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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is greater than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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: “driving means”, “braking means”, “main control unit”, and “sub control unit” in claims 1-9.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation "the control means" in line 8 (and is repeated in the next two lines). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a sub control unit which is provided to each of the driving means and the control means”, implying two sub control units. Then, later in the claim “the sub control unit includes:” is recited, which implies only one sub control unit.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected by virtue of dependence.
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 (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 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) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al (US2021/0269018A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches travel control device for a vehicle (Figures 6-10), the vehicle including driving means for driving front and rear wheels on left and right (Paragraphs 0060, 0107-0108) and braking means (Paragraphs 0032, 0039, 0070, 0089-0092, etc.) for independently braking the front and rear wheels on the left and right and being capable of driving and braking the front and rear wheels on the left and right by the driving means and the braking means, the travel control device comprising: a main control unit ("electronic device", or "whole vehicle controller" in Figure 6, or "vehicle stability control device" in Figure 8, 9, or 10; or more specifically the portion of the "vehicle stability control device" in annotated Figure 8 below that excludes the "sub control unit") that calculates a requested driving force of the vehicle (See "initial torque" values) based on a driver request and a vehicle behavior (Paragraphs 0030, 0032, 0106, 0138-0139, 0179, 0208 etc.); and
a sub control unit (See annotated Figure 8 below) which is provided to the driving means and the braking means downstream the main control unit and which controls each of the driving means and the braking means based on the requested driving force (Paragraphs 0179-0180), wherein the main control unit includes: a target reference wheel speed calculating part that calculates a target reference wheel speed that is a target rotation speed set as a reference of the wheels (See wheel/longitudinal vehicle speed calculation referenced throughout); and a target slip rate calculating part that calculates a target slip rate of the wheels which is set relative to the target reference wheel speed, the main control unit calculates the requested driving force based on the target slip rate (See target slip ratio box in Figure 8; Paragraphs 0155-0178, 0203-0214, and 0233-0241), and the sub control unit includes: an actual slip rate calculating part that calculates an actual slip rate of the wheels; and a slip rate control part that corrects the requested driving force in a manner that the actual slip rate turns to the target slip rate to control the driving means or the braking means (See "sub control unit" in annotated Figure 8 below; Paragraphs 0027-0029, 0042, 0117, 0134-0137, 0165-0178, 0202-0214, and 0240-0241).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Liu teaches that the target reference wheel speed calculating part calculates the target reference wheel speed (wi(t) where "i" designates which wheel as noted in paragraph 0102) for each of the wheels (Paragraphs 0028, 0122, 0123, 0135, 0136, 0152-0153, etc.), and the target slip rate calculating part calculates the target slip rate for each of the wheels (See front axis and rear axis target slip ratios in Paragraphs 0155-0178 and 0203-0214).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Liu teaches that the target reference wheel speed calculating part calculates the target reference wheel speed to be set as a value common to the front and rear wheels on the left and right (See previously cited sections [the wheel speeds in Liu may naturally become equal during normal operation of the vehicle]), and the target slip rate calculating part calculates the target slip rate for each of the wheels (See previously cited front and rear target slip ratios).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Liu teaches that the target reference wheel speed calculating part calculates the target reference wheel speed for each of the wheels, and the target slip rate calculating part calculates the target slip rate to be set as a value common to the front and rear wheels on the left and right (See previously cited sections [the wheel speeds and target ratios in Liu may naturally become equal during normal operation of the vehicle]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the invention of claim 2 as discussed above, and Liu teaches a target yaw rate calculating part that calculates a target yaw rate of the vehicle based on at least a steering angle of the vehicle (See "target yawing angular velocity..." block in Figure 8); and a yaw rate detecting part that detects an actual yaw rate of the vehicle (See "actual yawing angular velocity" input from "data processing" in Figure 8), wherein the target slip rate calculating part changes the target slip rate for each of the wheels based on the target yaw rate or a difference between the target yaw rate and the actual yaw rate (See flow of data from the "target yawing angular velocity..." block and "actual yawing angular velocity" input from "data processing", to the "front-axis target slip ratio and rear-axis target slip ratio" block, in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Liu teaches that the driving means and the braking means include: a first electric motor that drives the front wheels of the vehicle; a second electric motor that drives the rear wheels of the vehicle; and a braking device which is provided to each of the front and rear wheels on the left and right of the vehicle and which is capable of applying a mutually different braking force to each of the wheels (See previously cited sections and Figures).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the invention of claim 3 as discussed above, and Liu teaches a target yaw rate calculating part that calculates a target yaw rate of the vehicle based on at least a steering angle of the vehicle (See "target yawing angular velocity..." block in Figure 8); and a yaw rate detecting part that detects an actual yaw rate of the vehicle (See "actual yawing angular velocity" input from "data processing" in Figure 8), wherein the target slip rate calculating part changes the target slip rate for each of the wheels based on the target yaw rate or a difference between the target yaw rate and the actual yaw rate (See flow of data from the "target yawing angular velocity..." block and "actual yawing angular velocity" input from "data processing", to the "front-axis target slip ratio and rear-axis target slip ratio" block, in Figure 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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