DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
2. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 4 And 5 Comply with the Written Description and Enablement Requirements
4. Applicant argues, the USPTO asserts that the Specification does not provide any definition or description for “nominal roll angle trajectory,” “nominal roll rate trajectory,” or “roll rate error value,” as recited in claims 4 and 5, and, in connection with the enablement rejection, further asserts that “these are not terms of art and one skilled in the art would not be able to make sure of the invention.”
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Specification describes each of these terms, both in narrative language and through corresponding variables and equations. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Specification describes each of these terms, both in narrative language and through corresponding variables and equations. As an initial matter, the USPTO's assertion that these terms are not terms of art does not withstand scrutiny. Each of the disputed terms describes a standard element of a nominal- trajectory-tracking feedback control architecture: a nominal, or reference, trajectory that a controller is designed to track, and a tracking error computed as the difference between an estimated state and that nominal trajectory. This is the same architecture underlying the Specification's baseline multiple-timescale nested-loop (MNL) trajectory linearization control (TLC) system, including the “tracking error dynamics” and “error state variable” terminology introduced at Paragraph [0057]. The Specification incorporates by reference two publications describing this same controller architecture in further detail. See Specification at Paragraph [0047]. One of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle dynamics and control systems, familiar with this well-established framework and the Specification's own incorporated literature, would readily understand what is meant by a nominal roll angle trajectory, a nominal roll rate trajectory, and a roll rate error value. Applicant now provides additional remarks pertaining to each respective term identified in the rejection of claims 4 and 5. Claims 4 and 5 recite producing a nominal roll angle trajectory and a nominal roll rate trajectory based on the roll angle and roll rate of the vehicle. Paragraph [0063] of the Specification states that, upon activation of the rollover mitigation mode, a second-order low- pass filter “is employed to generate nominal ϕnom and ϕ′nom for ϕ and ϕ′ to track, with a steady state value of zero,” and that the initial values of ϕnom and ϕ′nom are set based on the vehicle's roll angle and roll rate at the time the rollover mitigation mode is activated. In other words, ϕnom(t) and ϕ′nom(t) are time-varying signals, generated by the low-pass filter, that begin at values tied to the vehicle’s actual roll angle and roll rate and decay toward a steady-state value of zero. These time-varying signals, ϕnom(t) and ϕ′nom(t), are the nominal roll angle trajectory and nominal roll rate trajectory recited in claims 4 and 5, generated based on the roll angle and roll rate of the vehicle, exactly as the claims require. Figure 8 shows the variable 4 nom, and Paragraph [0068] of the Specification expressly refers to it as the nominal roll angle. This makes it clear that # nom is a trajectory, a signal that varies over time, rather than a fixed value. Claims 4 and 5 also recite computing a roll rate error value based on a difference between the nominal roll rate trajectory and an estimated roll rate. Paragraph [0063] of the Specification states that “the tracking error dynamics are given as” a system of equations, reproduced as Equation 15, in which the variable p appears. The Specification's use of tracking-error variables, denoted with tilde notation, is established earlier in its description of the baseline trajectory tracking controller. See Specification at Paragraph [0057] (describing “the linear time-varying closed-loop tracking error dynamics” for “each error state variable xij”). Tracking error, the difference between a system's actual or estimated state and its corresponding nominal trajectory, is well-established terminology in the field of feedback control, as reflected in the very publications the Specification incorporates by reference for the details of its controller design. See Specification at Paragraph [0047]. Consistent with this convention, p in Equation 15 is the roll rate tracking error, the difference between the vehicle's estimated roll rate and the nominal roll rate trajectory ϕnom(t) described above. This is precisely the roll rate error value recited in claims 4 and 5: a value “based on a difference between the nominal roll rate trajectory and an estimated roll rate.” As explained above, the Specification describes each of the claimed terms in narrative language, in addition to expressing them through variables and equations, in a manner sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the invention. Accordingly, claims 4 and 5 comply with the written description and enablement requirements, and Applicant respectfully requests that the USPTO withdraw the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections of these claims.
5. However, Applicant is reminded that the disputed terms do not appear in the specification. While Applicant asserts, the USPTO's assertion that these terms are not terms of art does not withstand scrutiny, a simple search shows that “nominal roll angle trajectory,” “nominal roll rate trajectory,” do not appear in any publications. In the Examiner’s extensive search results, the term “roll rate error value” appears in 4 published documents and the documents clearly define the terms. While Applicants asserts, each of the disputed terms describes a standard element of a nominal- trajectory-tracking feedback control architecture and mentions that the specification incorporates by reference two publications describing this same controller architecture in further detail, none of the incorporated publications include the disputed terms. Indeed, Applicant has mapped the disputed terms to other variable and entities. Applicant assets time-varying signals, ϕnom(t) and ϕ′nom(t), are the nominal roll angle trajectory and nominal roll rate trajectory. The plain meaning of a trajectory is the path followed by a projectile flying or an object moving under the action of given forces. While ϕnom(t) and ϕ′nom(t) are time-varying entities, merely time changing variables in no way construct a trajectory and therefore, one cannot reasonably conclude that even time varying ϕnom(t) and ϕ′nom(t) could be trajectories, nor could one of ordinary skill make and use such a term without undue guesswork or find the boundaries of the claim. As such, the disputed terms do not appear to be terms of art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could not map the terms to the ϕnom(t) and ϕ′nom(t).
6. As such, this argument is unpersuasive and the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 8 are Novel Over Rao
7. Applicant argues claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 8 is/are allowable over Rao et al. (US-20080243335-A1). Applicant continues, claim 1 recites one or more controllers that (1) define a plurality of distinct control modes having different control objectives (prevention, mitigation, arrest), (2) selectively activate one mode from the plurality based on a comparison of estimated state variables to state transition conditions corresponding to each mode, and (3) reduce or reverse a lateral force acting on the vehicle by reducing velocity if the rollover prevention mode is activated, by manipulating the steering angle if the rollover mitigation mode is activated, or by reducing velocity and manipulating the steering angle if the rollover arrest mode is activated. Stated differently, claim 1 recites an architecture in which the specific corrective mechanism applied to the vehicle depends on which of several distinct modes is selected, with mode selection governed by comparing estimated state variables to conditions specific to each mode. In practice, this results in a severity-tiered response, with lighter intervention (velocity reduction) available for less severe conditions and more direct or combined intervention (steering correction, or both velocity reduction and steering correction) reserved for more severe conditions.
The USPTO asserts that Rao discloses this architecture as follows: the USPTO maps Rao's control system 11, which includes a controller 2C, a passive safety system, and multiple active systems, to the “one or more controllers” recited in claim 1, and maps Rao's stability controller 26 (which receives roll angle and yaw rate information from a vehicle roll angle calculator 54 and a yaw rate sensor 35) to the state variable estimation recited in claim 1. For the mode-selection and mode-specific features, the USPTO relies on Rao's statement at paragraph [0036] that Rao's control system “has multiple modes of operation including a normal stability control system operating mode and a tripped rollover stability control system operating mode,” together with Rao's disclosures at paragraphs [0063] and [0064] of a brake control system 31 that can independently actuate the vehicle's brakes and a steering control system 32 that can independently actuate the vehicle's steering. Relying on these passages, the USPTO reasons that use of Rao's brake system corresponds to the claimed rollover prevention mode, use of Rao's steering system corresponds to the claimed rollover mitigation mode, and use of both together corresponds to the claimed rollover arrest mode, with the further assertion that “preventing rollover necessarily reduces or reverses a lateral force acting on the vehicle.” Applicant respectfully disagrees that Rao discloses the architecture recited in claim 1. As an initial matter, Rao expressly describes its “multiple modes of operation” as having only two modes, a normal mode and a tripped mode. These two modes are not the claimed rollover prevention, rollover mitigation, and rollover arrest modes, and Rao does not otherwise use this or any other mode terminology in connection with its brake system or steering system. Rao does not disclose a plurality of distinct, named control modes that are selectively activated based on a comparison of estimated state variables to corresponding state transition conditions. Instead, the USPTO's rejection combines Rao's generic disclosure that a brake system and a steering system are both available as “safety devices” to Rao's overall control system and then labels whichever of those devices happens to be used, alone or in combination, as one of the three claimed modes. This retrospective labeling is not a proper basis for anticipation. Further, the practical differences between Rao and the claimed invention help illustrate why Rao does not teach each feature of claim 1. Rao is directed to a rollover detection and safety-device deployment system: it uses tire pressure, temperature, and acceleration data from an Advanced Tire Monitoring System, together with conventional yaw rate, roll rate, and lateral acceleration sensors, to determine whether a rollover event is “tripped” (tripped rollover stability operating mode) or “non-tripped” (normal operating mode), and, upon that determination, to deploy whichever available countermeasures, braking, steering, suspension adjustment, airbags, or lateral support, are appropriate to prevent or mitigate the event. Rao does not disclose any reasoned basis for selecting braking alone, steering alone, or both, nor does it tie that selection to a comparison of estimated state variables against conditions specific to each of three distinct modes. As a rollover event in Rao is tripped or non-tripped, the system in Rao is, in effect, a binary safety override (e.g., an on-off switch). In its default state, the system in Rao is not active. Instead, it monitors for a tripped or non-tripped rollover condition and, once one is detected, deploys the available protection devices. The claimed invention, by contrast, ties each of the three named modes to a distinct control objective and a distinct control mechanism, selected according to the severity of the developing rollover condition. The rollover prevention mode is activated while the vehicle is still fully controllable and addresses the developing risk by reducing the vehicle's velocity, thereby reducing the lateral force without yet requiring more aggressive intervention. The rollover mitigation mode is activated as the roll condition becomes more severe and addresses the developing risk instead by manipulating the steering angle to reduce or reverse the yaw rate, a more immediate mechanism for counteracting the roll moment when velocity reduction alone would not act quickly enough. The rollover arrest mode is activated when the condition is most severe and combines both mechanisms. This is a severity-tiered, mode-specific escalation defined by which corrective mechanism is applied and why. Rao's disclosure of a tripped mode and a normal mode, together with its generic availability of brake and steering countermeasures, does not disclose or suggest this mode-specific architecture, nor does it disclose selectively activating one of a plurality of such modes based on a comparison of estimated state variables to state transition conditions corresponding to each mode. For at least these reasons, Rao does not teach each feature recited in claim 1. Applicant concludes Rao's own disclosure of “multiple modes of operation” describes only a normal mode and a tripped mode, not the three distinct, mechanism-specific modes recited in claim 1, each of which is required by claim 8. Accordingly, Rao does not teach a plurality of control modes that includes all three of the recited control modes.
8. However, it appears Applicant has misinterpreted the rejection of claim 1. Applicant is reminded that while claim 1 names 3 different modes, it requires only 2 modes, as the claim states “the plurality of control modes including at least two of a rollover prevention mode, a rollover mitigation mode, and a rollover arrest mode.” As indicated by the previous Office Action, Rao discloses: “the control system 11 has multiple modes of operation including a normal stability control system operating mode and a tripped rollover stability control system operating mode” (See at least 1, and [0036]). The normal stability control system operating mode is the rollover prevention mode. A stability control system detects loss of steering control and automatically applies the brakes to help steer the vehicle where the driver intends to go. Applicant is referred to Non-patent Literature Wikipedia “Electronic stability control,” which is not incorporated into any rejection here or below, but still made of reference. This definition is aligned with the definition of the rollover prevention mode in claim 1. Claim 1 recites “wherein activation of the rollover prevention mode reduces or reverses the lateral force by reducing a velocity of the vehicle.” Examiner notes, applying brakes reduces the velocity of a vehicle. The tripped rollover stability control system operating mode is the rollover mitigation mode. Rao discloses “In the tripped rollover operating mode the control system 11 operates to mitigate and prevent a vehicle rollover due to the imminent tripping obstacle” ([0036]). That means, rollover mitigation mode is activated when a rollover condition occurs. As indicated by the previous Office Action, Rao discloses “the steering control system 32, which communicates with the stability controller 26, includes a number of different types of front and rear steering systems including having each of the front and rear wheels 12a-12d configured with respective controllable actuators 55A-D. The wheels 12 are controlled together or individually. The ISS unit 26 controls the position of the front right wheel actuator 55A, the front left wheel actuator 55B, the rear left wheel actuator 55D, and the right rear wheel actuator 55C. Based on the inputs from sensors 35-47 and from the ATMS 18, the ISS unit 26 determines a roll condition and/or wheel lift and controls the steering position and/or braking of the wheels” (See at least Figs. 1-6, and [0064]). Examiner notes, roll condition and/or wheel lift means that rollover condition is met and it must be mitigated. As such, mitigating the rollover condition, especially when the steering position is controlled to mitigate the condition, is the rollover mitigation mode. This definition is aligned with the definition of the rollover mitigation mode in claim 1. Claim 1 recites “wherein activation of the rollover mitigation mode reduces or reverses the lateral force by manipulating a steering angle to reduce or reverse the yaw rate.” Examiner notes, controlling the steering position is manipulating a steering angle. Accordingly, Rao discloses at least two of a rollover prevention mode, a rollover mitigation mode, and a rollover arrest mode.
9. As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
Claim 7 is Non-Obvious Over Rao and Hoehn
10. Applicant argues claim(s) 7 is/are allowable over Rao et al. (US-20080243335-A1) in view of Hoehn et al. (US-20230137880-A1). Applicant continues, in the Office Action, the USPTO relies on the rejection of claim 1 based on Rao for the base features of claim 7. The USPTO then concedes that Rao does not disclose the specific finite state machine feature of claim 7, that is, “wherein the one or more controllers include a finite state machine configured to control state transitions between respective control modes of the plurality of control modes based on the estimated state variables and the corresponding state transition conditions.” The USPTO then asserts that Hoehn teaches a finite state machine that can form the basis of software in a rollover protection system (see Hoehn at [0075]) and further asserts that “a finite state machine by definition controls state transitions between respective control modes of the plurality of control modes.” Applicant respectfully disagrees. It is true that Hoehn states, in general terms, that a driving situation may be described, for example, via a finite state machine depicting brake- system states and possible state changes, and that such a finite state machine can form the basis of software in a rollover protection system. However, Hoehn does not teach or suggest the claimed finite state machine “configured to control state transitions between respective control modes of the plurality of control modes based on the estimated state variables and the corresponding state transition conditions.” Claim 7, via claim 1, requires a finite state machine
that transitions among a plurality of rollover control modes having different control objectives and different corrective actions, namely, a rollover prevention mode that reduces lateral force by reducing vehicle velocity, a rollover mitigation mode that reduces lateral force by manipulating steering angle to reduce or reverse yaw rate, and a rollover arrest mode that reduces lateral force by both reducing vehicle velocity and manipulating steering angle. Hoehn's finite state machine discussion, by contrast, is directed only to describing states that a single-actuator braking system can assume, for example, which wheel of an axle is being braked, whether counter-steering has been detected, and whether a straight-ahead driving phase has begun, and the possible transitions between those braking states. Hoehn does not disclose or suggest selectively activating among multiple rollover control modes differentiated by actuator type, including a steering-based mitigation mode and a combined steering-and-velocity-reduction arrest mode, based on comparisons of estimated state variables to corresponding state transition conditions. The USPTO's assertion that “a finite state machine by definition controls state transitions between respective control modes of the plurality of control modes” does not cure this deficiency. A finite state machine, as a general concept, transitions among whatever states it is defined to track, but the states that Hoehn's finite state machine tracks are braking conditions of a single actuator system, not the claimed rollover control modes distinguished by mechanism. The mere presence of a finite state machine somewhere in the art does not disclose or suggest the particular state machine architecture recited in claim 7. Moreover, because Rao does not disclose the plurality of rollover prevention, mitigation, and arrest modes recited in claim 1, for the reasons discussed above, there is no plurality of such modes in Rao for any finite state machine, whether Rao's own sensor function monitor or one imported from Hoehn, to transition between. At most, a person of ordinary skill combining Rao and Hoehn would arrive at a state machine tracking Rao's own normal and tripped operating states, or the individual status of Rao's various safety devices, not the claimed three-mode, mechanism-specific architecture. Accordingly, the cited combination of Rao and Hoehn fails to teach the claimed state-machine- based multi-mode rollover control architecture. Also, claim 7 depends from claim 1 and is allowable at least for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the USPTO withdraw the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 7.
11. However, it appears Applicant has misinterpreted the rejection of claim 7. The definition of a finite state machine is a computational model that can be in only one of a fixed set of states at a time, transitioning from one state to another in response to an input. An FSM is defined by a list of its states, its initial state, and the inputs that trigger each transition. Claim 7 recites “a finite state machine configured to control state transitions between respective control modes of the plurality of control modes based on the estimated state variables and the corresponding state transition conditions,” which is defining a state machine. A finite state machine necessarily control the state transition between a fixed set of state, or the control modes, based on an input, or the estimated state variables and the corresponding state transition condition. Accordingly, in mathematics, any problem that has a finite set of possible states and depends only on the current state and the current input can be expressed as a finite state machine. As such, claim 7, which is the definition of a state machine, was interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as converting the control modes into a state machine. Since Rao’s invention has a finite set of states, and it depends on the current state and the input, it is easily converted to a state machine. Furthermore, Applicant argues, Hoehn does not disclose or suggest selectively activating among multiple rollover control modes differentiated by actuator type, including a steering-based mitigation mode and a combined steering-and-velocity-reduction arrest mode, based on comparisons of estimated state variables to corresponding state transition conditions. If the Applicant believes this feature to be a crucial part of their application, the Examiner strongly encourages them to amend such a feature into the claims, rather than arguing for features the claims simply do not reflect.
12. As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
13. 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.
14. Claims 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
15. Claim 4 recites the limitation “produce a nominal roll angle trajectory and a nominal roll rate trajectory based on a roll angle and roll rate of the vehicle, compute a roll rate error value based on a difference between the nominal roll rate trajectory and an estimated roll rate.” The specification has not provided any definition or description for “nominal roll angle trajectory,” “nominal roll rate trajectory” “roll rate error value.” As such, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. To overcome this rejection, Applicant is advised to specifically point out the paragraphs that provide support for the limitation above, in their specification.
16. Claim 5 recites the limitation “produce a nominal roll angle trajectory and a nominal roll rate trajectory based on the roll angle and roll rate of the vehicle, compute a roll rate error value based on a difference between the nominal roll rate trajectory and an estimated roll rate.” The specification has not provided any definition or description for “nominal roll angle trajectory,” “nominal roll rate trajectory” “roll rate error value.” As such, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. To overcome this rejection, Applicant is advised to specifically point out the paragraphs that provide support for the limitation above, in their specification.
17. Claims 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification has not provided any definition or description for “nominal roll angle trajectory,” “nominal roll rate trajectory” “roll rate error value.” These terms are not terms of art and one skilled in the art would not be able to make sure of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
18. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
19. Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 8
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US-20080243335-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Rao discloses a rollover prevention and mitigation system for a vehicle in motion, comprising (See at least Figs. 2, and [0029]: the control system 11 has rollover mitigation and prevention systems):
one or more controllers configured to (See at least Figs. 2-4, and [0029 & 0038]: the control system 11 [i.e., one or more controllers] has rollover mitigation and prevention systems. The control system 11 has a controller 2C, a passive safety system 27-30, multiple active systems 31-34, various vehicle status sensors, and driver or vehicle operator input sensors 20 and 35-47):
estimate state variables of the vehicle in motion including at least a roll angle and a yaw rate (See at least Figs. 4, and [0072 & 0075]: the stability controller 26 receives numerous inputs to aide in determining whether a rollover event is in progress or is imminent. The controller 26 includes a signal multiplexer 50 that receives the signals from the sensors 20 and 35-47. The signal multiplexer 50 provides the signals to a wheel lift detector 52 and a vehicle roll angle calculator 54 [i.e., estimate … a roll angle]. The vehicle status sensors 35-47 include the yaw rate sensor 35 [i.e., estimate … a yaw rate]. Examiner notes, the roll angle and the yaw rate are the state variables of the vehicle),
selectively activate one of a plurality of control modes based on a comparison of the estimated state variables and corresponding state transition conditions (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0036 & 0046]: the control system 11 has multiple modes of operation [i.e., a plurality of control modes] including a normal stability control system operating mode and a tripped rollover stability control system operating mode. The inertial measurement unit (IMU) 82 contains inertial sensors for detecting vehicle pitch, yaw, and roll [i.e., estimated state variables] and X, Y, Z axis accelerations. This data is communicated to the stability control system 25 in order to determine whether a rollover condition exists. This data also acts to initiate the ATMS 18 when a potential for rollover exists. Examiner notes, yaw and roll are used to determine whether a potential for rollover conditions exist and to initiate the mitigation and prevention which encompasses selectively activating one of a plurality of control modes based on a comparison of the estimated state variables and corresponding state transition conditions), the plurality of control modes including at least two of a rollover prevention mode, a rollover mitigation mode, and a rollover arrest mode, and in response to activating one of the plurality of control modes, reduce or reverse a lateral force acting on the vehicle, wherein activation of the rollover prevention mode reduces or reverses the lateral force by reducing a velocity of the vehicle (See at least Figs. 1-6, and [0063]: the brake control system 31 is in communication with the stability controller 26. The brake control system 31 includes the brake controller 60 that actuates front vehicle brakes 62a and 62b and rear vehicle brakes 62c and 62d. The vehicle brakes 62 are associated with the wheels 12a-12d. The brakes 62 are independently actuatable through the brake controller 60. Examiner notes, using the brakes for preventing or mitigating rollover, which reduces the velocity of the vehicle, is the rollover prevention mode. Preventing rollover necessarily reduces or reverses a lateral force acting on the vehicle), wherein activation of the rollover mitigation mode reduces or reverses the lateral force by manipulating a steering angle to reduce or reverse the yaw rate (See at least Figs. 1-6, and [0064]: the steering control system 32, which communicates with the stability controller 26, includes a number of different types of front and rear steering systems including having each of the front and rear wheels 12a-12d configured with respective controllable actuators 55A-D. The wheels 12 are controlled together or individually. The ISS unit 26 controls the position of the front right wheel actuator 55A, the front left wheel actuator 55B, the rear left wheel actuator 55D, and the right rear wheel actuator 55C. Based on the inputs from sensors 35-47 and from the ATMS 18, the ISS unit 26 determines a roll condition and/or wheel lift and controls the steering position and/or braking of the wheels. Examiner notes, using the steering control system for preventing or mitigating rollover, which manipulates the steering angle to reduce or reverse the yaw rate, is the rollover mitigation mode. Preventing rollover necessarily reduces or reverses a lateral force acting on the vehicle), and wherein activation of the rollover arrest mode reduces or reverses the lateral force by reducing the velocity of the vehicle and by manipulating the steering angle to reduce or reverse the yaw rate (See at least Figs. 1-6, and [0064]: the steering control system 32, which communicates with the stability controller 26, includes a number of different types of front and rear steering systems including having each of the front and rear wheels 12a-12d configured with respective controllable actuators 55A-D. The wheels 12 are controlled together or individually. The ISS unit 26 controls the position of the front right wheel actuator 55A, the front left wheel actuator 55B, the rear left wheel actuator 55D, and the right rear wheel actuator 55C. Based on the inputs from sensors 35-47 and from the ATMS 18, the ISS unit 26 determines a roll condition and/or wheel lift and controls the steering position and/or braking of the wheels. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the steering or braking or both steering and braking are used for preventing or mitigating rollover. Using both steering and braking, which reduces the velocity of the vehicle and manipulates the steering angle to reduce or reverse the yaw rate, is the rollover arrest mode. Preventing rollover necessarily reduces or reverses a lateral force acting on the vehicle).
In regard to claim 2
, Rao discloses the rollover prevention and mitigation system of claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to reverse the lateral force via manipulation of the steering angle, wherein manipulation of the steering angle reverses the yaw rate (See at least Figs. 1-6, and [0029 & 0038 & 0064]: the control system 11 [i.e., one or more controllers] has rollover mitigation and prevention systems. The control system 11 has a controller 2C, a passive safety system 27-30, multiple active systems 31-34, various vehicle status sensors, and driver or vehicle operator input sensors 20 and 35-47. The steering control system 32, which communicates with the stability controller 26, includes a number of different types of front and rear steering systems including having each of the front and rear wheels 12a-12d configured with respective controllable actuators 55A-D. The wheels 12 are controlled together or individually. The ISS unit 26 controls the position of the front right wheel actuator 55A, the front left wheel actuator 55B, the rear left wheel actuator 55D, and the right rear wheel actuator 55C. Based on the inputs from sensors 35-47 and from the ATMS 18, the ISS unit 26 determines a roll condition and/or wheel lift and controls the steering position and/or braking of the wheels. Examiner notes, using the steering control system for preventing or mitigating rollover is manipulation of the steering angle to reverse the yaw rate. Preventing rollover necessarily reduces or reverses a lateral force acting on the vehicle).
In regard to claim 6
, Rao discloses the rollover prevention and mitigation system of claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to generate a steering actuator command to modify the steering angle of the vehicle in response to activation of one of the plurality of modes (See at least Figs. 1-6, and [0029 & 0038 & 0064]: the control system 11 [i.e., one or more controllers] has rollover mitigation and prevention systems. The control system 11 has a controller 2C, a passive safety system 27-30, multiple active systems 31-34, various vehicle status sensors, and driver or vehicle operator input sensors 20 and 35-47. The steering control system 32, which communicates with the stability controller 26, includes a number of different types of front and rear steering systems including having each of the front and rear wheels 12a-12d configured with respective controllable actuators 55A-D. The wheels 12 are controlled together or individually. The ISS unit 26 controls the position of the front right wheel actuator 55A, the front left wheel actuator 55B, the rear left wheel actuator 55D, and the right rear wheel actuator 55C. Based on the inputs from sensors 35-47 and from the ATMS 18, the ISS unit 26 determines a roll condition and/or wheel lift and controls the steering position and/or braking of the wheels. Examiner notes, to control the steering control system, a command must be necessarily generated to modify the steering angle).
In regard to claim 8
, Rao discloses the rollover prevention and mitigation system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of control modes includes the rollover prevention mode, the rollover mitigation mode, and the rollover arrest mode (See at least Figs. 1-6, and [0063-0064]: the brake control system 31 is in communication with the stability controller 26. The brake control system 31 includes the brake controller 60 that actuates front vehicle brakes 62a and 62b and rear vehicle brakes 62c and 62d. The vehicle brakes 62 are associated with the wheels 12a-12d. The brakes 62 are independently actuatable through the brake controller 60. The steering control system 32, which communicates with the stability controller 26, includes a number of different types of front and rear steering systems including having each of the front and rear wheels 12a-12d configured with respective controllable actuators 55A-D. The wheels 12 are controlled together or individually. The ISS unit 26 controls the position of the front right wheel actuator 55A, the front left wheel actuator 55B, the rear left wheel actuator 55D, and the right rear wheel actuator 55C. Based on the inputs from sensors 35-47 and from the ATMS 18, the ISS unit 26 determines a roll condition and/or wheel lift and controls the steering position and/or braking of the wheels. Examiner notes, using the brakes for preventing or mitigating rollover is the rollover prevention mode. Using the steering control system for preventing or mitigating rollover is the rollover mitigation mode. Using both steering and braking for preventing or mitigating rollover is the rollover arrest mode).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
20. 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.
21. Claim(s) 7
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US-20080243335-A1) in view of Hoehn et al. (US-20230137880-A1).
In regard to claim 7
, Rao discloses the rollover prevention and mitigation system of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
While Rao discloses a sensor function monitor 89 in the form of a microcontroller core or state machine is incorporated into ATMS sensor circuit 20 (See at least [0052]), Rao is silent on wherein the one or more controllers include a finite state machine configured to control state transitions between respective control modes of the plurality of control modes based on the estimated state variables and the corresponding state transition conditions.
However, Hoehn teaches a finite state machine form the basis of the software in the rollover protection system 24 (See at least [0075]). Examiner notes, a finite state machine by definition controls state transitions between respective control modes of the plurality of control modes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Rao, by incorporating the teachings of Hoehn, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle rollover prevention systems, such that a finite state machine is used to transition between the different control modes of Rao.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Hoehn, to provide active safety (See at least [0007]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle to mitigate rollover and to keep the passengers safe.
Claim Objections
22. Claim(s) 3-5 is/ are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if Applicant can point out support for the claim in their specification to overcome 35 USC §112(a) rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Offerle (US-20050206232-A1) teaches A system and method of controlling an automotive vehicle includes determining a forward direction and reverse direction of the vehicle and applying brake-steer in a forward position.
Kato et al. (US-20050027426-A1) teaches a vehicle motion control device for executing a predetermined roll-over preventing control.
Lu et al. (US-20040254707-A1) teaches a vehicle rollover control that alters the vehicle attitude such that its motion along the roll direction is prevented from achieving a predetermined limit.
Bedner et al. (US-20080109133-A1) teaches a method, system, and computer program product for tire slip angle limiting in a steering control system for a vehicle.
Woywod et al. (US-20080133101-A1) teaches a method for suppressing a lateral rollover tendency of an at least two-axle and at least two-track vehicle.
Holler (US-20030225499-A1) teaches a rollover prevention system for a vehicle.
Chen et al. (US-20080040000-A1) teaches A rollover avoidance system for changing the damping characteristics of suspension dampers at each wheel of a vehicle so as to mitigate the potential for vehicle rollover.
Lu et al. (US-20040167692-A1) teaches control system for controlling a safety system of an automotive vehicle.
Lemmen et al. (US-20080109135-A1) teaches a method for reducing a risk of or avoiding a roll-over event of a vehicle.
Non-patent Literature Shao et al. “Active steering control for vehicle rollover risk reduction based on slip angle estimation” teaches a robust controller for rollover risk suppression in automatically-driven vehicles by reducing the lateral acceleration through a steer-by-wire system equipped on the vehicles.
Non-patent Literature Qian et al. “Rollover prevention and path following control of integrated steering and braking systems” teaches the process of preventing rollover by using an integrated controller based on active steering and active braking.
Non-patent Literature Lu et al. “Roll Rate Based Stability Control - The Roll Stability Control System” teaches active safety system for passenger vehicles that uses a roll rate sensor together with the information from the conventional electronic stability control hardware to detect a vehicle's roll condition.
Non-patent Literature Chen et al. “Car-like ground vehicle trajectory tracking by using trajectory linearization control” teaches multi-loop Trajectory Linearization Control (TLC) based on singular perturbation (time-scale separation) theory for exponential stability.
Non-patent Literature Wikipedia “Electronic stability control” teaches a stability control system detects loss of steering control and automatically applies the brakes to help steer the vehicle where the driver intends to go.
24. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
26. 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.
27. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
28. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
