Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1208/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 9 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant stated:
Severinsson, while arbitrating torque requests from different programs, fundamentally lacks the idea of arbitrating requested accelerations
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Arbitration of acceleration requests received from a different programs is a well understood and practiced approach in vehicle control. Suzuki (US 20200290609) teaches of receiving acceleration requests from a plurality of applications and arbitrating them (see abstract). Another example is Asano (US 20200290609) disclosing same concept in [0022].
In vehicle control, a motion request is in form of speed, torque or acceleration. Both speed and acceleration are translated into torque because propulsion source generates torque. An acceleration input of driver in Severinsson ([0059]) is necessarily converted to torque. Every ECM/module in a vehicle as any point has a an acceleration demand/request e.g. difference between Cruise set speed and current speed will lead to an acceleration value, position of accelerator pedal will be translated to acceleration value, collision avoidance system observes current vehicle speed and acceleration to determine likelihood of impact etc. Therefore, the concept of receiving acceleration requests and arbitrating them in view of evidentiary art is deemed a common practice and necessary for Severinsson.
Applicant further stated: Severinsson in view of Bergfjord fails to teach each of (a) arbitrated longitudinal acceleration requests are used to determine a target longitudinal acceleration, and (b) that target longitudinal acceleration is compared to a sensor's detection value, and (c) that comparison is the one to determine if an external impact is applied to a vehicle
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to (a), longitudinal acceleration is always present in a vehicle while in motion, and performing all the claimed steps for longitudinal acceleration are necessary for Severinsson. And in case applicant disagrees with examiner’s position, current rejection of claims 1, 8 and 9 relies on Suzuki to receive longitudinal acceleration requests and arbitrating them. Therefore, the argument is moot.
With respect to (b) and (c), Bergfjord teaches perform first determination processing to determine whether an external impact is applied to the vehicle, by comparing the target acceleration with the detection value ([0052-0053], disclosing electric motor generating power for acceleration and accelerometer then measures no acceleration 43 at (B), and the traction control module thus detects a discrepancy between the actual acceleration and the expected acceleration. Power of motor is decreased until discrepancy 49 between the actual motion (sensed acceleration) and the expected motion begins to drop and then reaches a minimum)
A propulsion source is operated to produce one torque value and will produce one acceleration value. As (a) is taught by Severinsson in view of Suzuki, Bergfjord is relied on only to teach “comparing target acceleration with detected value to determine occurrence of external impact”
Therefore, modification through Bergfjord teaches points (b) and (c).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Severinsson (US 20140162842) in view Suzuki (US 11608075) and Bergfjord (US 20120226399)
For claim 1, Severinsson teaches: An information processing device ([0059], disclosing a torque vectoring controller), comprising one or more processors configured to receive a requested acceleration as one of motion requests for a vehicle from each of sets of application software ([0059], disclosing a plurality of control programs such as regenerative braking, traction performance, vehicle stability etc.. And control variables are calculated as driver’s acceleration request. Engine and/or electronic motor torque provides propulsion to a vehicle, and that leads to vehicle acceleration. A propulsion source is controlled in terms of torque which leads to acceleration. Therefore, torque request from different programs is interpreted as requested acceleration);
perform arbitration of requested accelerations that are received ([0061], disclosing torque requests from different programs are not compatible with each other and arbitration among all torque requests is performed);
output an instruction signal for controlling an actuator of the vehicle based on a target acceleration that is a result of the arbitration of the requested accelerations ([0048], disclosing controlling electric motor for torque vectoring);
acquire a detection value from an acceleration sensor installed in the vehicle ([0055-0059], disclosing vehicle stability and traction performance. And vehicle state data is collected by a plurality of sensors across the vehicle); and
Although acceleration due to driver input is necessarily translated as longitudinal acceleration ([0059], disclosing receiving driver acceleration request), Severinsson does not explicitly disclose acceleration to be longitudinal.
Suzuki teaches arbitrating longitudinal acceleration requests of a vehicle (column 21, disclosing arbitrating a plurality of longitudinal acceleration requests. And column 3, disclosing a plurality of ADAS applications request their respective acceleration values and those values are arbitrated)
Severinsson and Suzuki are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., vehicle control. It would have been obvious to modify art of Severinsson to receive and arbitrate longitudinal acceleration requests as taught by Suzuki to ensure safety and comfort of passengers.
Additionally, Suzuki is relied on as evidentiary art to support teaching of “receive a requested longitudinal acceleration as one of motion requests for a vehicle from each of sets of application software; perform arbitration of requested longitudinal accelerations that are received”
Severinsson does not teach: perform first determination processing to determine whether an external impact is applied to the vehicle, by comparing the target longitudinal acceleration with the detection value
Bergfjord teaches perform first determination processing to determine whether an external impact is applied to the vehicle, by comparing the target acceleration with the detection value ([0052-0053], disclosing electric motor generating power for acceleration and accelerometer then measures no acceleration 43 at (B), and the traction control module thus detects a discrepancy between the actual acceleration and the expected acceleration. Power of motor is decreased until discrepancy 49 between the actual motion (sensed acceleration) and the expected motion (based on the desired power, not the reduced power) begins to drop and then reaches a minimum)
Severinsson and Bergfjord are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., vehicle control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Severinsson to perform first determination processing to determine whether an external impact is applied to the vehicle, by comparing the target longitudinal acceleration with the detection value as taught by Bergfjord improve control response, thereby maintaining optimum power. See Bergfjord [0052].
Claims 8 and 9 recite limitations similar in scope to claim 1, hence are similarly rejected.
For claim 3, modified Severinsson teaches: The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform second determination processing to determine whether the external impact is applied to the vehicle, based on the detection value, regardless of the target acceleration ([0055-0059], disclosing vehicle stability and traction performance),
execute the first determination processing on a condition that the actuator is controlled based on the target acceleration ([0059], disclosing control variables provided to and/or calculated by the electrical motor control functionality 432 from the received vehicle state data 442, 444 may include driver's acceleration or deceleration request (i.e. acceleration or brake pedal position) and steering wheel angle), and
execute the second determination processing on a condition that the actuator is controlled based on operations by a driver of the vehicle ([0059], disclosing control variables provided to and/or calculated by the electrical motor control functionality 432 from the received vehicle state data 442, 444 may include driver's acceleration or deceleration request (i.e. acceleration or brake pedal position) and steering wheel angle).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Severinsson in view of Suzuki, Bergfjord and Chimner (US 20160229290 ).
For claim 2, modified Severinsson teaches: The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to
acquire a vehicle speed that is a speed of the vehicle ([0059], disclosing variable provided to motor control is estimated vehicle speed), and
Severinsson does not teach: execute the first determination processing, provided that the vehicle speed is no greater than a stipulated vehicle speed that is set in advance
Isono teaches execute the first determination processing, provided that the vehicle speed is no greater than a stipulated vehicle speed that is set in advance (abstract, disclosing limiting torque of wheel of a vehicle. [0019], disclosing determining is vehicle is below maximum vehicle speed threshold to perform eLSD traction control. And if the current vehicle speed is above the threshold, only then wheel slip (first determination processing) is determined for slip)
Isono and Severinsson are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., vehicle traction control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Severinsson to execute the first determination processing, provided that the vehicle speed is no greater than a stipulated vehicle speed that is set in advance as taught by Isono as a condition to determine whether vehicle is within operating range of slip control logic implementation. See Isono 0042].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Severinsson in view of Suzuki, Bergfjord and Omikawa (US 20220105932), or in the alternative, Severinsson in view of Suzuki, Bergfjord and Dogahara (US 4911259)
For claim 4, modified Severinsson teaches: The information processing device according to claim 1,
Severinsson does not teach: wherein the one or more processors are configured to estimate a magnitude of an impact applied to the vehicle based on a difference between the detected value and the target acceleration, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle
Omikawa teaches one or more processors are configured to estimate a magnitude of an impact applied to the vehicle based on a difference between the detected value and the target acceleration, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle ([0045], disclosing Lane-based lateral acceleration is calculated as a difference between estimated lateral acceleration and actual lateral acceleration. Lateral acceleration is impact applied to the vehicle. [0005], disclosing control pattern generator generates the new lane departure control pattern by correcting the lane-based lateral acceleration in accordance with an excess of the lane-based lateral acceleration over the limit. [0029], disclosing lane departure control apparatus 1 includes an electric-power-steering (EPS) device 6 and a lane-departure-prevention control unit)
Severinsson and Omikawa are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., vehicle control. It would have been obvious to one or more processors are configured to estimate a magnitude of an impact applied to the vehicle based on a difference between the detected value and the target acceleration, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle as taught by Omikawa to prevent and correct excessive lateral movement. Thereby ensuring road safety.
Alternatively Dogahara teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to estimate a magnitude of an impact applied to the vehicle based on a difference between the detected value and the target acceleration, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle (abstract, disclosing vehicle control system to determine environmental effect on vehicle. Column 1, disclosing comparing target acceleration with measured acceleration and reference traction is calculated and he difference between an actually measured total traction force and the reference traction force is assumed as an environmental effect value i.e., magnitude. Thus the environmental effect value represents an increase or decrease from the reference traction force due to effects of slope, wind, and weight deviation of the vehicle. Feedback control is adjusted accordingly to prevent generation of a hunting or an overshooting)
Severinsson and Dogahara are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., vehicle control. It would have been obvious to one or more processors are configured to estimate a magnitude of an impact applied to the vehicle based on a difference between the detected value and the target acceleration, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle as taught by Dogahara to prevent generation of a hunting or an overshooting.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Severinsson in view of Suzuki, Bergfjord and Murakami (JP 2005075315, disclosed in IDS submitted on 03/08/2024)
For claim 5, modified Severinsson teaches: The information processing device according to claim 1,
Severinsson does not teach: wherein the one or more processors are configured to notify a user of the vehicle that the external impact is applied to the vehicle, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle
Murakami teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to notify a user of the vehicle that the external impact is applied to the vehicle, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle (page 2, disclosing warning unit 106 turns on the warning lamp 72 or sounds a warning sound to the buzzer 70 to notify the driver)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Severinsson to wherein the one or more processors are configured to notify a user of the vehicle that the external impact is applied to the vehicle, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle as taught by Murakami to notify driver of the event. Thereby ensuring driver awareness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Severinsson in view of Suzuki, Bergfjord and McClain (US 20150203109).
For claim 6. Modified Severinsson teaches: The information processing device according to claim 1,
Severinsson does not teach: wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire a wheel speed that is a rotational speed of a wheel that the vehicle is equipped with, and make determination based on the wheel speed whether a roadway departure of the wheel occurred, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle.
McClain teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire a wheel speed that is a rotational speed of a wheel that the vehicle is equipped with, and make determination based on the wheel speed whether a roadway departure of the wheel occurred, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle ([0030], disclosing Sensors 16, 116, such as wheel speed sensors and independent acceleration sensors, can be used to determine vehicle trajectory and confirm roadway departure. Abstract, disclosing safety system for a vehicle providing a road departure protection feature. And ECU determines a vehicle roadway departure is occurring sends instructions to apply at least one corrective action with at least an electronic stability control system)
Severinsson and McClain are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., vehicle stability. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Severinsson to wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire a wheel speed that is a rotational speed of a wheel that the vehicle is equipped with, and make determination based on the wheel speed whether a roadway departure of the wheel occurred, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle as taught by McClain to provide road departure protection feature. Thereby enhancing vehicle stability control and safety.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Severinsson in view of Suzuki, Bergfjord and Putney (US 20240274015).
For claim 7, modified Severinsson teaches: The information processing device according to claim 1,
Severinsson does not teach: wherein the one or more processors are configured to externally transmit position information of a point at which the vehicle is situated when the external impact is applied to the vehicle, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle.
Putney teaches: one or more processors are configured to externally transmit position information of a point at which the vehicle is situated when the external impact is applied to the vehicle, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle ([0044], disclosing slip detection module to determine vehicle is experiencing a slip condition of loss of traction. And slip detection module 306b can identify the slip condition and a location of the slip condition, and this information can be transmitted to the follower vehicles)
Putney and Severinsson are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., detecting loss of traction of vehicle wheels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed inventio to further modify art of Severinsson to one or more processors are configured to externally transmit position information of a point at which the vehicle is situated when the external impact is applied to the vehicle, on a condition that determination is made in the first determination processing that the external impact is applied to the vehicle as taught by Putney to observe vehicle performance remotely. See Putney [0032]. Additionally the modification is advantageous to follower vehicles to implement one or more remedial measures at or in advance of a location of that external impact. Thereby enhancing safety. See Putney [0004].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Asano (US 20200290609) teaches of receiving a plurality of acceleration requests from a plurality of application software and arbitrating those requests. See [0022].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights