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 .
Claim Status
Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11/20/2025 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
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, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanke et al. (US 2006/0273657 A1) hereinafter Wanke and Tanaka et al. (US 2002/0087247 A1) hereinafter Tanaka.
Claim 1:
Wanke discloses a yaw rate control method [SESP; ¶4] comprising: carrying out wheel-specific braking interventions for stabilizing a vehicle with a yaw rate control function based on a first reference yaw rate [Figs. 3, 25B] checking at least one activation requirement is met comprises: checking if a longitudinal deceleration is greater than a longitudinal deceleration limit value; by a sensor tolerance [Fig. 3, see <9>; "Decelerated travel in curve"]; checking if a lateral acceleration is greater in terms of absolute value than a lateral acceleration limit value, by a sensor tolerance [Fig. 3, see 54 and <9> "Decelerated travel in curve"]; and checking if a deviation between a second reference yaw rate and a measured yaw rate is greater than a yaw rate deviation limit value by a sensor tolerance [Fig. 25b; ¶¶222-352; SESP yaw rate deviation in ¶¶320-324]; and activating the yaw rate control function with a deactivation function in response to at least one activation requirement is met [SESP active / AYC; Figs. 3 and 25b; ¶¶339-352].
Wanke doesn’t explicitly disclose partially blocking the yaw rate control function with the deactivation function in response no activation requirement is met.
However, Tanaka discloses partially blocking the yaw rate control function with the deactivation function in response no activation requirement is met. [¶¶83-90]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the yaw rate control method of Wanke with second understeer control of Tanaka to reduce awkward feeling of the driver caused by the intervention of the control [¶90].
Claim 2:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke also discloses further comprising calculating the second reference yaw rate using on one of a measured steering angle and a measured lateral acceleration of the vehicle [Figs. 2, 3, and 31; Items 12 and 24].
Claim 6:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke et al. discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses checking for longitudinal deceleration limits [Figs. 3, Items 57, 58, <9>]. However, Wanke et al. does not expressly disclose the longitudinal deceleration limit value is greater than 2.5 m/s.sup.2.
Wanke et al. discloses control thresholds are changed depending on driving situations, and with an almost steady-state shape of the course of the vehicle at a steering angle velocity of lower than, or equal to, 120.degree./s deviations from the desired vehicle course are observed and analyzed. With expected or actually determined deviations in the steady-state range, a reference value representing the desired course of the vehicle is modified when the control thresholds are below the ESP control thresholds[¶33]. Therefore the given thresholds appear to be a result effective variable in that changing the threshold applies to matching different driving scenarios which require different amounts of control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Wanke and Tanaka by making the longitudinal deceleration limit value is greater than 2.5 m/s.sup.2. as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ. 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 8:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke also discloses further comprising determining the longitudinal deceleration with at least one of an acceleration sensor, from the derivative of the vehicle speed and from data from the brake system [¶¶35, 238].
Claim 10:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke also discloses further comprising determining the lateral acceleration from at least one of measured values from an acceleration sensor and from a yaw rate sensor and the vehicle speed [Fig. 3, see 54 and <9> "Decelerated travel in curve"].
Claim 11:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke also discloses wherein checking the at least one activation requirement is met further comprises checking for the presence of an ABS intervention [¶141].
Claim 13:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke also discloses wherein checking the at least one activation requirement is met further comprises checking if a longitudinal acceleration signal is greater than a longitudinal acceleration limit value by a sensor tolerance [Fig. 3; see 57-60].
Claim 15:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke also discloses wherein checking the at least one activation requirement is met further comprises checking if a steering angle is greater in terms of absolute value by a sensor tolerance, than a steering angle limit value that is in particular dependent on the speed [Fig. 3; ¶¶136-138].
Claim 17:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke also discloses wherein a control unit for yaw rate control, is configured to carry out the instructions of the yaw rate control method [¶107].
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanke and Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ISO 26262-3 (see IDS).
Claim 5:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the deactivation function is one of upstream and downstream of the yaw rate control function.
However, Herrmann does disclose wherein the deactivation function is one of upstream and downstream of the yaw rate control function. [Fig. 2; ¶¶25-27, 81-84]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the yaw rate control method of Wanke and Tanaka with the deactivation function configuration of Herrmann to be able to maintain control of the vehicle while different safety systems are utilized and different driving conditions exist.
Claim 7:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the longitudinal deceleration limit value is speed dependent speed and decreases with higher vehicle speeds.
However, Herrmann does disclose wherein the longitudinal deceleration limit value is speed dependent speed and decreases with higher vehicle speeds. [Fig. 2; ¶¶81-84, 97-106; v > k3 km/h; v > k7 km/h with respect to brake pressure]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the yaw rate control method of Wanke and Tanaka with the longitudinal deceleration limit of Herrmann to help determine the start and end of a driving condition in need of activation [¶29].
Claim 14:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein checking the at least one activation requirement is met further comprises checking if a vehicle speed is greater than a vehicle speed limit value, in particular by a sensor tolerance.
However, Herrmann does disclose wherein checking the at least one activation requirement is met further comprises checking if a vehicle speed is greater than a vehicle speed limit value, in particular by a sensor tolerance. [Fig. 2; ¶¶29-35, 81-84]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the yaw rate control method of Wanke and Tanaka with the vehicle speed activation requirement of Herrmann to help determine the start and end of a driving condition in need of activation.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanke and Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ISO 26262-3 (see IDS).
Claim 3:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising selecting the limit values of the activation requirements such that the activation requirements are met for less than 1% of the operating time.
However, ISO 26262-3 does disclose further comprising selecting the limit values of the activation requirements such that the activation requirements are met for less than 1% of the operating time. [Table B.4]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the yaw rate control method of Wanke and Tanaka with the operating requirement of ISO 26262-3 to avoid error-induced destabilization of the vehicle and be in compliance with International Standards.
Claim 16:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the yaw rate control function is not performed in a safety task and the deactivation function is performed in a safety task.
However, ISO 26262-3 does disclose wherein the yaw rate control function is not performed in a safety task and the deactivation function is performed in a safety task. [Section 7.4.2.8]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the yaw rate control method of Wanke and Tanaka with the operating requirement of ISO 26262-3 to avoid error-induced destabilization of the vehicle and be in compliance with International Standards.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanke and Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strauss et al. (DE 102014211061 A1) hereinafter Strauss.
Claim 9:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the lateral acceleration limit value is greater than 2.5 m/s.sup.2.
However, Strauss does disclose wherein the lateral acceleration limit value is greater than 2.5 m/s.sup.2. [¶51; physical limit of lateral acceleration 1g]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the yaw rate control method of Wanke and Tanaka with the lateral acceleration limit of Strauss to help determine the start and end of a driving condition in need of activation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanke and Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herrmann et al. (DE 102006051908 A1) hereinafter Herrmann DE.
Claim 12:
Wanke and Tanaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wanke doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein checking the at least one activation requirement is met further comprises checking if a side slip angle signal is greater in terms of absolute value than a side slip angle limit value by a sensor tolerance.
However, Herrmann DE does disclose wherein checking the at least one activation requirement is met further comprises checking if a side slip angle signal is greater in terms of absolute value than a side slip angle limit value by a sensor tolerance. [Abstract; ¶6]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the yaw rate control method of Wanke and Tanaka with the side slip angle activation requirement of Herrmann to help determine the start and end of a driving condition in need of activation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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 on (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747