the SBW controller and the RWS controller are configured to control the steering of the vehicle to reduce the speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels to zero.” The examiner respectfully submits, the limitations of cancelled claim 4 that were amended into claim 1 are parallel up to the double underlined portion. Further, the examiner could not locate support in the specification as originally filed to support amended claim 1.
The remaining or intervening claims are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected claim.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 6-8, 10-11, 14-16, 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) in further view of Tokimasa (US 20120109460 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]; (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]; (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)), 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]; (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51); [Claim 1] determining actuator limits for each actuator including setting upper and lower position limits of the non-operating actuator to the failure position; performing dynamic inversion by subtracting the vehicle system matrix function and the corrective term from the determined desired values of state variables to determine a solution at a particular time; using the determined solution to find a vector of control inputs such that the control influence matrix times the vector of control inputs is equal to the determined solution of the dynamic inversion step; and controlling the speed and direction of the vehicle by optimally controlling the remaining operating actuators using the vector of control inputs) 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)), wherein 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); (Col. 1, Ln. 45-55) 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. 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).
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, wherein the SBW controller and the RWS controller are configured to control the steering of the vehicle to reduce the speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels to zero.
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 (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) 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), wherein the SBW controller (Hidaka: [0041] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an overall configuration of a vehicle 10 according to an embodiment. The vehicle 10 of the embodiment is a four-wheel steering (4WS) vehicle of, for example, a steer-by-wire system, which includes a front-wheel steering mechanism 20 and a rear-wheel steering mechanism 22 to be able to steer four wheels 14 by transmitting and receiving electrical signals to and from the mechanisms 20 and 22 through wired communication (that is, using wires) or wireless communication) and the RWS controller (Hidaka: [0041] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an overall configuration of a vehicle 10 according to an embodiment. The vehicle 10 of the embodiment is a four-wheel steering (4WS) vehicle of, for example, a steer-by-wire system, which includes a front-wheel steering mechanism 20 and a rear-wheel steering mechanism 22 to be able to steer four wheels 14 by transmitting and receiving electrical signals to and from the mechanisms 20 and 22 through wired communication (that is, using wires) or wireless communication) are configured to control the steering of the vehicle (Hidaka: [0041] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an overall configuration of a vehicle 10 according to an embodiment. The vehicle 10 of the embodiment is a four-wheel steering (4WS) vehicle of, for example, a steer-by-wire system, which includes a front-wheel steering mechanism 20 and a rear-wheel steering mechanism 22 to be able to steer four wheels 14 by transmitting and receiving electrical signals to and from the mechanisms 20 and 22 through wired communication (that is, using wires) or wireless communication) to reduce the speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels to zero (Hidaka: [0090] As illustrated in FIG. 10, at the steering angle θ.sub.S being in the neutral position, the front-wheel steering angle θ.sub.F coincides with the rear-wheel steering angle θ.sub.LC of the locked rear wheels 14R. Thus, the front wheels 14F are parallel to the rear wheels 14R, and the vehicle 10 travels straight with the vehicle body 12 being inclined), 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.
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.
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: see at least [0077] and [0110] for monitoring and controlling front and rear steering to maintain safe lateral movement based on vehicle speed and road conditions) 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), 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 determining amount of under or oversteer 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 applying a brake force to correct an undesired yaw moment.
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Hidaka also discloses, when the understeer determination coefficient exceeds zero (Hidaka: [0095]), 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 1. Further, Hidaka also discloses, when the understeer determination coefficient is less than zero, the vehicle is in an oversteer state (Hidaka: [0095]), 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]).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. 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 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: (Col. 5, Ln. 60); (Col. 6, Ln. 6-8)), wherein the BBW devices include electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: (Col. 3, Ln. 51-54)) provided for respective wheels of a vehicle (Oppenheimer: (Col. 3, Ln. 8-10)), the electro-mechanical brakes are configured to independently perform braking of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: (Col. 5, Ln. 54-56)), and the BBW devices further includes the controllers electrically connected to the electro-mechanical brakes, respectively (Oppenheimer: (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]; (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]; (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)) and a required braking force of a driver (Oppenheimer: [ABS]; (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: (Col. Ln. 23-24)); and performing steering control of the vehicle by at least one of a steer-by-wire (SBW) controller (Oppenheimer: (Col. 2, Ln. 62-63)) based on whether the required braking force exceeds the maximum braking force (Oppenheimer: [ABS]), 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]; (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)), wherein when the required braking force exceeds the maximum braking force (Oppenheimer: [ABS]; (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]; (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]; (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51)) and are configured for controlling braking of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: (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, wherein the SBW controller and the RWS controller are configured to control the steering of the vehicle to reduce the speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels to zero.
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 (Hidaka: [0101]) 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]), wherein the SBW controller (Hidaka: [0041]) and the RWS controller (Hidaka: [0041]) are configured to control the steering of the vehicle (Hidaka: [0041]) to reduce the speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels to zero (Hidaka: [0090]), 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.
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.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokimasa discloses, a master controller among the controllers (Tokimasa: [ABS]) is configured to determine an understeer determination coefficient (Tokimasa: [0003]) according to angles of the front wheels and the rear wheel (Tokimasa: [0236]) and a speed difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels (Tokimasa: [0116-0117]; [0125-0126]), 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 determining amount of under or oversteer 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 applying a brake force to correct an undesired yaw moment.
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 11. Further, Hidaka also discloses, when the understeer determination coefficient exceeds zero (Hidaka: [0095]), 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 11. Further, Hidaka also discloses, when the understeer determination coefficient is less than zero, the vehicle is in an oversteer state (Hidaka: [0095]), 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]).
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 11. 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) 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 1 above, and further in view of Fujita (US 20230042441 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Oppenheimer, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. 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, beginning on page 7, filed 04-16-2026, with respect to §101, ineligible subject matter and §112(b), relative language, rejection of record have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §101, ineligible subject matter and §112(b), relative language, rejection of record have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04-16-2026, beginning on page 9, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art of Oppenheimer (US 7734406 B1) fails to disclose, “when the required braking force exceeds the maximum braking force, 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, 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 and are configured for controlling braking of the vehicle, wherein 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”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated above and in previous correspondence, 01-16-2026, Oppenheimer (US 7734406 B1) discloses, when the required braking force exceeds the maximum braking force (Oppenheimer: see at least [ABS] and (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51), wherein Oppenheimer discloses when brake force is lost at any given brake, determining increased braking forces at remaining brakes functioning properly, or modifying the force distribution among the remaining three brakes. This is all done because the failing brake cannot produce the required braking force. Thus, “the required braking force exceeds the maximum braking force” available at the failing brake), the controllers are configured to generate a braking force of the vehicle by use of three remaining electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: see at least [ABS] and (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51), wherein Oppenheimer discloses recruiting non-failing brakes and distributing a modified brake force) except for an electro-mechanical brake which is connected to the failed controller, among the electro-mechanical brakes (Oppenheimer: see at least [ABS] and (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51), wherein Oppenheimer discloses recruiting non-failing brakes and distributing a modified brake force), 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: see at least [ABS]; (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51); [Claim 1] for determining a failure, determining braking needs to maintain symmetric braking, and redistribution; performing a dynamic calculation for optimally controlling the remaining operating actuators using the vector control inputs, in whatever fashion is determined to be optimum) and are configured for controlling braking of the vehicle (Oppenheimer: see at least [ABS]; (Col. 1, Ln. 41-51); [Claim 1] for maintaining symmetric braking), wherein 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. 1, Ln. 45-55) 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. 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 (examiner: Oppenheimer discloses using steering to correct and undesirable yaw created by asymmetric braking, compensating for a 3 of 4 brakes functioning correctly)). The examiner respectfully submits, Oppenheimer (US 7734406 B1) discloses that which is claimed. Oppenheimer does not explicitly recite the terminology “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”. However, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (mpep 2144.01). In this case, Oppenheimer discloses determining a braking failure and performing a dynamic calculation for optimally controlling the remaining operating actuators using vector control inputs, in whatever fashion is determined to be optimum. This would include using two of the remaining three brakes, if determined most optimal. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, and it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (see routine optimization/customization - mpep 2144.05.II.A).
Further, to the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art of Oppenheimer (US 7734406 B1), as modified by Hidaka (US 20200377150 A1) and Tokimasa (US 20120109460 A1), fail to 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. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated above and in previous correspondence, 01-16-2026, Tokimasa (US 20120109460 A1) discloses, a master controller among the controllers (Tokimasa: [ABS] A vehicle dynamic control apparatus is designed to control a plurality of controlled objects) 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 (examiner: correcting over or under steer implies or suggests an amount or “coefficient” has been determined)) according to angles of the front wheels and the rear wheel (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; see at least [0077] and [0110] for monitoring and controlling front and rear steering to maintain safe lateral movement based on vehicle speed and road conditions) 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 (examiner: for one of ordinary skill, when a vehicle is turning (angles of front and rear wheels) or during slippage there's a speed (angular velocity) difference between the front and rear wheels that has to be in a controllable range to prevent or correct slip, thus measuring and correcting angles based upon controllable ranges, as disclosed by Tokimasa)).
To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant’s remarks are duplicated on page 11 and were addressed above. Because the prior art of Oppenheimer (US 7734406 B1) in view of Hidaka (US 20200377150 A1) in view of Tokimasa (US 20120109460 A1) discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights