DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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) are: “a target yaw moment setter configured to” and “a target braking force setter configured to” in claim 1 (Dependent claims also make reference to this language and are cited where applicable as well).
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 [see ¶ 76 for “setter” being established as the brake control unit 120].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1-2, 5-6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over machine translation of JP 2017136908 (“Maeda”) in further view of US 20060124374 (“Katada”).
As per claim 1 Maeda discloses a vehicle control apparatus to be applied to a vehicle, the vehicle comprising a turning inner wheel, a turning outer wheel, and a limited slip differential, the limited slip differential being configured to transmit a torque between the turning inner wheel and the turning outer wheel [¶ 19 differential 12 for distributing the output to the left and right front wheels 2…, Fig. 2 (turning vehicle)], and
configured to limit differential rotation between the turning inner wheel and the turning outer wheel, the vehicle control apparatus comprising [¶ 35 control of distribution of driving forces (to wheels for generating a yaw moment)… ¶36 …it is also possible to generate a yaw moment similarly by adding different braking forces to the left and right front wheels 2L, 2R]:
a target yaw moment setter configured to set a target yaw moment of the vehicle [¶1 a distribution of driving force between left an d right wheels is changed so that an appropriate yaw moment is generated…, ¶15 for a vehicle of the present invention, if the required yaw moment calculated according to the state of the vehicle is equal to or larger than the limit value, the limit yaw moment which is the limit value is generated, The braking force is applied to at least one of the left and right wheels according to the difference between the yaw moment after the limitation and the required yaw moment and the yaw moment can be increased];
a target braking force setter configured to set a target braking force to be added to the turning inner wheel based on the target yaw moment [¶36 it is also possible to generate a yaw moment similarly by adding different braking forces to the left and right front wheels 2L, 2R or the rear ,wheels 3L, 3R. For example, if a braking force is applied to at least one of the front wheel 2L on the turning inner side (left side)…]; and
a braking device configured to add a braking force to the turning inner wheel based on the target braking force [¶36 Although not shown, it is also possible to generate a yaw moment similarly by adding different braking forces to the left and right front wheels 2L, 2R or the rear ,wheels 3L, 3R. For example, if a braking force is applied to at least one of the front wheel 2L on the turning inner side (left side)…], wherein
the target braking force setter is configured to correct the target braking force based on desired distribution forces transmitted to the turning inner wheel and turning outer wheel [abstract: Brake force addition means (for example, hydraulic unit 40) which can add different brake forces to the left and right wheels is arranged, and the brake forces are added to front wheels at the inside of a turn so that the yaw moment M is increased on the basis of a differential value M-reg, Fig. 4].
Maeda is silent to using a target braking force setter to incrementally correct the target braking force based on a transmission torque transmitted by an inner wheel to the outer wheel by the slip differential.
Katada discloses using a target braking force setter to incrementally correct the target braking force based on a transmission torque transmitted by an inner and outer wheel by the slip differential [¶ 11 If one of the drive wheels spins without traction to cause differential rotation between the drive wheels, the brake controller conducts to brake the spinning drive wheel. As a result, torque which is transmitted to the other drive wheel that is not spinning is increased (brake LSD function), ¶66 ON, the ABS/attitude ECU 63 controls the hydraulic pressure control mechanism for the disk brakes 27, 29, 59, and 61, to control the dynamic attitude such as a yaw rate of the vehicle according to signals related to the dynamic attitude of the vehicle., ¶ 81 Increasing the torque bias ratio of the rear differential 3 results in increasing a torque increment by the brake LSD function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Maeda with the teachings of Katada to utilize LDS functions as designed to transfer drive functions between connected wheels to achieve desired vehicle forces for improving drivability for a user of said vehicle by controlling forces the vehicle is subject to.
As per claim 11 Maeda discloses a vehicle control apparatus to be applied to a vehicle, the vehicle comprising a turning inner wheel, a turning outer wheel, and a limited slip differential, the limited slip differential being configured to transmit a torque between the turning inner wheel and the turning outer wheel, and configured to limit differential rotation between the turning inner wheel and the turning outer wheel, the vehicle control apparatus comprising [¶ 19 differential 12 for distributing the output to the left and right front wheels 2…, Fig. 2 (turning vehicle)]:
circuitry configured to
set a target yaw moment of the vehicle [¶1 a distribution of driving force between left an d right wheels is changed so that an appropriate yaw moment is generated…, ¶15 for a vehicle of the present invention, if the required yaw moment calculated according to the state of the vehicle is equal to or larger than the limit value, the limit yaw moment which is the limit value is generated, The braking force is applied to at least one of the left and right wheels according to the difference between the yaw moment after the limitation and the required yaw moment and the yaw moment can be increased],
set a target braking force to be added to the turning inner wheel based on the target yaw moment [¶36 it is also possible to generate a yaw moment similarly by adding different braking forces to the left and right front wheels 2L, 2R or the rear ,wheels 3L, 3R. For example, if a braking force is applied to at least one of the front wheel 2L on the turning inner side (left side)…], and
correct the target braking force based on desired distribution forces transmitted to the turning inner wheel and turning outer wheel [abstract: Brake force addition means (for example, hydraulic unit 40) which can add different brake forces to the left and right wheels is arranged, and the brake forces are added to front wheels at the inside of a turn so that the yaw moment M is increased on the basis of a differential value M-reg, Fig. 4]; and
a braking device configured to add a braking force to the turning inner wheel based on the target braking force [¶36 Although not shown, it is also possible to generate a yaw moment similarly by adding different braking forces to the left and right front wheels 2L, 2R or the rear ,wheels 3L, 3R. For example.
Maeda is silent to using a target braking force setter to incrementally correct the target braking force based on a transmission torque transmitted by an inner wheel to the outer wheel by the slip differential.
Katada discloses using a target braking force setter to incrementally correct the target braking force based on a transmission torque transmitted by an inner and outer wheel by the slip differential [¶ 11 If one of the drive wheels spins without traction to cause differential rotation between the drive wheels, the brake controller conducts to brake the spinning drive wheel. As a result, torque which is transmitted to the other drive wheel that is not spinning is increased (brake LSD function), ¶66 ON, the ABS/attitude ECU 63 controls the hydraulic pressure control mechanism for the disk brakes 27, 29, 59, and 61, to control the dynamic attitude such as a yaw rate of the vehicle according to signals related to the dynamic attitude of the vehicle., ¶ 81 Increasing the torque bias ratio of the rear differential 3 results in increasing a torque increment by the brake LSD function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Maeda with the teachings of Katada to utilize LDS functions as designed to transfer drive functions between connected wheels to achieve desired vehicle forces for improving drivability for a user of said vehicle by controlling forces the vehicle is subject to.
.
As per claims 2 Maeda discloses further wherein the target braking force setter is configured to set the target braking force to cause a yaw moment to be generatable after generation of the braking force by the braking device, the yaw moment being higher than or equal to a yaw moment that the limited slip differential has generated before the generation of the braking force [abstract: and the brake forces are added to front wheels at the inside of a turn so that the yaw moment M is increased].
As per claims 5 and 6 Maeda discloses further is configured to cause the braking device to add a braking force to the turning inner wheel and lower the transmission torque [abstract: and the brake forces are added to front wheels at the inside of a turn so that the yaw moment M is increased on basis of a differential (adding brake forces to driven wheels is understood as reducing a transmission torque)].
Maeda is silent to however Katada discloses further comprising a limited slip differential processor configured to control the transmission torque of the limited slip differential, wherein the limited slip differential processor is configured to determine force distributions [¶55 If a difference occurs between the rotation speeds of the left and right wheels due to comer turning or spinning, a driving force on a wheel that is on an inner side in the turning direction or that is opposite to the spinning wheel is increased.].
As per claims 9 and 10 Maeda is silent to however Katada discloses further comprising: a target yaw rate setter configured to set a target yaw rate of the vehicle [¶66 The ABS/attitude… control… brakes…, to control the dynamic attitude such as a yaw rate of the vehicle]; and a yaw rate estimator configured to estimate an estimated yaw rate based on the revolution speed difference, wherein the predetermined range is set to cause the estimated yaw rate not to fall outside an allowable range, the allowable range being set based on the target yaw rate [¶10 a brake controller controlling at least one of the brakes to limit differential rotation between the drive wheels, a differential mechanism, and a differential limiting mechanism provided for the differential mechanism., ¶66 The ABS/attitude… control… brakes…, to control the dynamic attitude such as a yaw rate of the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Maeda with the teachings of Katada to utilize LDS functions as designed to transfer drive functions between connected wheels to achieve desired vehicle forces for improving drivability for a user of said vehicle by controlling forces the vehicle is subject to.
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over machine translation of JP 2017136908 (“Maeda”) in view of US 20060124374 (“Katada”) in further view of US 20200324758 (“Woo”).
As per claims 3 and 4 Maeda discloses further comprising a limited slip differential processor configured to control the transmission torque of the limited slip differential [¶19 differential 12 for distributing the output to the left and right front wheels 2].
Maeda in view of Katada are silent to wherein the limited slip differential processor is configured to increase the transmission torque based on an increase in slipping of the turning inner wheel caused by an increase in a driving force of the turning inner wheel.
Woo discloses further to wherein the limited slip differential processor is configured to increase the transmission torque based on an increase in slipping of the turning inner wheel caused by an increase in a driving force of the turning inner wheel [abstract: when the vehicle is in the understeer state and an actual driving force of an inner wheel of the vehicle is greater than an allowable driving force(understood as a type of slipping range) of the inner wheel the controller increases the control torque of the electronic limited slip differential and transfers the inner wheel driving force to the outer wheel of the vehicle.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Maeda in view of Katada with the teachings of Woo to utilize LDS functions to transfer drive functions between connected wheels to achieve desired vehicle control schemes for improving drivability for a user of said vehicle by controlling vehicle components accordingly.
As per claims 7 and 8 Maeda discloses further comprising a driving force distribution apparatus configured to detect a difference for desired yaw moment (based on left and right wheel controls), wherein the target braking force setter is configured to set the target braking force to cause a force distribution on the wheels to not to fall outside a predetermined range [¶8 a driving force distributing apparatus including a driving force distribution means capable of changing a distribution of driving force between left and right wheels of a vehicle, As a target of a control apparatus of a vehicle in which the driving force distribution, ¶9 comprising: a braking force adding means capable of adding different braking forces to the left and right wheels of the vehicle; a braking force adding means for adding a difference yaw moment].
Maeda in view of Katada is silent to comprising a revolution speed difference detector configured to detect a revolution speed difference between the turning inner wheel and the turning outer wheel, where it is revolution speed difference is controlled not to fall outside a predetermined range.
Woo discloses further comprising a revolution speed difference detector configured to detect a revolution speed difference between the turning inner wheel and the turning outer wheel, where it is revolution speed difference is controlled not to fall outside a predetermined range [¶10 While performing the driving force movement control, the controller may further perform wheel slip control, by the controller, performing feedback control of the control torque of the electronic limited slip differential based on a speed difference between the inner and outer wheels and a speed difference between the outer wheel and the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Maeda in view of Katada with the teachings of Woo to utilize wheel parameters to use with drive force functions between connected wheels to achieve desired vehicle control schemes for improving drivability for a user of said vehicle by controlling vehicle components accordingly.
Additional Art to Consider
Application Pub. No. US 20070222286 titled, Turning Control Apparatus For Vehicle, discloses a turning control apparatus that utilizes a necessary yaw momentum value a as target yaw momentum determined by a difference in rotation of an inner and outer wheel rotation speed that further adjusts the driving torque to the left and right wheel to generate the target yaw momentum. This is similar to the Applicant’s invention in that Applicant’s reliance on left/right torque control on wheels to adjust the vehicle to a target yaw moment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached on 10-6pm on campus.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on 5712703969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662