DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are currently pending in the application. Applicant has overcome all outstanding rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 9/16/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first control unit” and “at least one second control unit” in claims 1-6 and 8-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US2024/0359697A1) in view of Riese (DE102018212804A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a vehicle steering system (Figures 1-12), comprising: a first control unit (front axle steer-by-wire [SbW] steering control portion of controller 120 and/or steering control device 100 and/or steering system 1) configured to perform the steering function of a vehicle (Paragraphs 0031-0032, 0044-0045, 0054-0055, 0057-0059, 0084); and at least one second control unit (52 and 53 in Figure 2, or 122 and 123 in Figure 4 [directed to the differential brake control module or steer-by-brake (SbB) ECU, and the rear wheel steering (RWS) control module/ECU], for example) configured to participate in the control of the steering function of the vehicle in response to an abnormal operational state of the first control unit being detected (Paragraph 0053, 0058-0059, 0105-0107).
Kim does not teach that the at least one second control unit includes a torque vectoring control system which is, in response to the abnormal operational state of the first control unit being detected, configured to apply a driving force to at least one wheel of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in a desired steering direction.
Riese teaches a similar vehicle steering system (Figures 1-2), comprising: a first control unit (front axle steer by wire system 14 and its control, including 16/17, and 26) configured to perform a steering function of a vehicle (Paragraphs 0021-0025, 0032); and at least one second control unit (vehicle dynamics control system 20, steer-by-brake system 22, and torque vectoring control system 18 [Paragraphs 0026-0029, 0032]) configured to participate in the control of the steering function of the vehicle in response to an abnormal operational state of the first control unit being detected (Paragraphs 0010, 0037-0038, 0041-0046).
Riese teaches that the at least one second control unit including a torque vectoring control system (18) (as noted above), wherein, in response to the abnormal operational state of the first control unit being detected, the torque vectoring control system is configured to apply a driving force to at least one wheel of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in a desired steering direction, in order to manipulate the actual steering angle to a corrected position for requested steering direction, in order to correct a mechanical mismatch of the front axle steering angle, and in order to effectively manipulate the vehicle according to a desired steering amount in a case where the front axle steering is locked in position, in combination with steer-by-brake control (Paragraphs 0010, 0037-0038, 0041-0046).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kim, such that the at least one second control unit includes a torque vectoring control system which is, in response to the abnormal operational state of the first control unit being detected, configured to apply a driving force to at least one wheel of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in a desired steering direction, as suggested and taught by Riese, in order to in order to correct a mechanical mismatch of the front axle steering angle, and in order to effectively manipulate the vehicle according to a desired steering amount in a case where the front axle steering is locked in position, in combination with steer-by-brake control.
Regarding claim 2, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Kim teaches that the at least one second control unit further includes at least one of: an electronic stability program system, and a rear-wheel steering system (SbB and RWS previously cited).
Riese discloses this as well (vehicle dynamics control system 20, steer-by-brake system 22, and torque vectoring control system 18 [Paragraphs 0026-0029, 0032]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Kim teaches that the first control unit comprises an electric power steering system or steer-by-wire system (SbW previously cited).
Riese discloses this as well (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 4, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Kim teaches that the at least one second control unit includes an electronic stability program system (the brake and rear wheel steering systems are described as controlling vehicle stability throughout the specification, such as in paragraph 0080) configured to apply a braking force to at least one wheel of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in the desired steering direction, the braking force being applied separately to the at least one wheel using a hydraulic braking mechanism and/or a friction-based electromechanical braking mechanism (Paragraphs 0060, 0067-0080).
Riese also teaches that the at least one second control unit includes an electronic stability program system (See “vehicle dynamics control system 20 is designed to provide a vehicle stability functionality” in paragraph 0028), the electronic stability program system being configured to apply a braking force to at least one wheel of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in the desired steering direction, the braking force being applied separately to the at least one wheel using a hydraulic braking mechanism and/or a friction-based electromechanical braking mechanism (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 5, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 4 as discussed above, and Kim teaches that when understeer is detected, the electronic stability program system is capable of being configured to apply braking force to at least one wheel on a side of the vehicle corresponding to the desired steering direction, so as to apply a lateral torque to a body of the vehicle towards the desired steering direction; and/or when oversteer is detected, the electronic stability program system is capable of being configured to apply braking force to at least one wheel on the side of the vehicle that is opposite to the desired steering direction, so as to apply a lateral torque to the body of the vehicle body in a direction opposite to the desired steering direction (See feedback control for following the target yaw rate [where yaw rate is indicative of understeer/oversteer based on being negative or positive] in Figure 12, Paragraphs 0087-0109 [See "An upper controller 620 may calculate, through a SbB controller 621, a target differential force (fl) control input for minimizing an error between a control target and a vehicle state in real time by a state-feedback control.", where the control target corresponds to yaw rate as previously disclosed and as illustrated in Figure 12 where the feedback error is sent to 620]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Kim teaches that the at least one second control unit includes a rear-wheel steering system (as cited above), the rear-wheel steering system being configured to control a steering angle of rear wheels of the vehicle such that the vehicle is steered towards the desired steering direction, the direction of the steering angle of the rear wheels being opposite to the desired steering direction (Paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 8, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 4 as discussed above, and Riese teaches that driving parameters and/or braking parameters of each wheel on each side of the vehicle are capable of being synergistically controlled by the torque vectoring control system and the electronic stability program system, such that the vehicle is steered towards the desired steering direction, and wherein the torque vectoring control system is capable of controlling the driving parameters and/or braking parameters of each wheel on each side of the vehicle, and the electronic stability program system is capable of participating in the control of the braking operation of each wheel on at least one side of the vehicle (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 9, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 2 as discussed above, and both Kim and Riese teaches the driving parameters and/or braking parameters of each wheel on each side of the vehicle is capable of being synergistically controlled by the electronic stability program system and the rear-wheel steering system, such that the vehicle is steered towards the desired steering direction, and wherein the electronic stability program system is capable of controlling a braking force of each wheel on the same side of the vehicle, and the rear-wheel steering system is capable of controlling the rear-wheel steering angle of the vehicle (See previously cited sections of both references).
Regarding claim 10, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 6 as discussed above, and Riese teaches that driving parameters and/or braking parameters of each wheel on each side of the vehicle are capable of being synergistically controlled by the torque vectoring control system and the rear-wheel steering system, such that the vehicle is steered towards the desired steering direction, and wherein the torque vectoring control system is capable of controlling the driving parameters and/or the braking parameters of each wheel on each side of the vehicle, and the rear-wheel steering system is capable of controlling the rear-wheel steering angle of the vehicle (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 11, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Kim teaches that the desired steering direction is capable of being determined according to a driver's operational instructions and/or determined according to an autonomous driving system and/or an assisted driving system based on a current driving scenario (Paragraphs 0030, 0036-0038, 0047, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Kim teaches that the method is executed using the vehicle steering system according to claim 1, and the method comprises: detecting an operational state of a first control unit of the vehicle steering system, the first control unit being configured to perform a steering function of the vehicle; determining whether there is an abnormal operational state of the first control unit based on the detected operational state; and in response to the abnormal operational state of the first control unit being detected, activating at least one second control unit of the vehicle steering system to participate in controlling the steering function of the vehicle (See claim 1 rejection above).
Riese discloses the at least one second control unit including a torque vectoring control system which is configured to, in response to the abnormal operational state of the first control unit being detected, apply a driving force to at least one wheel of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in a desired steering direction (See claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 12 as discussed above, and Kim teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores computer program instructions, wherein the execution of the computer program instructions by a processor at least assists in implementing the steps which each of the elements recited in claim 1 are configured to perform (See claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 14, the modified system of Kim discloses the invention of claim 7 as discussed above, and Kim teaches that braking force is capable of being applied separately to each wheel on one side of the vehicle either through the torque vectoring control system or the braking system (See previously cited sections), while driving force is capable of being applied to each wheel on the other side of the vehicle through the torque vectoring control system, such that the vehicle is steered towards the desired steering direction (See previously cited sections).
Riese discloses the same (See previously cited sections)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R STECKBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-0433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30-7:30 PST.
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.
/KEVIN R STECKBAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747