DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered.
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 Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/18/2026 have been fully considered.
In the Arguments/Remarks:
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of claims amendments, applicant’s remark and upon further review of drawing, Fig. 3A-3C, and Par. [0068] of the specification filed on 05/19/2023.
Re: Claim interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
With regards to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the Applicant stated in page 8 of the Applicant’s Remarks that the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of claims 1, 2, 12 and 13 under 112(f) as the recited systems are structural systems. The Examiner respectfully disagree. The active suspension system is a generic placeholder and claim itself doesn’t specified any specific structure and the specification filed on 05/19/2023 defines this system in many different structural form. Therefore, the term “active suspension system” invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f). Additionally, See 3-Prong analysis for identifying § 112(f) claim limitations:
(A) The claim limitation uses the term “means” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function.
(B) The term “means” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that.”
(C) The term “means” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
According to MPEP, section 2181(I)(A) states a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "mechanism for", "module for", "device for", "unit for", "component for" "element for", "member for", "apparatus for", "machine for", or "system for". Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This list is not exhaustive, and other generic placeholders may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6. However, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 will not apply to the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function (e.g., "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks"). The claimed term “rear suspension system”, “braking system”, “rear steering system” are not the term that covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function, similar to "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks”, “printer” “display”. Therefore, “the claimed term are non-structural generic placeholders and invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 based on the above 3-Prong analysis for identifying § 112(f) claim limitations. Therefore, the examiner maintain the same claim interpretation. In order to overcome the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), the applicant may rewrites the claimed elements “active suspension system”, “rear braking system”, “braking system”, and “rear steering system”, as “active suspension
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/18/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive or moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as used in the current rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “active suspension system” in claims 1 and 12; “braking system” in claims 2 and 13; “rear steering system” in claims 1 and 12; have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US2017/0137023, this reference is from IDS filed on 09/06/2023) (hereinafter Anderson) in view of Post et al. (US 2008/0183353 A1) (hereinafter Post).
Claim 1. Anderson et al. (US2017/0137023, this reference is from IDS filed on 09/06/2023) (hereinafter Anderson) teaches a vehicle (See Fig. 7A) comprising:
a first wheel (See Para. [0069], [0075], discloses “first wheel”);
a second wheel (See Para. [0074]-[0075], discloses “second wheel”);
a rear steering system configured to apply a steering force to one or more rear wheels of the vehicle (See Para. [0069], “The active suspension system may be used to apply a force impulse to one or more wheels”, and see Fig. 5B, Para. [0147], “The active safety suspension system can preferentially apply more force to the slipping wheel 506 and the diagonally opposed wheel 506a using the active safety suspension system's twist force vectoring response to create a twist or a warp on the vehicle chassis.”);
an active suspension system operatively coupled to the first wheel and the second wheel, wherein the active suspension system is configured to apply active forces to the first wheel and the second wheel in at least one mode of operation (See Para. [0075], [0148], discloses “an active suspension system of a vehicle with at least four wheels, a method is used to alternately increase the wheel force of pairs of wheels located on opposite corners of the vehicle to improve wheel traction”) to adjust a normal component of a first wheel contact force between the first wheel and a road surface and to adjust a normal component of a second wheel contact force between the second wheel and the road surface (See Para. [0075], “The method comprises increasing the wheel force at a first wheel and a second wheel, located at an opposing corner from the first wheel, from a first value to a second higher value, and using an active suspension system to then reduce the wheel force, of the first wheel and a second wheel, back to the first value.”, and see Para. [0009], “a suspension system may also simultaneously improve road traction by controlling wheel force, the force applied by the wheel on the road, or its normal component the wheel-to-road contact force (that determines traction) at one or more corners of the vehicle by using, for example, suspension system actuators.”); and
at least one processor configured to control the rear steering system and the active suspension system (See Para. [0063], “a method is used to improve vehicle safety by exchanging information with at least one active suspension system and one DAS sub-system and a vehicle microprocessor”, and see Para. [0017], “The method of improving stability and/or performance of a vehicle using an active suspension system may further include bi-directional or one-directional communication between an active suspension system and one or more other automatic Driver Assist and Safety (DAS) sub-systems, such as, for example, without limitation: an Anti-lock Braking System, an active steering system and a rear steering system”), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine a yaw moment of the vehicle (See Para. [0040], “measure one or more vehicle body parameters such as, for example, steering wheel position, vehicle speed, vehicle acceleration, yaw and yaw rate”); and
Nevertheless, Anderson doesn’t explicitly spell out, collaboratively controlling the active suspension system and the rear steering system to reduce the yaw moment.
However, Post et al. (US 2008/0183353 A1) teaches, collaboratively controlling the active suspension system and the rear steering system to reduce the yaw moment (See at least Para. [0075]-[0076], “reduce the yaw moment leading to an unstable motion to improve VSA yaw rate control smoothness and driver perception, especially during vehicle acceleration on low-mu road surfaces”, and/or see Para. [0083], [0087], [0113], disclose “COOPERATIVE STABILITY CONTROL and yaw moment control through an active suspension control system. When the AYC ECU 60 becomes activated, ADS ECU 54 determines that the AYC has judged that the vehicle requires corrective yaw moment to compensate either oversteer or understeer, and adjusts the front/rear damping force distribution to generate the corrective yaw moment demanded by AYC ECU 60 so as to minimize VSA-braking activation”, same as claimed. Additionally, see Para. [0012], [0020], “a cooperative Active Yaw Control (AYC) system, a method includes the steps of 1) providing a vehicle stability assist system that determines when the actual vehicle yaw rate deviates from a target yaw rate, wherein the assist system includes an Vehicle Stability Assist-Active Yaw Control (VSA-AYC) ECU, 2) providing a system for delivering/distributing torque, including utilizing a Direct Yaw Control (DYC) Drive Torque Control ECU, to both of the front wheels and both of the rear wheels of the vehicle and shifting torque between the front and rear wheels. Torque is shifted from rear wheels to front wheels either by placing an upper limit on the amount of torque applied at each rear wheel or by reducing the amount of torque applied at each rear wheel by an equivalent amount.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Anderson with an active suspension system to control yaw moment as taught by Post in order to improve VSA control smoothness and driver perception.
Claim 2. The teaching of Anderson as modified by the teaching of Post teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a braking system configured to apply a braking force to the first wheel and the second wheel (See Anderson, Para. [0016], “applying the substantially vertical force on the wheel further includes a function of brake application state”, and/or see Para. [0019], “The active suspension system of one or more wheels may then react by increasing the wheel force at the wheels where the ESC system will apply braking”), wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the rear steering system, active suspension system, and braking system based at least partially on the yaw moment (See Anderson, Para. [0017], “The method may also include receiving a command or information from an electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle. The method may further include controlling an active suspension actuator at least partially in response to the received command. The received command may include information about one or more vehicle sub-systems and/or commands given or being given to one or more other such sub-systems by the ECU.” Additionally, see Post, Para. [0012], [0120], “ECU 58 to adjust vehicle Front/Rear drive torque distribution in response to wheel slip conditions of each axle, as detected by TCS 62, for the purpose of minimizing TCS throttle and brake activity and enhancing vehicle drivability and smoothness, especially during low-mu launch acceleration and off-road starting operations”)
Claim 3. The teaching of Anderson as modified by the teaching of Post teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the yaw moment during a braking event (See Anderson, Para. [0040], “measure one or more vehicle body parameters such as, for example, steering wheel position, vehicle speed, vehicle acceleration, yaw and yaw rate”, and See Post, Para. [0020], “the braking applications for vehicle yaw rate correction”).
Claim 4. The teaching of Anderson as modified by the teaching of Post teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine a location of the vehicle, obtain reference road information corresponding to the location of the vehicle (See Anderson, Para. [0174], discloses GPS and/or IMU with Kalman filter to estimate position) , and control the rear steering system and the active suspension system based at least partially on the reference road information (See Anderson, Para. [0174], “a map correlating GPS location with road conditions”, and see Para. [0032], “The method may also include taking a dynamic model representing in-plane and out-of-plane dynamics of the vehicle. The method may further include taking road-related inputs including estimated road coefficient of friction, overall road conditions, and suspension roll angle.” Furthermore, see Anderson, para. [0017], discloses “estimating and/or measuring at least one state parameter, wherein the state parameter may be, for example, relative vehicle position and vehicle posture”).
Claim 5. The teaching of Anderson as modified by the teaching of Post teaches the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the reference road information includes a road feature (See Anderson, Para. [0032], “The method may further include taking road-related inputs including estimated road coefficient of friction, overall road conditions”), or a change in friction of the road surface relative to a nominal road friction (As this limitation is followed by “or” limitation, the examiner considered only other limitation for claim mapping”).
Claim 7. The teaching of Anderson as modified by the teaching of Post teaches the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the reference road information includes a curve on the road surface (See Anderson, Para. [0119], [0149], discloses “vehicle travelling/navigating a curve path”).
Claim 8. The teaching of Anderson as modified by the teaching of Post teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first wheel is a front wheel of the vehicle, wherein the one or more rear wheels include the second wheel, and wherein the first wheel and the second wheel are positioned at opposite corners of the vehicle (See Anderson, Para. [0075], [0147], discloses “wheels at opposite corners of the vehicle”).
Claim 9. The teaching of Anderson as modified by the teaching of post teaches the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the active suspension system to increase the normal component of the first wheel contact force and the normal component of the second wheel contact force based on the yaw moment (See Anderson, Para. [0075], “The method comprises increasing the wheel force at a first wheel and a second wheel, located at an opposing corner from the first wheel, from a first value to a second higher value, and using an active suspension system to then reduce the wheel force, of the first wheel and a second wheel, back to the first value. The method further comprising using the active suspension system to increase the wheel force, of the third wheel and a fourth, which is located at an opposing corner from the third wheel, from the first value to the second value while the wheel force at the first wheel and the second wheel are being reduced from the second value to the first value”. Additionally, see Anderson, Para. [0009], “a suspension system may also simultaneously improve road traction by controlling wheel force, the force applied by the wheel on the road, or its normal component the wheel-to-road contact force (that determines traction) at one or more corners of the vehicle by using, for example, suspension system actuators”, and Para. [0017], “A state parameter of the vehicle body may be, for example, without limitation, absolute and or relative vehicle position, speed, direction (forward and/or lateral components) yaw, yaw rate, ride height, and vehicle posture.”).
Claims 12-20 are method claims corresponding to vehicle claims 1-9 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rationales set forth as above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US2017/0137023, this reference is from IDS filed on 09/06/2023) (hereinafter Anderson) in view of Post et al. (US 2008/0183353 A1) (hereinafter Post) and further in view of Chetty et al. (WO2020150522, US Publication, US 2022/0105769 is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Chetty).
Claim 11. The teaching of Anderson as modified by the teaching of Post teaches the vehicle of claim 1, however, they fails to discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine if the yaw moment exceeds a yaw moment threshold, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the active suspension system and the rear steering system based at least partially on the yaw moment upon determining the yaw moment exceeds the yaw moment threshold”.
However, Chetty teaches, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine if the yaw moment exceeds a yaw moment threshold, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the active suspension system and the rear steering system based at least partially on the yaw moment upon determining the yaw moment exceeds the yaw moment threshold” (See Para. [0022], “the method includes determining the rate of change of the steering wheel angle and the vehicle yaw rate and based on the values of one or both of these quantities, adjusting a value of a control parameter of a controller of the vehicle (e.g. a controller of the active or semi-active suspension system)”, and see claim 23, “determining that the difference between the measured yaw rate and the desired yaw rate is greater than a threshold value, and based on the difference, adjusting at least one quantity selected from the group consisting of: ratio of roll damping at the vehicle front to roll damping at the vehicle rear, and ratio of roll stiffness at the front of the vehicle relative to roll stiffness at the rear of the vehicle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Anderson in view of the teaching of Post, and additionally, with a processor that determine yaw moment exceed threshold and adjust suspension system according as taught by Chetty to incorporate the claimed feature of claim 11 in order to produce an effective roll stiffness and/or an effective roll damping at the front ( or rear) of the vehicle.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US2017/0137023, this reference is from IDS filed on 09/06/2023) (hereinafter Anderson) in view of Post et al. (US 2008/0183353 A1) (hereinafter Post) and further in view of Barz et al. (DE10236330 A1) (hereinafter Barz).
Claim 49. The teaching of Anderson as modified by the teaching of Post teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but they fail to teach, wherein the rear steering system is controlled to counter a remaining yaw moment.
However, Barz et al. (DE10236330 A1, the attached equivalent English translate document is used for claim mapping) teaches, wherein the rear steering system is controlled to counter a remaining yaw moment (See Para. [0011], [0015], “a vehicle steering system for carrying out the operating method according to the invention, which is characterized by an electronic control unit that initiates the determination of the actuator yaw moment as well as the build-up and reduction of the counter-yaw moment by appropriately controlling suitable actuators”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Anderson in with the teaching of Post and with a control of counter yaw moment as taught by Barz in order to move vehicle in a desired direction by the driver.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Post et al. (US 2008/0183353 A1) (hereinafter Post).
Claim 50. Post teaches a method of controlling a vehicle (See Abstract, “a method of controlling the stability of a vehicle are provided via the cooperative operation of vehicle stability control systems such as an Active Yaw Control system, Antilock Braking System, and Traction Control System”), wherein the method comprises:
operating an active suspension system and a rear steering system of the vehicle to cooperatively reduce a yaw moment on the vehicle See at least Para. [0075]-[0076], “reduce the yaw moment leading to an unstable motion to improve VSA yaw rate control smoothness and driver perception, especially during vehicle acceleration on low-mu road surfaces”, and/or see Para. [0083], [0087], [0113], disclose “COOPERATIVE STABILITY CONTROL and yaw moment control through an active suspension control system. When the AYC ECU 60 becomes activated, ADS ECU 54 determines that the AYC has judged that the vehicle requires corrective yaw moment to compensate either oversteer or understeer, and adjusts the front/rear damping force distribution to generate the corrective yaw moment demanded by AYC ECU 60 so as to minimize VSA-braking activation”, same as claimed. Additionally, see Para. [0012], [0020], “a cooperative Active Yaw Control (AYC) system, a method includes the steps of 1) providing a vehicle stability assist system that determines when the actual vehicle yaw rate deviates from a target yaw rate, wherein the assist system includes an Vehicle Stability Assist-Active Yaw Control (VSA-AYC) ECU, 2) providing a system for delivering/distributing torque, including utilizing a Direct Yaw Control (DYC) Drive Torque Control ECU, to both of the front wheels and both of the rear wheels of the vehicle and shifting torque between the front and rear wheels. Torque is shifted from rear wheels to front wheels either by placing an upper limit on the amount of torque applied at each rear wheel or by reducing the amount of torque applied at each rear wheel by an equivalent amount.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657