DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labarbera (U.S. Pat. No. 12,545,315) in view of Yamakado (U.S. Pat. No. 10,384,673).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Labarbera discloses an apparatus for controlling a brake system, the apparatus comprising:
one or more controllers (212) configured to: detect whether a steer-by-wire system fails (col. 2, line 53)
when the steer-by-wire system fails, generate a first control signal for controlling a vehicle state to be equal to or less than a threshold (col. 5, lines 39-49 discloses generating signals to control the vehicle); and
when the steer-by-wire system fails, convert the first control signal for controlling the difference between the control target for the steering in the normal situation and vehicle state into braking torques (col. 2, lines 57-59 discloses converting the steering signal into brake pressure).
Labarbera does not disclose generate a first control signal for controlling a difference between a control target and a vehicle state to be equal to or less than a threshold through state-feedback control; or that the converted signal is for wheels including front-left, front-right, rear-left and rear-right wheels, and distribute a braking pressure to actuators of the wheels through the brake system to generate the braking torques for the front-left, front-right, rear-left and rear-right wheels.
Yamakado, which deals in brake to steer, teaches generate a first control signal for controlling a difference between a control target and a vehicle state to be equal to or less than a threshold through state-feedback control (col. 2, lines 35-50 discloses many variables which are given targets); or that the converted signal is for wheels including front-left, front-right, rear-left and rear-right wheels, and distribute a braking pressure to actuators of the wheels through the brake system to generate the braking torques for the front-left, front-right, rear-left and rear-right wheels (col. 4, lines 55-67 discloses that this application is for discussing braking force distribution and col. 2, lines 5-15 discloses this includes right and left wheels. Claim 10 discusses manipulating braking forces between wheels).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Labarbera with the brake to steer system of Yamakado because provides proper distribution between tires (abstract). Labarbera is also silent as to the particulars of the brake to steer system and would need to be modified by what is known in the art in order to implement the particulars of a brake to steer system.
Regarding claim 2 and 12 which depends from claim 1 and 11 respectively, Yamakado discloses wherein the one or more controllers are configured to:
generate a second control signal based on a disturbance generated by an external factor;
generate a third control signal by adding the first control signal and the second control signal; when
a value of the third control signal is a positive number, apply the brake torques to the front-left and rear-left wheels; and when the value of the third control signal is a negative number, apply the brake torques to the front-right and rear-right wheels (col. 3, lines 20-35 is discussing the determinations that lead to over and understeering which lead to the appropriate braking forces to be applied shown in col. 8, lines 45-55 to perform as claimed here).
Regarding claim 3 and 13 which depends from claim 1 and 11 respectively, Yamakado discloses wherein the control target includes a target yaw rate which is a yaw rate of a vehicle when steering is performed in a normal state during driving of the vehicle (col. 7, lines 48-65 discusses how to control the yaw).
Regarding claim 4 and 14 which depends from claim 3 and 13 respectively, Yamakado discloses wherein the target yaw rate is determined by using a yaw rate map generated by collecting data from yaw rates generated according to manipulation of the vehicle (equation 2 would allow for map generation).
Regarding claim 5 and 15 which depends from claim 3 and 13 respectively, Yamakado discloses wherein the target yaw rate is determined according to a driving speed of the vehicle and an amount of steering manipulation using a 2-degree of freedom (DOF) transverse vehicle dynamics model (the discussion in col. 7-8 is about steering and yaw and the variables effecting them).
Regarding claim 6 and 16 which depends from claim 1 and 11 respectively, Yamakado discloses wherein the state-feedback control uses a state space model in which a steering geometry model is applied to a 3-DOF transverse vehicle dynamics model (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7 and 17 which depends from claim 6 and 16 respectively, Yamakado discloses wherein:
a longitudinal element of the steering geometry model is applied to the 3-DOF transverse vehicle dynamics model, in the 3-DOF transverse vehicle dynamics model, a size and a sign of a scrub radius are determined by a slope of a king-pin axis, a horizontal offset of a wheel center, and an effective wheel size, and a value of the scrub radius is applied by changing a negative scrub radius value to a positive scrub radius value by mounting a spacer between one of the wheels and a brake disk or changing the slope of the king-pin axis (these are the standard definition of the terms).
Regarding claim 10 and 20 which depends from claim 1 and 11 respectively, Yamakado discloses wherein the brake system includes at least one of an integrated dynamic brake (IDB) system, an anti-lock brake system (ABS) in the IDB (stability option addressed), and an electronic stability control (ESC) logic (abstract discusses the electronic stability control).
Regarding claim 18 which depends from claim 17, Yamakado discloses wherein: the first control signal is an input of the state-feedback control in the state space model, and in the input of the state-feedback control, a control gain is determined by placing a representative pole at a location where a control stability is secured (col. 25, lines 63-67 discloses using a GVC gain to improve stability but the entire disclosure is about control and so where gains are used in their functions it can be said to relate to this limitation).
Regarding claim 19 which depends from claim 12, Yamakado discloses comprising: when a value of the third control signal is a positive number, applying the brake torques to the front-left and rear-left wheels; and when the value of the third control signal is a negative number, applying braking torques to the front-right and rear-right wheels (col. 3, lines 20-35 is discussing the determinations that lead to over and understeering which lead to the appropriate braking forces to be applied shown in col. 8, lines 45-55 to perform as claimed here).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8, 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 requires the consideration of variables in their model that are not discussed in this context in the prior art and so overcomes the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments about the amendments made to the claims, see pages 8-10, filed 12/19/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Labarbera (U.S. Pat. No. 12,545,315) in view of Yamakado (U.S. Pat. No. 10,384,673).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747