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
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 1/6/2026. This action is made FINAL.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are pending for examination.
Regarding the objection(s) to the specification (title), the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the specification filed 1/6/2026 acceptable and withdraws the objection(s) to the specification (title).
Regarding the objection(s) to claims 1 and 7, the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) acceptable and withdraws objection(s) to the amended claim(s).
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), applicant’s arguments are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendment to the claim(s), therefore the rejections are now withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C §103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argued the following points. The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons outlined below each point.
“As amended, claim 1 now expressly recites that the "parameter" is vehicle-body lateral acceleration, with a reference vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated from vehicle speed (from wheel rotation speed) and tire steering angle, and an actual vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated from vehicle motion/posture information including an IMU output.
In contrast, neither Shi, nor Yamakado, nor their combinations teach each feature of amended claim 1. Instead, the combinations fail to teach at least "reference vehicle-body lateral acceleration" or the claimed "vehicle-body lateral acceleration error."”, (Remarks, page 8)
Regarding point a, applicant’s arguments regarding the amended term “vehicle-body lateral acceleration” are moot based on the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments, outlined below. For clarity, however, dependent claims further qualify the amended term in claim 1 as functionally derived from the same measurements taught in Shi and Yamakado to perform the same correction to the driving of the vehicle wheels. For example, claim 1 recites the amended limitation of “vehicle-body lateral acceleration”, which is further defined in claim 2 as “based on a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, and a yaw rate”. Therefore the meaning of the term “lateral acceleration” is broad enough to encompass the disclosures of Shi and Yamakado when clarified in claim 2, for example.
“First, the "slip ratio" of Shi is not a vehicle-body lateral acceleration. The wheel slip ratio is a wheel/road interaction measure, typically defined in terms of wheel rotational speed relative to vehicle speed and road traction conditions. In contrast, the amended claim requires a vehicle-body lateral acceleration (Ay), i.e., the side acceleration of the vehicle body/CG, and its error relative to a steering/speed-based reference.
Second, Shi's "target slip ratio" is not a "reference vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated from vehicle speed (from wheel speed) and steering angle." Even if, in arguendo, Shi uses wheel speed and steering angle as inputs for traction control logic, the Office Action relies on Shi to teach a target slip ratio, and not a model-based reference vehicle-body lateral acceleration. Applicant's claimed "reference vehicle-body lateral acceleration" is a fundamentally different quantity with different physical meaning and different computation (speed/steering - expected lateral acceleration).
Third, Shi's "actual wheel slip ratio" is not an "actual vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated based on motion/posture information including IMU output." Specifically, Shi's actual slip ratio is derived from wheel/vehicle speed relationships and is not an IMU-based lateral acceleration quantity. In contrast, amended claim 1 expressly requires that actual lateral acceleration is calculated from motion/posture information including IMU output.”, (Remarks, page 9)
Regarding point b, first, the wheel slip ratio is a relationship between an actual vehicle lateral acceleration and a calculated vehicle lateral acceleration, wherein the difference is accounted for by the slip of the wheel, thus using different terms to describe the same phenomenon. Second, merely claiming a term is different because the exact language is not used is not persuasive. The claimed invention does not specify a unit of measure that would differentiate between a term representing lateral acceleration error and wheel slip; i.e. the same physical error is described using different terms but results in the same correction. Third, Shi does teach the use of an inertial measurement unit (Shi, ¶[0031]), though is silent on the exact measurements, therefore an additional prior art is used to teach the amended limitations of the IMU in subsequent claims, as well as the specific language recited in claim 1.
“Further, the addition of Yamakado does not cure this deficiency as the rejection relies on impermissible substitution of Shi's slip-ratio control objective with Applicant's lateral-acceleration tracking objective.”, (Remarks, page 10)
Regarding point c, Yamakado teaches using the underlying components to determine the same error, though is silent on the specific use of an IMU. Therefore, with regards to the amended limitations, applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amended terminology.
“Moreover, the Office Action's rationale, general improvements to operability, stability, and ride comfort, does not explain how or why a person of ordinary skill would replace Shi's slip-ratio error framework with the claimed lateral-acceleration error framework. Without a clear teaching or suggestion to implement Applicant's specific reference/actual lateral-acceleration computation within Shi, the articulated motivation is insufficient to support the particular combination required by amended claim 1.”, (Remarks, page 11)
Regarding point d, clear motivations to combine the prior art was given in the previous office action and is outlined below. Applicant’s claim that there was no motivation to combine the prior art without pointing out any specific errors in the provided motivations amounts to unsubstantiated allegations. Therefore it is unpersuasive.
“Finally, amended claim 1 recites a "component attributable to torque difference," which neither taught by Shi, nor is it properly mapped by the combination as applied. The Office Action previously treated Shi as teaching "movement error caused by a torque difference in the motors." With the amendment, the claimed "component ... attributable to a torque difference" is a component of the vehicle-body lateral acceleration error, not a generic "movement error" and not a slip error. Shi does not disclose extracting or estimating a torque-difference-attributable component from a lateral-acceleration error. Since Shi does not disclose the underlying lateral- acceleration error in the first place, the combination still lacks the required signal- processing step performed on that signal. Therefore, neither Shi, nor Yamakado, nor their combinations teach each feature of amended claim 1.”, (Remarks, page 11)
Regarding point e, Shi and Yamakado teach detecting a difference between an actual vehicle movement and a calculated vehicle movement by correcting a torque provided to the wheels of the vehicle. (Shi, FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0092]-¶[0094]; ¶[0096]; ¶[0098]-¶[0100]; ¶[0102]; ¶[0024]; ¶[0031]-¶[0033]; ¶[0036]-¶[0040]; ¶[0055]; Where the traction control system 102 determines a compensation torque value indicating an error in movement caused by a torque difference in the motors (calculates a wheel torque correction amount based on the […]component caused by the torque difference of the motors)), (Yamakado, FIG. 10; FIG. 14; FIG. 15; FIG. 16; FIG. 17; FIG. 27; ¶[0027]; ¶[0097]; ¶[0298]-¶[0299]; Abstract; ¶[0225];Where the motion control system for a vehicle, implemented by a controller, determines a movement error in the vehicle’s motion based on a change in the vehicle’s lateral and/or longitudinal acceleration (extracts a component of the vehicle-body… error) caused by a difference in the torque applied between the inner and outer wheels i.e. left or right wheels in a turn from an overall movement error of the vehicle (caused by a torque difference of the plurality of motors from the calculated vehicle-body… error)), and (Yamakado, FIG. 10; FIG. 14; FIG. 15; FIG. 16; FIG. 17; FIG. 27; ¶[0027]; ¶[0097]; ¶[0298]-¶[0299]; Abstract; ¶[0225]-¶[0229]; ¶[0234]-¶[0235]; Where the motion control system for a vehicle, implemented by a controller, determines an amount of braking/driving force, i.e. torque, to add to each wheel (calculates a wheel torque correction amount) based on the movement error in the vehicle’s motion determined by a change in the vehicle’s lateral and/or longitudinal acceleration caused by a difference between the torque applied to the inner/outer wheel motors, i.e. left or right wheel motors (based on the extracted component error caused by the torque difference of the motors)).
Therefore they teach the component is caused by torque error, as the solution disclosed is remedied by correcting the torque to the wheels. Absent any further clarification in the claim language, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is met.
“Claim 1 is therefore allowable over the cited references of record.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are dependent on claim 1, and the Applicant believes these claims are allowable over the cited references record at least due to their dependency.”, (Remarks, page 12)
Regarding point f, for at least the reasons outlined above regarding the rejection of independent claim 1, the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
“Claims 4-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Shi in view of Yamakado and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0265121 to Kim (hereinafter Kim). The Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least for the following reasons.
As previously recited, neither Shi, nor Yamakado, nor their combinations teach each feature of amended claim 1. Further, the addition of Kim does not cure these deficiencies. Instead, Kim is silent regarding the features of amended claim 1. Therefore, neither Shi, nor Yamakado, nor Kim, nor their combinations teach each feature of amended claim 1.
Claim 1 is therefore allowable over the cited references of record.
Claims 4 and 5 are dependent on claim 1, and the Applicant believes these claims are allowable over the cited references record at least due to their dependency.”, (Remarks, page 12)
Regarding point g, for at least the reasons outlined above regarding the rejection of independent claim 1, the rejection of dependent claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
Note on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
For informational purposes only, no action required.
The claims will not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Based on the claim interpretation of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), above, claim 1 positively recites controlling motors based on the produced torque signal. Further, the limitations of claim 1 could be reasonably be done in the human mind. For example, extracting a momentum error caused by a torque difference of the motor from the calculated momentum error could not reasonably be done within the human mind, given the “preponderance of the evidence standard” (i.e., “more likely than not”) by which USPTO examiners must determine the patentability of claims. Therefore claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 recite an invention that provides a practical application.
Note on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
For informational purposes only, no action required.
Claim 1 will not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as a single means claim.
For context, a single means claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Although claim 1 recites a single element “A motion control device” coupled with functional language in the remainder of claim 1, the claim is clearly drafted in the shorthand commonly seen with computer-related inventions that recites a generic placeholder, such as a "system", that performs a series of functions. MPEP § 2181 V states:
It is important to distinguish between claims that recite multiple functional limitations (a common practice particularly in the computer-related arts) and claims that recite a single element in means-plus-function terms (rare in most arts). In computer-implemented inventions, a microprocessor may be programmed with different algorithms, with each algorithm performing a separate function. Each of these separately programmed functions should be interpreted as a separate element.
Applicants frequently draft claims to computer-related inventions using a shorthand drafting technique that recites a generic placeholder, such as a "system", that performs a series of functions. This shorthand drafting technique does not avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph. See MPEP § 2181, subsection II.B. Each function recited in this manner should be interpreted as a separate section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Based on this excerpt and the example of the image processing assembly in MPEP §2181 V, claim 1 is not a single means claim and will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) for each function recited.
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 as follows.
The following limitations recite a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without a structural modifier:
“A motion control device for a left and right independent drive vehicle, that independently drives left and right wheels by:
calculating a wheel torque value from a difference between a reference vehicle state quantity calculated from driver operation information or an operation instruction of a higher driving device and an actual vehicle state quantity calculated from information regarding a motion and a posture of the vehicle;
controlling a plurality of motors based on the wheel torque value, wherein the motion control device:
calculates a vehicle-body lateral acceleration error from a difference between a reference vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated based on a wheel rotation speed… and a tire steering angle and an actual vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated based on the information regarding the motion and the posture of the vehicle including an inertial measurement unit output;
extracts a component of the vehicle-body lateral acceleration error caused by a torque difference of the plurality of motors from the calculated momentum error;
calculates a wheel torque correction amount based on the extracted component caused by the torque difference;
adds the wheel torque correction amount to the wheel torque value; and
outputs a wheel torque command to the plurality of motors” recited in claim(s) 1-7.
“wherein the motion control device comprises a separation unit, and the separation unit separates a disturbance component for the vehicle from a frequency characteristic related to the vehicle-body lateral acceleration error and extracts the vehicle-body lateral acceleration error caused by the torque difference” and “wherein the separation unit separates, from the vehicle-body lateral acceleration error caused by the torque difference, a behavior caused by a constant difference due to an individual difference of the plurality of motors and a behavior caused by a temporary difference due to a temperature, in accordance with the frequency characteristic” recited in claims 4 and 5.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take the motion control device and the separation unit as controllers, based on ¶[0015], ¶[0023], ¶[0028]-¶[0029], ¶[0036], ¶[0042], and FIG. 10 of the specification.
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.
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 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shi et al. (US 20210197778 A1) in view of Yamakado et al. (US 20140145498 A1) and Fiedler et al. (US 20070179735 A1), henceforth known as Shi, Yamakado, and Fielder, respectively.
Shi was first cited in IDS filed 12/27/2023. Yamakado was first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses:
A motion control device for a left and right independent drive vehicle, that independently drives left and right wheels by:
(Shi, FIGs. 1-6; ¶[0015]-¶[0017]; ¶[0021]-¶[0024]; ¶[0091]; ¶[0083]-¶[0087]; ¶[0031]-¶[0037]; ¶[0044];
Where traction control system 102, implemented by a computer onboard a vehicle (A motion control device), independently drives all four vehicle wheels (for a left and right independent drive vehicle, that independently drives left and right wheels))
calculating a wheel torque value from a difference between a reference vehicle state quantity calculated from driver operation information or an operation instruction of a higher driving device and an actual vehicle state quantity calculated from information regarding a motion and a posture of the vehicle;
(Shi, FIGs. 1-6; ¶[0015]-¶[0017]; ¶[0021]-¶[0024]; ¶[0091]; ¶[0083]-¶[0087]; ¶[0031]-¶[0037]; ¶[0044];
Where traction control system 102 drives each wheel according to a compensation torque value (calculating a wheel torque value) based on a difference between a target wheel slip ratio based on a vehicle state (from a difference between a reference vehicle state quantity) where the vehicle state includes an input torque command from a driver operating the accelerating pedal (calculated from driver operation information or an operation instruction of a higher driving device) and vehicle dynamics such as pitch, roll, moment, steering, etc. used to control traction (and an actual vehicle state quantity calculated from information regarding a motion and a posture of the vehicle))
controlling a plurality of motors based on the wheel torque value;
(Shi, FIGs. 1-6; ¶[0015]-¶[0017]; ¶[0021]-¶[0024]; ¶[0091]; ¶[0083]-¶[0087]; ¶[0031]-¶[0037]; ¶[0044];
Where traction control system 102 outputs a compensated torque value to each motor of each wheel (controlling a plurality of motors based on the wheel torque value))
wherein the motion control device:
(Shi, FIG. 1; FIG. 6; ¶[0017])
calculates a vehicle-body [lateral acceleration] error from a difference between a reference vehicle-body [lateral acceleration] calculated based on a wheel rotation speed that represents a speed of the vehicle and a tire steering angle and an actual vehicle-body [lateral acceleration] calculated based on the information regarding the motion and the posture of the vehicle including an inertial measurement unit output;
(Shi, FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0092]-¶[0094]; ¶[0096]; ¶[0098]-¶[0100]; ¶[0102]; ¶[0024]; ¶[0031]-¶[0033]; ¶[0036]-¶[0040]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0023], ¶[0031]: IMU;
Where the traction control system 102 determines a compensation torque value indicating an error in movement (calculates a vehicle-body… error) from a difference between a target or desired wheel slip ratio based on a wheel speed and steering angle (from a difference between a reference vehicle-body… calculated based on a wheel rotation speed that represents a speed of the vehicle and a tire steering angle) and an actual wheel slip ratio which is based on an actual speed of the vehicle determined using the vehicle state based on an inertial measurement unit (and an actual vehicle-body… calculated based on the information regarding the motion and the posture of the vehicle including an inertial measurement output))
[…]
calculates a wheel torque correction amount based on the […] component caused by the torque difference;
(Shi, FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0092]-¶[0094]; ¶[0096]; ¶[0098]-¶[0100]; ¶[0102]; ¶[0024]; ¶[0031]-¶[0033]; ¶[0036]-¶[0040]; ¶[0055];
Where the traction control system 102 determines a compensation torque value indicating an error in movement caused by a torque difference in the motors (calculates a wheel torque correction amount based on the […]component caused by the torque difference of the motors))
adds the wheel torque correction amount to the wheel torque value; and
(Shi, FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0110]-¶[0113];
Where the traction control system 102 adjusts the torque to include the torque compensation values (adds the wheel torque correction amount to the wheel torque value))
outputs a wheel torque command to the plurality of motors.
(Shi, FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0110]-¶[0113];
Where the traction control system 102 transmits the torque compensation command to the motors (outputs a wheel torque command to the plurality of motors)).
Shi is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamakado teaches:
extracts a component of the vehicle-body [lateral acceleration] error caused by a torque difference of the plurality of motors from the calculated vehicle-body [lateral acceleration] error;
(Yamakado, FIG. 10; FIG. 14; FIG. 15; FIG. 16; FIG. 17; FIG. 27; ¶[0027]; ¶[0097]; ¶[0298]-¶[0299]; Abstract; ¶[0225];
Where the motion control system for a vehicle, implemented by a controller, determines a movement error in the vehicle’s motion based on a change in the vehicle’s lateral and/or longitudinal acceleration (extracts a component of the vehicle-body… error) caused by a difference in the torque applied between the inner and outer wheels i.e. left or right wheels in a turn from an overall movement error of the vehicle (caused by a torque difference of the plurality of motors from the calculated vehicle-body… error))
calculates a wheel torque correction amount based on the extracted component caused by the torque difference;
(Yamakado, FIG. 10; FIG. 14; FIG. 15; FIG. 16; FIG. 17; FIG. 27; ¶[0027]; ¶[0097]; ¶[0298]-¶[0299]; Abstract; ¶[0225]-¶[0229]; ¶[0234]-¶[0235];
Where the motion control system for a vehicle, implemented by a controller, determines an amount of braking/driving force, i.e. torque, to add to each wheel (calculates a wheel torque correction amount) based on the movement error in the vehicle’s motion determined by a change in the vehicle’s lateral and/or longitudinal acceleration caused by a difference between the torque applied to the inner/outer wheel motors, i.e. left or right wheel motors (based on the extracted component error caused by the torque difference of the motors)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Shi with the features taught by Yamakado because the features of Yamakado “…provide a low-priced and light vehicular motion control system that enables enhancing operability, stability and further, ride, comfort” (Yamakado, ¶[0026]). See also Yamakado, ¶[0027], wherein the details of the control system, such as the torque distribution according to vehicle movement, enable the aforementioned features of Yamakado.
Shi and Yamakado are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Fiedler teaches:
calculates a vehicle-body lateral acceleration error from a difference between a reference vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated based on a wheel rotation speed that represents a speed of the vehicle and a tire steering angle and an actual vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated based on the information regarding the motion and the posture of the vehicle including an inertial measurement unit output;
(Fielder, ¶[0034]-¶[0036]: IMU measuring device monitors 3 linear accelerations; ¶[0037]: monitored acceleration compared to a determined comparison acceleration; ¶[0057]: comparison device determines vehicle velocity based on wheel rotation speed and angle;
Where the vehicle device compares a lateral acceleration from a comparison device determined from a wheel rotation speed and steering angle (calculates a vehicle-body lateral acceleration error from a difference between a reference vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated based on a wheel rotation speed that represents a speed of the vehicle and a tire steering angle) and a measured lateral acceleration from an inertial measurement unit (and an actual vehicle-body lateral acceleration calculated based on the information regarding the motion and the posture of the vehicle including an inertial measurement unit output); See also ¶[0093]-¶[0099];
extracts a component of the vehicle-body lateral acceleration error caused by a torque difference… calculated vehicle-body lateral acceleration error;
(Fielder, ¶[0057], ¶[0093]: slip corrections based on driving torques;
Where slip correction is used to account for errors caused by drive torques).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Shi and Yamakado with the features taught by Fiedler because an “…object of the present invention is to specify an arrangement and a method of the abovementioned type with which reliable measured values for vehicle motion can be provided” (Fielder, ¶[0007]).
Further, this combination would be an example of (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP §2143 B) and (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP §2143 E).
Regarding claim 2, Shi, Yamakado, and Fielder teach the motion control device for a left and right independent drive vehicle according to claim 1. Fielder further teaches:
wherein the actual vehicle-body lateral acceleration is calculated based on a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, and a yaw rate of the vehicle.
(Fielder, ¶[0021], ¶[0034]-¶0037]: IMU measures linear acceleration in 3 directions; ¶[0058], ¶[0062]: yaw rate;
Where the actual vehicle-body lateral acceleration is based on a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, and a yaw rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Shi and Yamakado with the features taught by Fielder for at least the same reasons outlined above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Shi, Yamakado, and Fielder teach the motion control device for a left and right independent drive vehicle according to claim 1. Yamakado further teaches:
wherein the information regarding the motion and the posture of the vehicle is set to a rotational speed difference and a rotational angle difference between the plurality of motors.
(Yamakado, FIG. 10; FIG. 13; FIG. 14; FIG. 15; FIG. 16; FIG. 17; FIG. 27; ¶[0027]; ¶[0097]; ¶[0110]; ¶[0298]-¶[0299]; Abstract; ¶[0225]-¶[0229]; ¶[0234]-¶[0235]; ¶[0191]-¶[0195]; ¶[0205]; ¶[0181]-¶[0182]; ¶[0090]-¶[0095];
Where the adjusted force for the vehicle wheels are based on a difference in driving/braking torque on each wheel, wherein the torque of each wheel is a result of a wheel speed described in ¶[0181]-¶[0182], ¶[0191]-¶[0194] and a steering angle on each wheel described in ¶[0090]-¶[0095] (wherein the information regarding the motion and the posture of the vehicle is set to a rotational speed difference and a rotational angle difference between the plurality of motors); For clarity, while Yamakado is silent on the specific device used, Fielder teaches the use of an IMU for the various measurements- therefore the combination teach the invention).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Shi and Fielder with the features taught by Yamakado for at least the same reasons outlined above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Shi, Yamakado, and Fielder teach the motion control device for a left and right independent drive vehicle according to claim 1. Shi further discloses wherein the plurality of motors includes four motors; the motion control device controls the four motors to independently drive four wheels (Shi, FIG. 2; ¶[0014]; ¶[0026]). Fielder teaches the vehicle-body lateral acceleration as outlined above in claim 1. Yamakado further teaches:
the plurality of motors includes four motors;
wherein the motion control device controls the four motors to independently drive four wheels;
(Yamakado, FIG. 10; FIG. 14; Abstract; ¶[0027])
the information regarding the motion and the posture of the vehicle is a yaw rate, a pitch rate, and a roll rate of the vehicle; and
(Yamakado, FIG. 6; FIG. 10; FIG. 14; FIG. 23; FIG. 33; FIG. 34; FIG. 35; FIG. 41; ¶[0140]; ¶[0191]-¶[-0198]; ¶[0269]; ¶[0314]-¶[0319];
Where the adjusted force for the vehicle wheels are based on controlling a yaw rate, a pitch rate affected by longitudinal acceleration, and a roll rate affected by lateral acceleration (the information regarding the motion and the posture of the vehicle is a yaw rate, a pitch rate, and a roll rate of the vehicle))
the vehicle-body… error between the four motors is calculated based on the yaw rate, the pitch rate, and the roll rate.
(Yamakado, FIG. 6; FIG. 10; FIG. 13; FIG. 14; FIG. 15; FIG. 16; FIG. 17; FIG. 23; FIG. 27; FIG. 33; FIG. 34; FIG. 35; FIG. 41; ¶[0027]; ¶[0097]; ¶[0110]; ¶[0298]-¶[0299]; Abstract; ¶[0225]-¶[0229]; ¶[0234]-¶[0235]; ¶[0191]-¶[0195]; ¶[0205]; ¶[0181]-¶[0182]; ¶[0090]-¶[0095]; ¶[0140]; ¶[0191]-¶[-0198]; ¶[0269]; ¶[0314]-¶[0319];
Where the adjusted force for the vehicle wheels are based on a difference in driving/braking torque on each wheel, wherein the torque of each wheel is based on controlling a yaw rate, a pitch rate affected by longitudinal acceleration, and a roll rate affected by lateral acceleration (the vehicle-body… error between the four motors is calculated based on the yaw rate, the pitch rate, and the roll rate)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Shi and Fielder with the features taught by Yamakado for at least the same reasons outlined above in claim 1.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shi, Yamakado, and Fielder as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Kim (US 20180265121 A1), henceforth known as Kim.
Kim was first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 4, Shi, Yamakado, and Fielder teach the motion control device for a left and right independent drive vehicle according to claim 1, as outlined in claim 1, above. Fielder teaches the vehicle-body lateral acceleration as outlined above in claim 1. Shi , Yamakado, and Fielder are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches:
wherein the motion control device comprises a separation unit, and the separation unit separates a disturbance component for the vehicle from a frequency characteristic related to the vehicle-body… error and extracts the vehicle-body… error caused by the torque difference.
(Kim, FIG. 1; FIG. 6; ¶[0002]; ¶[0037]; ¶[0016]-¶[0019]; ¶[0044]-¶[0047]; ¶[0060]-¶[0063]; ¶[0076];
Where the controller 60 includes filtering unit 66 (wherein the motion control device comprises a separation unit), wherein the controller determines a compensation torque, i.e. an error in the torque to correct, to output to the motor based on filtering the torque by frequency (and the separation unit separates a disturbance component for the vehicle from a frequency characteristic related to the vehicle-body… error), wherein the compensation torque is filtered by frequency and applied to correct the motor torque (and extracts the vehicle-body… error caused by the torque difference of the motor); the use of low-pass filters to eliminate frequencies associated with temperature errors in torque is similar to ¶[0036] of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Shi, Yamakado, and Fielder with the features taught by Kim because “…when a temperature measured by a temperature sensor in real time is applied to a torque compensation cancellation condition in order to compensate for a motor current in a low-temperature environment, the temperature may have a different tendency from the outside temperature due to a large current change caused by end steering or road condition. Therefore, when the compensation for the motor current is performed based on the temperature, an unexpected steering feel may be caused to make the driver feel a sense of difference. In an ultra-low temperature environment, the road surface is generally frozen or wet. Therefore, when a compensation gain at a low-friction road is not corrected but raised, the MDPS may be vulnerable to vibration due to high-frequency noise” (Kim, ¶[0011]-¶[0012]) and “…Thus, a sense of difference in steering can be reduced, and a heavy steering feel can be removed” (Kim, ¶[0063]). That is, the features taught by Kim allow a correct torque compensation to applied to a motor, reducing error from temperature by filtering from frequency. This allows a more accurate torque compensation and results in an improved control feeling.
Regarding claim 5, Shi, Yamakado, Fielder, and Kim teach the motion control device for a left and right independent drive vehicle according to claim 4. Shi and Yamakado teach the plurality of motors as outlined above in claim 1. Fielder teaches the vehicle-body lateral acceleration as outlined above in claim 1. Kim further teaches:
wherein the separation unit separates, from the vehicle-body… error caused by the torque difference, a behavior caused by a constant difference due to an individual difference of the… motor... and a behavior caused by a temporary difference due to a temperature, in accordance with the frequency characteristic.
(Kim, FIG. 1; FIG. 6; ¶[0002]; ¶[0037]; ¶[0016]-¶[0019]; ¶[0044]-¶[0047]; ¶[0060]-¶[0063]; ¶[0076];
Where the controller 60 includes filtering unit 66 (wherein the separation unit), wherein the controller determines a compensation torque, i.e. an error in the torque to correct, to output to the motor that accounts for torque differences that are separate from torque differences caused by temperature (separates, from the vehicle-body… error caused by the torque difference of the… motor..., a behavior caused by a constant difference due to an individual difference of the motor and a behavior caused by a temporary difference due to a temperature) based on filtering the torque by frequency, wherein the compensation torque is filtered by frequency and applied to correct the motor torque (in accordance with the frequency characteristic); the use of low-pass filters to eliminate frequencies associated with temperature errors in torque is similar to ¶[0036] of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Shi, Yamakado, and Fielder with the features taught by Kim for at least the same reasons outlined above in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ford (US 20210370779 A1) discloses as is well known to a person skilled in the art, as a result of sliding between a tire of a vehicle and road when the vehicle accelerates or brakes, the observed angular velocity of the tire is different to the velocity of the vehicle. The difference in velocity is typically expressed as a percentage and is called ‘slip ratio’. One equation used to determine slip ratio in the absence of vehicle yaw is:
S=(V.sub.vehicle−rω)/V.sub.vehicle where V.sub.vehicle is the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle; r is the wheel radius at the contact point; ω is the angular velocity of the tire.
Although the above equation provides a slip ratio for a vehicle experiencing longitudinal acceleration or deceleration, it would be clear to a person skilled in the art that appropriate equations can also be used for determining a slip ratio for a vehicle experiencing a combination of longitudinal and lateral acceleration.
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 Tawri M McAndrews whose telephone number is (571)272-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (0800-1000).
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/T.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights