DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US2011/0288697 A1) in view of Hagiwara (US2022/0227354 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, 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); and
control the brake to provide the one-sided braking force to an outer wheel in the steering direction based on 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).
Yu fails to explicitly disclose, but Hagiwara teaches a brake apparatus comprising:
control a driving apparatus to reduce a driving force provided to a drive wheel in response to identifying the understeering [Yu teaches a control method when identifying the understeering, but silent the control method of the claimed invention. Hagiwara teaches a control method to reduce a driving force to at least one drive wheel (Hagiwara, Paragraph 96, since the claimed invention fails to teach, explain or indicate which wheel in the claimed language, the examiner considered the teachings of Paragraph 96 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to turn a vehicle to a targeted turning line at an early stage when the vehicle deviates from the targeted turning line (Hagiwara, Paragraph 5). Therefore, when applying the teachings of Hagiwara to Yu, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and add a control method to control the vehicle driving force in a specific way during the understeering to turn a vehicle to a targeted turning line at an early stage when the vehicle deviates from the targeted turning line (Hagiwara, Paragraph 5).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the claimed invention to have modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Hagiwara to add a control method to control the vehicle driving force in a specific way during the understeering in order to turn a vehicle to a targeted turning line at an early stage when the vehicle deviates from the targeted turning line (Hagiwara, Paragraph 5).
Regarding to Claim 2, Yu in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified brake apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to increase the 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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); and
controlling the brake to provide the one-sided braking force to an outer wheel in the steering direction based on 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).
Yu fails to explicitly disclose, but Hagiwara teaches a brake controlling method comprising:
controlling a driving apparatus to reduce a driving force provided to a drive wheel in response to identifying the understeering [Yu teaches a control method when identifying the understeering, but silent the control method of the claimed invention. Hagiwara teaches a control method to reduce a driving force to at least one drive wheel (Hagiwara, Paragraph 96, since the claimed invention fails to teach, explain or indicate which wheel in the claimed language, the examiner considered the teachings of Paragraph 96 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to turn a vehicle to a targeted turning line at an early stage when the vehicle deviates from the targeted turning line (Hagiwara, Paragraph 5). Therefore, when applying the teachings of Hagiwara to Yu, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and add a control method to control the vehicle driving force in a specific way during the understeering to turn a vehicle to a targeted turning line at an early stage when the vehicle deviates from the targeted turning line (Hagiwara, Paragraph 5).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the claimed invention to have modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Hagiwara to add a control method to control the vehicle driving force in a specific way during the understeering in order to turn a vehicle to a targeted turning line at an early stage when the vehicle deviates from the targeted turning line (Hagiwara, Paragraph 5).
Regarding to Claim 12, Yu in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified brake control method, comprising increasing the 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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 in view of Hagiwara teaches the modified 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
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 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