DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s arguments filed on November 24th 2025. Claims 1, 4-6, 8,9, 13, 15-16 and 20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 13, 15-16 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-9, 13, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugai (US 2017/0166203) in view of Brown et al. (US 6,338,012) in view of Otten (US 2024/0017717) and in further view of Yu et al. (US 2011/0307129)
Regarding Claim 1, Sugai teaches a method for providing roll stability of a vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting a vehicle state of the vehicle based on received sensor data (Para. [0020]… obtain information indicating the vehicle behavior from the detection device 30, and to determine whether or not the vehicle 100 is in an unstable state or in a less stable state before the unstable state is reached, on the basis of the obtained information indicating the vehicle behavior.…);
activating a roll stability mode to reduce the counter-clockwise yaw moment of the vehicle based on the vehicle state (Para. [0035]… When the vehicle is in the oversteer state, the braking/driving force control module 21 applies a driving force to the inner front wheel 1 and a braking force to the outer front wheel 1, the driving force and the braking force having the same absolute value, so that the motors 3 provide a target yaw moment.…) ;
Sugai fails to teach detecting a roll rate of the vehicle based on roll sensor data; activating the roll stability mode to reduce the counter-clockwise yaw moment of the vehicle based on (i) the roll rate exceeding a threshold value, and (ii) a ride height of the vehicle being above a threshold height: and in response to activating the roll stability mode to reduce the counter-clockwise yaw moment of the vehicle: increasing motor torque to a left rear wheel of the vehicle and reducing motor torque to a right rear wheel of the vehicle.
However, Brown teaches detecting a roll rate of the vehicle based on roll sensor data (Col. 3 lines 12-24… roll stability control system 24 has a controller 26 used for receiving information from a yaw rate sensor 28, a speed sensor 30, a lateral acceleration sensor 32, a roll rate sensor 34); activating the roll stability mode to reduce the counter-clockwise yaw moment of the vehicle based on the roll rate exceeding a threshold value (Col. 3 lines 3-11… roll stability control system 24 is included within vehicle 10, which is in a roll condition.…however, roll stability controller 24 reduces the tire moment 16 to provide a net moment 18 in a counter-clockwise direction. Thus, the tire vector or lateral force 22 at tire 12 is reduced as well.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic stability control system as taught by Sugai with the roll over stability control as taught by Brown to provide a roll stability system that detects a potential rollover condition as well as to provide a system not dependent upon a yaw condition (Brown, Col. 1 lines 54-56)
Further, Otten teaches activating the roll stability mode to reduce the counter-clockwise yaw moment of the vehicle based on (ii) a ride height of the vehicle being above a threshold height. (Otten, Para. [0035]…ride height information 255 may be used to enter the lookup table 330, or otherwise be used as the basis by which the controller 230 determines whether to generate the torque application signal 245 (and for what wheels 212). However, in some examples, the ride height information 255 may include, or be used to calculate or determine, certain other information that may be used as a basis for activity by the controller 230. For example, the ride height information 255 may include an indication of absolute position of a corresponding one of the individual wheels 212 relative to a range of travel of the wheel 212…. the ride height information 255 may indicate to the controller 230 exactly where each wheel is currently and instantaneously located within its own range of motion and possible locations. The controller 230 may then be configured to generate the torque application signal 245 at strategic times (or locations) within either a compression cycle, a rebound cycle, or based on proximity to the motion transition point 440 or to either of the max compression 420 and max rebound 430 locations. This gives the controller 230 a unique ability to understand where each wheel is in relation to the ground and each other to apply braking forces to manage avoidance of pitch resonance and otherwise maximize pitch stability.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic stability control system as taught by Sugai in view of Brown with the suspension system as taught by Otten to improve pitch stability and acceleration capability for driving in environments with repetitive undulations (Otten, Para. [0001]).
Further, Yu teaches in response to activating the roll stability mode to reduce the counter-clockwise yaw moment of the vehicle: increasing motor torque to a left rear wheel of the vehicle and reducing motor torque to a right rear wheel of the vehicle (Yu, Fig 3B, Para. [0027]… In FIG. 3B illustrates a case in which oversteer is overcome by applying a yaw moment…a positive force on wheel 3 and a negative force on wheel 4 applies a moment on vehicle 10.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic stability control system as taught by Sugai in view of Brown and Otten with the vehicle stability control as taught by Yu to retain a high level of vehicle stability more effectively and integrate a wider range of vehicle handling scenarios with minimum undesired driving interventions (Yu, Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugai in view of Brown, Otten and Yu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the motor torque to the left rear wheel is increased a first amount and the motor torque to the right rear wheel is reduced in a second amount equal to the first amount (Sugai, Para. [0030]… when the stability determination module 20 determines that the vehicle is in the understeer state, the braking/driving force control module 21 determines temporary command values having the same absolute value for a braking force to the inner rear wheel 2 and a driving force to the outer rear wheel 2...)
Regarding Claim 5, Sugai in view of Brown, Otten and Yu teach the method of claim 1, wherein increasing the motor torque to the left rear comprises increasing a forward torque to the left rear wheel (Yu, Para. [0027]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic stability control system as taught by Sugai in view of Brown and Otten with the vehicle stability control as taught by Yu to retain a high level of vehicle stability more effectively and integrate a wider range of vehicle handling scenarios with minimum undesired driving interventions (Yu, Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 6, Sugai in view of Brown, Otten and Yu teach the method of claim 1, wherein reducing the motor torque to the right rear wheel comprises providing a reverse torque to the right rear wheel (Yu, Para. [0027])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic stability control system as taught by Sugai in view of Brown and Otten with the vehicle stability control as taught by Yu to retain a high level of vehicle stability more effectively and integrate a wider range of vehicle handling scenarios with minimum undesired driving interventions (Yu, Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 8, Sugai in view of Brown, Otten and Yu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the motor torque to the left rear wheel is increased in a first amount and the motor torque to the right rear wheel is reduced in a second amount (Sugai, Para. [0037]), and wherein the first amount and the second amount are determined based on one or more selected from the following: lateral acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, steering wheel input, vehicle speed, yaw, roll, pitch, ride height, and drive mode (Sugai, Para. [0033]… The braking/driving force control module 21 may determine magnitudes of the braking force and the driving force to be applied, in accordance with the yaw rate deviation.)
Regarding Claims 9, 13, 15-16 and 20 please refer to the rejection of claims 1, 4-6 and 8 which are commensurate in scope. Claims 1,4-6 and 8 being drawn to a method for providing roll stability of a vehicle, Claims 9,13,15 being drawn to the corresponding computer storage media and Claims 16 and 20 being drawn to the corresponding vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI M JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JODI JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666