DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the outstanding rejections of all claims. New grounds of rejection are presented below.
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 9-14.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 reintroduces the electronic stability program system which has been introduced in current claim 1, rendering the claimed invention unclear as it now recites two electronic stability program systems, contradicting the disclosed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raither et al (DE102020100719A1).
Regarding claim 12, Raither teaches a method for controlling a vehicle steering system (Figures 1-7), the method comprising: detecting an operational state of a first control unit of the vehicle steering system (Paragraphs 0012-0013, 0021, 0027), 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 (Paragraphs 0012-0013, 0021, 0027); and in response to the abnormal operational state of the first control unit being detected (e.g., “failure of the front axle steering 2. The faulty or defective front axle steering actuator 20 is switched off and thus fixed in the last controlled position…” in Paragraph 0027, or the error value discussed throughout), activating at least one second control unit of the vehicle steering system to participate in controlling the steering function of the vehicle, the at least one second control unit including a torque vectoring control system and a rear-wheel steering system (Paragraphs 0021 [“The calculated target values are transmitted to the rear axle steering actuator 30 and the torque vectoring system to steer the vehicle in the direction desired by the driver at the desired speed and yaw rate”], 0027, etc.) which are configured to, in response to the abnormal operational state of the first control unit being detected, operate simultaneously together to steer the vehicle in a desired steering direction, the torque vectoring control system being configured to apply a driving force to at least one wheel of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in the desired steering direction, the rear-wheel steering system being configured to control a steering angle of rear wheels of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in the desired steering direction (Paragraphs 0021, 0027, etc.).
Regarding claim 13, Raither discloses the invention of claim 12 as discussed above, and Raither teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores computer program instructions, wherein execution of the computer program instructions by a processor at least assists in implementing the method according to claim 12 (Figures 5-6 and corresponding sections of the specification).
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, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US2024/0359697A1) in view of Riese (DE102018212804A1) and Hagnander et al (US2024/0190450A1).
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), and including 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).
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 and the electronic stability program system is configured to simultaneously apply a braking force to at least one wheel on a second side of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in the 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) and an electronic stability program system (See "vehicle dynamics control system 20 is designed to provide a vehicle stability functionality" in paragraph 0028), 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).
Riese teaches the torque vectoring control system and the electronic stability program system which are operable together and which are capable of driving each wheel independently and braking each wheel independently, respectively, in order to control steering during all necessary conditions as discussed above (See previously cited sections).
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, and such that the torque vectoring control system and the electronic stability program system are operable together and which are capable of driving each wheel independently and braking each wheel independently, respectively, 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. Hagnander teaches a vehicle steering system and control method (Figures 1+; Abstract) designed to deal with abnormalities, including driving torque and braking torque being distributed to wheels independently to control steering (Abstract; Paragraphs 0065-0069), and in response to the abnormal operational state of a first control unit being detected (“In response the failure of the steering system determined in step S1”), applying a driving force to at least one wheel of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in a desired steering direction and simultaneously applying a braking force to at least one wheel on a second side of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in the desired steering direction, in order to effectively steer the vehicle when the steering failure occurs and the traditional steering mechanisms are locked (Paragraph 0069).
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 further modify the invention of Kim, such that the control method includes using the structure of Kim in view of Riese (i.e., the torque vectoring and electronic stability program systems described above) to: in response to the abnormal operational state of a 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 and simultaneously apply a braking force to at least one wheel on a second side of the vehicle to steer the vehicle in the desired steering direction, as suggested and taught by Hagnander, in order to effectively steer the vehicle when the steering failure occurs and the traditional steering mechanisms are locked.
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 electronic stability program system is 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 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 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.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims 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
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
Prosecution Insights