DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
After reviewing the claimed language filed on 08/22/2025 and 01/30/2026, the Remarks filed on 08/22/2025 and 01/30/2026, the examiner considered the amended Specification filed on 08/22/2025 was incorrected. Based on the claimed language and the Remarks, the examiner considered Fig. 2 teaches the operation under the understeering condition, and Fig. 3 teaches the operation under the oversteering condition.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 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. The claim(s) 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.
Regarding to Claim 1, the Applicant claimed “A brake apparatus: comprising:
…
control a driving apparatus to reduce a driving force provided a drive wheel and control the brake to increase the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel in response to identifying the understeering; and…”
After reviewing the claimed language and Specification, the examiner considered the closest paragraphs to reflect the limitations are PG-Pub US2023/0415813 A1, Paragraphs 64, 79. However, based on both paragraphs, during the understeering condition, the operation process would be increasing the one-sided braking force previously provided to the inner wheels first, and then controlling the driving apparatus to reduce the driving force previously provided to the main drive wheels (Paragraphs 64, 79). Therefore, there is an order to control the system. In the contrast, the examiner considered in Claim 1, the claimed language teaches under the understeering condition, “increasing the one-sided braking force previously provided to the inner wheels” and “controlling the driving apparatus to reduce the driving force previously provided to the main drive wheels” would happen in the same time, which is not supported in the description. Therefore, Claim 1 rejected.
Claim 11 is rejected based on at least the same reasons of Claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected because the claims ultimately depend from rejected independent claims.
For examining purpose, the examiner would exam the claims based on the description and considered there is an order in the operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (US2011/0288697 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, based on the examiner’s best understanding, Yu teaches a brake apparatus comprising:
a brake (Paragraph 23, it would be known there is at least one brake in the vehicle); and
a processor configured to control the brake (Paragraph 23),
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a steering command including a steering direction from a steering apparatus of a vehicle (Fig. 3, Steps 100, 102-106, 108-112, 116, Paragraphs 29-31);
control the brake to provide a one-sided braking force to an inner wheel in the steering direction based on the receiving of the steering command (Fig. 3, Steps 100, 102-106, 108-112, 116, Paragraphs 29-31, the paragraphs teach a braking force would apply to inner wheel under certain circumstances, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
identify, based on an output of a motion sensor of the vehicle, whether oversteering occurs in the vehicle and whether understeering occurs in the vehicle (Fig. 3, Steps 100-106, Paragraphs 29-31);
control a driving apparatus to reduce a driving force provided a drive wheel and control the brake to increase the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel in response to identifying the understeering (Fig. 3, Steps 104, 106-108-112-114, Paragraphs 29-31, based on the teachings and the description of the claimed invention, the examiner at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
control the brake to provide the one-sided braking force to an outer wheel in the steering direction in response to the identifying of the oversteering (Fig. 3, Steps 104, 106-110, Paragraphs 29-31, the paragraph teach a braking force would apply to outer wheel under certain circumstances, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 2, Yu teaches the brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to receive the steering command when an error occurs in the steering apparatus (Yu, Fig. 3, Steps 106-108 or Steps 106-110, since the claimed language fails to teach, explain or indicate the definition of “error”, the examiner considered Fig. 3, Paragraphs 29-31, or Paragraph 32 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 3, Yu teaches the brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a yaw rate desired by a driver of the vehicle based on the steering command (Yu, Fig. 3, Step 104, Paragraphs 29-31); and
identify the oversteering or understeering based on a yaw rate difference between a yaw rate of the vehicle and the yaw rate desired by the driver (Yu, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108, Steps 104-110, Paragraphs 29-31, especially Paragraph 29 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 4, Yu teaches the brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify the oversteering based on the yaw rate difference that is greater than a preset first target yaw rate (Yu, Paragraph 5, Fig. 3, Steps 104-110); and
identify the understeering based on the yaw rate difference that is smaller than a preset second target yaw rate (Yu, Paragraph 5, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108).
Regarding to Claim 5, Yu teaches the brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to change the preset first target yaw rate based on the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel (It would be known the target yaw rate would be different based on the turning (Park (US2022/0041068 A1), Paragraph 78), and when applying the teachings to Yu, Fig. 3, when Steps 108 to 116 and back to Steps 102 to 110, at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 6, Yu teaches the brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to increase the preset first target yaw rate based on an increase in the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel (It would be known the target yaw rate would be increased when the turning is increased and the braking force is increased (Park (US2022/0041068 A1), Paragraph 78), and when applying the teachings to Yu, Fig. 3, when Steps 108 to 116 and back to Steps 102 to 110, at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 7, Yu teaches the brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to change the yaw rate desired by the driver of the vehicle based on the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel (It would be known the target yaw rate would be different based on the turning (Park (US2022/0041068 A1), Paragraph 78), and when applying the teachings to Yu, Fig. 3, when Steps 108 to 116 and back to Steps 102 to 110, at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regrading to Claim 8, Yu teaches the brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to change the yaw rate desired by the driver so that the yaw rate difference is reduced (Yu, Paragraphs 29-31, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108 or Steps 104-110).
Regarding to Claim 9, Yu teaches the brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to reduce the yaw rate difference based on an increase in the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel (It would be known the target yaw rate would be increased when the turning is increased and the braking force is increased (Park (US2022/0041068 A1), Paragraph 78), and when applying the teachings to Yu, Fig. 3, when Steps 108 to 116 and back to Steps 102 to 110, at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 10, Yu teaches the brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a yaw moment of the vehicle based on the yaw rate desired by the driver and the yaw rate of the vehicle (Yu, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108, Paragraphs 29-31); and
determine the one-sided braking force provided to the inner wheel based on the yaw moment (Yu, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108, Paragraphs 29-31 would reflect the limitations at least under certain circumstance).
Regarding to Claim 11, Yu teaches a brake controlling method comprising:
receiving a steering command including a steering direction from a steering apparatus of a vehicle (Fig. 3, Steps 100, 102-106, 108-112, 116, Paragraphs 29-31);
controlling a brake to provide a one-sided braking force to an inner wheel in the steering direction based on the receiving of the steering command (Fig. 3, Steps 100, 102-106, 108-112, 116, Paragraphs 29-31, the paragraphs teach a braking force would apply to inner wheel under certain circumstances, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
identifying, based on an output of a motion sensor of the vehicle, whether oversteering occurs in the vehicle and whether understeering occurs in the vehicle (Fig. 3, Steps 100-104);
controlling a driving apparatus to reduce a driving force provided a drive wheel and controlling the brake to increase the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel in response to identifying the understeering (Fig. 3, Steps 104, 106-108-112-114, Paragraphs 29-31, based on the teachings and the description of the claimed invention, the examiner at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
controlling the brake to provide the one-sided braking force to an outer wheel in the steering direction in response to the identifying of the oversteering (Fig. 3, Steps 104, 106-110, Paragraphs 29-31, the paragraph teach a braking force would apply to outer wheel under certain circumstances, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 12, Yu teaches the brake control method, comprising receiving the steering command when an error occurs in the steering apparatus (Yu, Fig. 3, Steps 106-108 or Steps 106-110, since the claimed language fails to teach, explain or indicate the definition of “error”, the examiner considered Fig. 3, Paragraphs 29-31, or Paragraph 32 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 13, Yu teaches the brake control method, comprising:
determining a yaw rate desired by a driver of the vehicle based on the steering command (Yu, Fig. 3, Step 104, Paragraphs 29-31); and
identifying the oversteering or understeering based on a yaw rate difference between a yaw rate of the vehicle and the yaw rate desired by the driver (Yu, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108, Steps 104-110, Paragraphs 29-31, especially Paragraph 29 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 14, Yu teaches the brake control method, comprising:
identifying the oversteering based on the yaw rate difference that is greater than a preset first target yaw rate (Yu, Paragraph 5, Fig. 3, Steps 104-110); and
identifying the understeering based on the yaw rate difference that is smaller than a preset second target yaw rate (Yu, Paragraph 5, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108).
Regarding to Claim 15, Yu teaches the brake control method, comprising changing the preset first target yaw rate based on the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel (It would be known the target yaw rate would be different based on the turning (Park (US2022/0041068 A1), Paragraph 78), and when applying the teachings to Yu, Fig. 3, when Steps 108 to 116 and back to Steps 102 to 110, at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 16, Yu teaches the brake control method, comprising increasing the preset first target yaw rate based on an increase in the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel (It would be known the target yaw rate would be increased when the turning is increased and the braking force is increased (Park (US2022/0041068 A1), Paragraph 78), and when applying the teachings to Yu, Fig. 3, when Steps 108 to 116 and back to Steps 102 to 110, at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 17, Yu teaches the brake control method, comprising changing the yaw rate desired by the driver of the vehicle based on the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel (It would be known the target yaw rate would be different based on the turning (Park (US2022/0041068 A1), Paragraph 78), and when applying the teachings to Yu, Fig. 3, when Steps 108 to 116 and back to Steps 102 to 110, at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 18, Yu teaches the brake control method, comprising changing the yaw rate desired by the driver so that the yaw rate difference is reduced (Yu, Paragraphs 29-31, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108 or Steps 104-110).
Regarding to Claim 19, Yu teaches the brake control method, comprising reducing the yaw rate difference based on an increase in the one-sided braking force of the inner wheel (It would be known the target yaw rate would be increased when the turning is increased and the braking force is increased (Park (US2022/0041068 A1), Paragraph 78), and when applying the teachings to Yu, Fig. 3, when Steps 108 to 116 and back to Steps 102 to 110, at least under certain circumstance, the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 20, Yu teaches the brake control method, comprising:
determining a yaw moment of the vehicle based on the yaw rate desired by the driver and the yaw rate of the vehicle (Yu, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108, Paragraphs 29-31); and
determining the one-sided braking force provided to the inner wheel based on the yaw moment (Yu, Fig. 3, Steps 104-108, Paragraphs 29-31 would reflect the limitations at least under certain circumstance).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights