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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. The amendment overcomes the 112b rejection on record.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application DE10 2021 207 595.9 filed on 07/16/2021.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (US20080208406) in view of Tatenaka (US2009088918) and Dumas (US20230286523) and Atzeni (US20220097451).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method for determining driving status variables of a vehicle indirectly using a control device and sensors that directly measure other vehicle status information, wherein the control device has at least one computing device, at least one sensor device, and at least one actuator device ([0023]-[0035] disclosing sensors, computing devices and actuator devices. See [0023]-[0035] disclosing the measuring of speed by sensors to calculate information such as slip angle and then based on the calculated slip angle to determine lateral forces), the method comprising:
In a first step, reading in by at least one sensor device, and transmitting to the computing device the following vehicle status information: A steering angle of the vehicle ([0015] disclosing the steering wheel sensor to measure steering wheel angle ),
A yaw angle rate ([0015] disclosing a yaw rate from sensor),
In a subsequent step, calculating calculated driving status variables by the computing device using a computational model, wherein further driving variables are determined based on the calculated driving status variables, and in a subsequent step, transmitting by the computing device, the calculated driving status variables and determined driving variables to the actuator device, wherein the vehicle is controlled, and or/regulated using the calculated driving variables and determined driving status variables, ([0023]-[0035] disclosing a dynamic vehicle model incorporating the suspension model and tire model, wherein input values such as vehicle speed, yaw rate and steering angle are input, then the output is slip angle “calculated driving status variables” and based on the slip angle, the lateral forces are calculated “further driving variables” that are not directly measured. See also figure 2 and [0006] disclosing the output of the dynamic model uses the front and rear tire lateral forces that are calculated by the model to send commands to the vehicle.),
Wherein the computational model contains a vehicle model, a tire model, and a wheel suspension model which are solved together in the computing device according to the following differential equation system ([0023]-[0035], equations 12-30 disclosing the vehicle model that includes within a tire model and wheel suspension model solved together):
PNG
media_image1.png
83
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein MF denotes a 10x10 mass matrix of the vehicle used in the multibody vehicle model; Wherein MRi denotes a 10x10 matrix of the wheel used in the multibody vehicle model; Wherein
PNG
media_image2.png
25
12
media_image2.png
Greyscale
denotes a derivative of a state vector used in the multibody vehicle model; Wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
23
15
media_image3.png
Greyscale
denotes a 10x1 applied forces vector of the vehicle; Wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
25
11
media_image4.png
Greyscale
denotes a 10x1 applied forces vector of the multibody ([0006], [0023]-[0036] disclosing the masses of the vehicle and wheels and derivatives of states and applied forces for the vehicle and the model);
Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Chen does not teach A longitudinal road inclination of the vehicle and A transverse road inclination of the vehicle; A wheel speed of each vehicle wheel
Tatenaka teaches A wheel speed of each vehicle wheel ([0171]-[0175], [0193] disclosing detecting a vehicle wheel speed for each wheel and using the wheel speed in a vehicle model to correct a vehicle command to an actuator).
Wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
23
15
media_image3.png
Greyscale
denotes a 10x1 torques vector of the vehicle; Wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
25
11
media_image4.png
Greyscale
denotes a 10x1 torques vector of the multibody vehicle model ([0171]-[0175], [0193], [0211]-[0212] disclosing applied torques in each tire for the model and vehicle)
Tatenaka discloses calculating difficult to calculate parameters such as road friction coefficient by using models to estimate the values, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined or substituted the model of Tatenaka using the detected wheel speeds to the model of Chen in order to determine a non measured state of a parameter such as friction which is used to improve the driving of the vehicle as taught by Tatenaka [0193], with reasonable expectation of success and for redundancy wherein the incorporation of the model with more values improves the vehicle control and to calculate driving braking forces and torques of a road reaction that are produced in each tire relative to the motion between the vehicle and road [0212].
Chen as modified by Tatenaka does not teach a longitudinal road inclination of the vehicle and a transverse road inclination of the vehicle; Wherein
PNG
media_image5.png
21
20
media_image5.png
Greyscale
denotes a 10x1 gyroscopic force vector of the vehicle;
Wherein
PNG
media_image6.png
23
21
media_image6.png
Greyscale
denotes a 10x1 gyroscopic vector of the multibody vehicle model;
Wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
23
15
media_image3.png
Greyscale
denotes a 10x1 torques vector of the vehicle;
Dumas teaches a longitudinal road inclination of the vehicle and a transverse road inclination of the vehicle ([0021] disclosing the inclination and bank of the road from sensors, [0130]-[0131] disclosing the inclination used to determine target trajectory parameters of the vehicle);
Dumas teaches the slope and transverse inclination in order to determine unmeasured states of the vehicle such as gravity and inertia forces and determining control targets, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or substitute the model including the road inclination of the vehicle and transverse inclination of the road to determine target parameters as taught by Dumas and for redundancy and avoiding slippage by basing commands on the inclination and friction.
Atzeni teaches Wherein
PNG
media_image5.png
21
20
media_image5.png
Greyscale
denotes a 10x1 gyroscopic force vector of the vehicle, Wherein
PNG
media_image6.png
23
21
media_image6.png
Greyscale
denotes a 10x1 gyroscopic vector of the multibody vehicle model ([0069], [0085], [0100], [0129], [0142] all disclose generating compensational gyroscopic force, specifically, [0145] discloses an embodiment that generates gyroscopic force to compensate for resulting gyroscopic force from counterrotating flywheels, thus it takes into account the vehicle gyroscopic force generated in the model that compensates for it);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Atzeni in the model of Chen in order to compensate for the gyroscopic forces thus stabilizing a vehicle.
Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a coefficient of friction estimator for the tire model is used in the computing device of the computational model, with which an estimated coefficient of friction in the tire model can be is updated.
Specifically, Tatenaka teaches wherein a coefficient of friction estimator for the tire model is used in the computing device of the computational model, with which an estimated coefficient of friction in the tire model can be is updated ([0170] disclosing estimating the friction coefficient, [0189] disclosing the updatable coefficient of friction. [0193]-[0194] disclosing the coefficient of friction used by the model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Yamakado and Atzeni to incorporate the teaching of Tatenaka of estimating friction coefficient to be used by the computational model in order to improve the detection of the actuator command and avoid slipping by controlling the command based on the friction. It is also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the tire models incorporating the friction components yielding predictable results and improving environment representation and estimation of vehicle states.
Regarding claim 3, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni teaches the device for determining non-directly measurable driving status variables of a vehicle with a control device, wherein the control device has at least one computing device, at least one sensor device, and at least one actuator device, characterized-in that wherein the computing device is suitable for carrying carries out the method according to claim 1 any one of the above claims (Chen [0023]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the further driving comprise at least one of:
a vehicle reference speed over ground;
a float angle of the vehicle;
a roll rate and roll angle of the vehicle;
a pitch rate and pitch angle of the vehicle;
wheel loads of the wheels;
transmitted wheel forces and wheel torques;
a yaw moment of the vehicle;
a coefficient of friction of the road on which the vehicle is travelling; or
a slip angle on the wheels of the vehicle (Chen [0026]-[0028] disclosing the slip angle).
Regarding claim 13, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the suspension model and the tire model are downstream of the multibody vehicle model, wherein the suspension model and the tire model react on the multibody vehicle body, and the outputs of the suspension model and the tire model influence the vehicle model in a feedback manner.
Specifically, Tatenaka teaches wherein the suspension model and the tire model are downstream of the vehicle model, and the outputs of the suspension model and the tire model influence the vehicle model in a feedback manner ([0227] disclosing the vehicle model uses the road reactions forces and the ground contact forces and self aligning torques from the tire model and the suspension model as feedback, see also [0211]-[0227] for full details).
it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Tatenaka of wherein the suspension model and the tire model are downstream of the vehicle model, and the outputs of the suspension model and the tire model influence the vehicle model in a feedback manner in order to calculate a state of the vehicle based on an accurate input value from the suspension models and tire model as taught by Tatenaka thus improving vehicle control. Chen teaches the vehicle model incorporating the tire model and suspension model, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method of Tatenaka of using the feedback from the suspension and tire models to improve the vehicle model yielding predictable results.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (US20080208406) in view of Tatenaka (US2009088918) and Dumas (US20230286523) and Atzeni (US20220097451) and Minakuchi (US20200039314).
Regarding claim 4, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the state vector
PNG
media_image7.png
67
371
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Includes in generalized coordinates:
speeds
PNG
media_image8.png
27
59
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, in the direction of the respective axis in an inertial vehicle coordinate system (Chen [0015]-[0036] disclosing the speed and lateral velocities);
rotational speeds
PNG
media_image9.png
35
63
media_image9.png
Greyscale
around the z, y, and x axes of the vehicle in a vehicle-fixed coordinate system (Chen [0015]-[0036] disclosing yaw rate and roll rate); and
Minakuchi teaches the vertical speed Vz and vertical angular pitch speed rate ([0054] disclosing the sprung vehicle speed in the vertical direction and the pitch rate). wheel rotation speeds
PNG
media_image10.png
19
137
media_image10.png
Greyscale
front left, front right, rear left and rear right around the y-axis of the vehicle ([0037] disclosing the wheel speeds).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Dumas yielding predictable result taking in consideration angular speed in a Z direction in order to determine if a vehicle is rolling and thus improves vehicle control such as a control amount to damp the vehicle effect [0032]. Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving vehicle states, as shown by Chen . Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (US20080208406) in view of Tatenaka (US2009088918) and Dumas (US20230286523) and Atzeni (US20220097451) and Iwashita (US20210107493)
Regarding claim 5, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the computational model includes a multibody vehicle model in the form of a multi-body model with five bodies, modeling of wheel suspensions, and full fledged tire modeling (at least [0023] disclosing the vehicle model including a three degree of freedom vehicle model and employs a non-linear suspension model and non-linear tire model).
Iwashita teaches five body model ([0083] disclosing the five body vehicle model);
It is obvious to incorporate the teaching of Iwashita of five body model in order to represent the vehicle on wheels as taught by Iwashita thus representing the vehicle in full and improving the representation and state estimation.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (US20080208406) in view of Tatenaka (US2009088918) and Dumas (US20230286523) and Atzeni (US20220097451) and Yamakado (US20090030574).
Regarding claim 6, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle model is a ten-degree of freedom vehicle model (Chen [0023] disclosing the three degree of freedom model).
Yamakado teaches wherein the vehicle model is a ten-degree of freedom ([0129] disclosing a 10 degree of freedom model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni to incorporate a 10 degree of freedom as an obvious design choice and improving the simulation and modeling of vehicle movements.
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (US20080208406) in view of Tatenaka (US2009088918) and Dumas (US20230286523) and Atzeni (US20220097451) and Hori (US20160288830) and Storti (US20200001662).
Claim 7, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the method locks one degree of freedom of the vehicle model and four degrees of freedom of the wheels, and adopts these as an input for the computational model.
Hori teaches wherein the method locks one degree of freedom of the vehicle model ([0050] disclosing locking the speed, i.e., degree of freedom in a longitudinal direction and using that value in the model and using that value in the model).
It would have been obvious to try to simulate a behavior using the constant speed from a finite number of solutions such as constant or varying speeds with reasonable expectation of success. It is also obvious to substitute the constant speed in a model of Chen to simplify the calculations leading to reasonable expectation of success.
Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni and Hori does not teach and four degrees of freedom of the wheels, and adopts these as an input for the computational model.
Storti teaches and four degrees of freedom of the wheels, and adopts these as an input for the computational model ([0066] disclosing using a constant value of the vehicle wheels i.e., a degree of freedom for each wheel is locked to be constant into the model).
It would have been obvious to try to simulate a behavior using the constant speed from a finite number of solutions such as constant or varying speeds with reasonable expectation of success. It is also obvious to substitute the constant speed in a model of Chen to simplify the calculations leading to reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni and Hori and Storti further teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein a vehicle bus receives the input and connects the computing device, the sensor device, and the actuator device to each other for signal transmission ([0015] disclosing the components including the actuator and the sensors and models communicate using a CAN),
Tatenaka further teaches wherein the method includes generating wheel torques as output variables ([0194] at least disclosing the generation of wheel torques as output desired values).
Chen teaches the output being a desired yaw rate, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of desired wheel torques and speeds in order to reach the desired yaw rate yielding predictable results.
Tatenaka further teaches and generates yaw torque as output ([0412] disclosing generating yaw moment “torque”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Hori and Storti to incorporate the teaching of Tatenaka of generating yaw torque as output variable in order to converge the yaw to the desired value or the course to the desired value as taught by Tatenaka [0412].
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (US20080208406) in view of Tatenaka (US2009088918) and Dumas (US20230286523) and Atzeni (US20220097451) and Shiraishi (US20020134149).
Regarding claim 10, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni teaches the method according to claim 1, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni does not teach wherein the wheel suspension model models the wheel suspensions as a vertical spring and a vertical damper for each wheel of the vehicle.
Shiraishi teaches herein the wheel suspension model models the wheel suspensions as a vertical spring and a vertical damper for each wheel of the vehicle ([0006] disclosing the suspension including a stabilizer modeled as torsional beam, see also [0090]-[0096]).
Chen teaches a tire model, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the teaching of Shiraishi as an alternative to the tire model of Chen with expected results, in addition, the tire model of Shiraishi is advantageous as it resembles real suspension components thus improving the model.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (US20080208406) in view of Tatenaka (US2009088918) and Dumas (US20230286523) and Atzeni (US20220097451) and Shiraishi (US20020134149) and Oku (US20040144168).
Regarding claim 11, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni and Shiraishi teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein in the wheel suspension model, the following force elements are used per vehicle wheel:
a spring with constant stiffness or the spring characteristic curve thereof ([0094] disclosing the spring constant);
a damper with constant damping or the damping curve thereof ([0094] disclosing the damping constant); and
Oku teaches a stabilizer bar with constant torsional rigidity ([0062] and [0068] disclosing the torsional rigidity of the stabilizer which is given, i.e.,, constant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni and Shiraishi to incorporate the teaching of Oku of a stabilizer bar with constant torsional rigidity in order to improve twist rigidity as taught by Oku [0112], it is also obvious to combine yielding to expected results.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (US20080208406) in view of Tatenaka (US2009088918) and Dumas (US20230286523) and Atzeni (US20220097451) and Mori (US20030195689).
Regarding claim 12, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni does not teach wherein the coefficient of friction estimator compares the lateral and longitudinal accelerations of the vehicle measured and possibly transmitted via the vehicle bus with the respective accelerations calculated by the computational model and returns them as a weighted difference back to the tire model to update the coefficient of friction within the tire model.
Mori teaches wherein the coefficient of friction estimator compares the lateral and longitudinal accelerations of the vehicle measured and possibly transmitted via the vehicle bus with the respective accelerations calculated by the computational model and returns them as a weighted difference back to the tire model to update the coefficient of friction within the tire model ([0112]-[0117] disclosing adjusting the initial coefficient of friction in the tire model based on the difference between the lateral acceleration calculated and the detected lateral acceleration. Further [0174]-[0178] disclosing the difference between calculated and detected longitudinal acceleration to update the coefficient of friction in the tire model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Chen as modified by Tatenaka and Dumas and Atzeni to incorporate the teaching of Mori of wherein the coefficient of friction estimator compares the lateral and longitudinal accelerations of the vehicle measured and possibly transmitted via the vehicle bus with the respective accelerations calculated by the computational model and returns them as a weighted difference back to the tire model to update the coefficient of friction within the tire model in order to improve the precision of estimation of the quantities that represent the state of the vehicle by updating the initial value of the friction as taught by Mori [0112]-[0117] and [0174]-[0178].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the 112b rejection, rejection is withdrawn based on the amendment of the claims.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection, that Chen in view of Tatenaka and Dumas “fails to disclose determining driving status variables using the computational model”, “examiner does not consider actual computational model due to 112 rejection”, “regulation using the driving variables”, Chen teaches in [0023]-[0036] determining based on a multibody model the lateral force which is a driving state variable to regulate the vehicle based on the driving variable being the lateral force and considers the use of computation model of the vehicle to calculate the yaw rate at least that is used in determining that lateral force.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that “the computations performed are reactive and provide feedback”, Chen teaches calculating a yaw rate using the model, then estimates a slip angle from that calculated yaw rate and then uses that to control the vehicle, thus it is using it in the same reactive and feedback way.
The argument that the computation model takes the coefficient of friction into account is not claimed in the limitation of the claim, however, the combination with Tatenaka teaches the friction into account in a model to correct the vehicle control based on that.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20210171050 disclosing a vehicle, suspension and tire model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B