DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Canceled:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § for Claims have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § for Claims have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim cancelations.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant presents the following arguments:
Applicant submits that Shiozawa fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least "determining current driving conditions for the vehicle in the nonlinear handling region; and modifying driving behavior of the vehicle to safely control the vehicle during the limit friction event in the nonlinear handling region with the tire road limit nearness estimation being applied for modifying the driving behavior" as recited in claims 1, 8, and 21.
Claims 1, 8, and 21, as amended, recite determining current driving conditions for the vehicle (e.g., dry, wet, snow, ice (specification at para. [0047])) while the tire is in a nonlinear handling region. Shiozawa paragraphs [0148] and [0149] describe commands for decreasing an output of the EPS motor 7 depending on the degree of decrease of lateral force characteristic index of front wheels and restraining a decrease of the steering force assist torque when the lateral force characteristic index of the front wheels decreases and the lateral force characteristic index of the rear wheels decreases. Shiozawa paragraph [0218] describes preventing drift-out g due to quick steering actions during icy or snowy road conditions but does not teach any sensing or determination of such conditions. Shiozawa does not disclose sensing or determining environmental or road conditions as part of its estimation routine.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determining current driving conditions for the vehicle (e.g., dry, wet, snow, ice)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). The argument is not commensurate in scope with claims 1, 8, and 21, which do not recite the argued dry, wet, snow, or ice related driving conditions. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., sensing or determining icy or snowy road conditions are not recited in the rejected claim(s). The argument is not commensurate in scope with claims 1, 8, and 21, which do not recite the sensing or determining of icy or snowy road conditions. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments respecting sensing or determination of current driving conditions in the nonlinear handling region, previously cited paragraphs : ¶¶0112-0113, 0139-0145, 0148-014 and previously citied : Figures 6A, 6B, 8, 10, and 17 along with corresponding description clearly teach determining current driving condition for the vehicle in the nonlinear handling region.
Additionally, respecting sensing or determining of icy or snowy road conditions, Examiner respectfully draws Applicant’s attention to : ¶¶0201-0218 drawn to sensing and determining of icy or snowy road conditions. It should be noted that the Examiner is maintaining the same prior art and reasoning used in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/09/2025. Examiner is providing additional explanation as to why Shiozawa et al. teaches the claimed limitations at issue along with the argued unclaimed features.
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claims , Applicant's arguments are based only upon dependencies from claims . Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A computer implemented method comprising:
obtaining sensor signals from a sensor system of a vehicle to monitor driving operations and to determine localization of the vehicle; (Fig 10)
determining lateral force disturbances for front and rear lateral accelerations and a bulk longitudinal force disturbance for the vehicle based on the localization and the sensor signals; See at least ¶¶ ()
determining whether tire force and tire slip signals are detected to indicate a limit friction event for a nonlinear handling region; See at least ¶¶0112-0113, 0141; () and
determining a tire road limit nearness estimation () for the vehicle based on the tire force and tire slip angle signals, the lateral force disturbances for front and rear lateral accelerations and the bulk longitudinal force disturbance when the tire force and tire slip signals are detected for a nonlinear handling region. See at least ¶¶0114, 0142-0145, ()
determining current driving conditions for the vehicle in the nonlinear handling region; and modifying driving behavior of the vehicle to safely control the vehicle during the limit friction event in the nonlinear handling region with the tire road limit nearness estimation being applied for modifying the driving behavior. See at least ¶¶0148-0149
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprising:
periodically receiving a priori handling limit estimate for tire road friction from a vehicle capabilities node. (Fig 16: set threshold value)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprising:
for no detected observable tire force and tire slip signals, applying the a priori handling limit estimate for tire road friction during a linear handling region. See at least ¶¶0110; Fig 16
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprising:
receiving a feedback signal from an electronic control unit (ECU) including an anti-lock braking system (ABS) signal, a traction control system (TCS) signal, or an electronic stability control (ESC) to indicate a limit friction event for the nonlinear handling region. (Fig 10)
Regarding Claim ,
further comprising:
sending the tire road limit nearness estimation to planning and control systems. See at least ¶0146
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the sensor signals comprise tire force signals, tire slip angle signals, and ranging signals for localization of the vehicle and nearby objects within a certain distance of the vehicle and the sensor system. (Fig 10)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A computing system, comprising:
a memory storing instructions See at least ¶¶0141; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor is configured to execute instructions of a software program to See at least ¶¶0141:
obtain sensor signals from a sensor system of an autonomous vehicle to monitor driving operations and to determine localization of the autonomous vehicle; (Fig 10)
determine lateral force disturbances for front and rear lateral accelerations and a bulk longitudinal force disturbance for the autonomous vehicle based on the localization and the sensor signals; See at least ¶¶ ()
determine whether tire force and tire slip signals are detected to indicate a limit friction event for a nonlinear handling region; See at least ¶¶0112-0113, 0141; () and
determine a tire road limit nearness estimation () for the vehicle based on the tire force and tire slip angle signals, the lateral force disturbances for front and rear lateral accelerations and the bulk longitudinal force disturbance when the tire force and tire slip signals are detected for a nonlinear handling region. See at least ¶¶0114, 0142-0145, ()
determine current driving conditions for the vehicle in the nonlinear handling region; and modify driving behavior of the vehicle to safely control the vehicle during the limit friction event in the nonlinear handling region with the tire road limit nearness estimation being applied for modifying the driving behavior. See at least ¶¶0148-0149
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions to:
periodically receive a priori handling limit estimate for tire road friction from a vehicle capabilities node. Fig 16: set threshold value
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions to:
for no detected observable tire force and tire slip signals, apply the a priori handling limit estimate for tire road friction during a linear handling region. See at least ¶¶0110; Fig 16
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions to:
receive a feedback signal from an electronic control unit (ECU) including an anti-lock braking system (ABS) signal, a traction control system (TCS) signal, or an electronic stability control (ESC) to indicate a limit friction event for the nonlinear handling region. (Fig 10)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving a feedback signal from an electronic control unit (ECU) of an autonomous vehicle (AV); (Fig 10)
determining whether tire force and tire slip signals of the AV are detected to indicate a limit friction event for a nonlinear handling region; See at least ¶¶0112-0113, 0141; () and
determining real-time handling limit estimation () including a tire road limit nearness estimation for the AV based partially on the feedback signal when the tire force and tire slip signals are detected for a nonlinear handling region See at least ¶¶0114, 0142-0145, ().
determining current driving conditions for the vehicle in the nonlinear handling region; and modifying driving behavior of the vehicle to safely control the vehicle during the limit friction event in the nonlinear handling region with the tire road limit nearness estimation being applied for modifying the driving behavior. See at least ¶¶0148-0149
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the feedback signal includes an anti-lock braking system (ABS) signal, a traction control system (TCS) signal, or an electronic stability control (ESC) to indicate a limit friction event for the nonlinear handling region. (Fig 10)
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant'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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747