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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 28-30, 32, 36, 40, 45-46, and 51-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Roether reference (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0070265).
4. Regarding claim 28, the Roether reference discloses:
a system for vehicle motion control of a vehicle with a steering system (26), and a number of sensor arrangements [Paragraph 0010] comprising sensors for sensing, directly, at least vehicle speed [Paragraph 0018], yaw rate [Paragraph 0010] and steering angle [Paragraph 0010], said vehicle motion control system comprising a Yaw Stability Control (YSC) functionality (ESC) with an oversteer control functionality [Paragraph 0031], wherein the YSC functionality (ESC) is arranged to be fail-operational [Paragraph 0024] and comprises at least two YSC systems (redundant for ESC functions) such that when one is shut down (EBS-ECU), the other will still be working (FBM-ECU) [Paragraph 0024], each of which being connected to one or more of the sensor arrangements comprising a number of sensors [Paragraph 0027], the at least two YSC systems each comprising a controller (EBS-ECU and FBM-ECU) comprising an oversteer control functionality [Paragraph 0031] for controlling the vehicle path by controlling a yaw state (ESC), said at least two YSC systems comprises at least two of one or more YSC systems arranged to act on the/a steering system of the vehicle by acting on one or more steering system actuators comprising steering system gear or position actuators [Paragraph 0042-0043].
5. Regarding claim 29, the Roether reference further discloses:
wherein the sensor arrangement(s) at least comprise(s) sensors collecting information
allowing determination of vehicle velocity [Paragraph 0018], steering angle [Paragraph 0010] and at least one yaw and/or lateral vehicle state, either through direct sensing or through calculation [Paragraph 0010].
6. Regarding claim 30, the Roether reference further discloses:
wherein the sensor arrangement(s) further at least comprise(s) sensor(s) collecting
information allowing determination of driver or torsion-bar torque [Paragraph 0121].
7. Regarding claim 32, the Roether reference further discloses:
wherein the at least two YSC systems comprises a first YSC system with a controller (EBS-ECU) comprising a steering control function comprising an ECU (162) for steering control
comprising an oversteer control function [Paragraph 0031] and is arranged to act on the vehicle
steering system by acting on one or more steering system actuators comprising steering system gear or position actuators (implicit) and a second YSC system (FBM-ECU) with a controller comprising a braking control function (1) comprising an ECU with an oversteer control function [Paragraph 0031] and is arranged to act on a vehicle braking system by acting on one or more brake system actuators (implicit).
8. Regarding claim 36, the Roether reference further discloses:
wherein the at least one yaw and/or lateral vehicle state comprises at least one or more of vehicle wheel speed, vehicle angular speed around an axis in yaw, pitch or roll direction,
acceleration in longitudinal, lateral or vertical direction, vehicle position, slip angle, lateral acceleration or a linear combination thereof [Paragraph 0114-0118].
9. Regarding claim 40, the Roether reference further discloses:
wherein it comprises two sensor arrangements [Paragraph 0010], a first sensor arrangement for the first YSC system and a second sensor arrangement for the second YSC system [Paragraph 0027], and in that, for each of said sensor arrangements, critical sensors for determining at least vehicle velocity, steering angle [Paragraph 0008] and at least one yaw and/or lateral vehicle state are redundant allowing detection of faults, and in that if a fault is
detected for a critical sensor of the first or second sensor arrangement, the YSC-functionality of the respective YSC-system is shut off [Paragraph 0025].
10. Regarding claim 45, the Roether reference further discloses:
wherein the fail-operational YSC functionality is provided by means of one or more fail-operational vehicle systems or a combination of fail-safe and fail-operational subsystems or subfunctions (FIGS. 1 & 2).
11. Regarding claim 46, the Roether reference further discloses:
wherein the one or more fail-operational systems are a vehicle fail-operational
steering system and/or a fail-operational braking system and/or a fail-operational
12. Regarding claim 51, the Roether reference discloses:
a method for vehicle motion control of a vehicle with a steering system (26),
and/or a brake system, and/or a torque vectoring system, and a number of sensor
arrangements [Paragraph 0010] comprising sensors for sensing, directly and/or allowing calculation of, at least vehicle speed or wheel speed [Paragraph 0010], yaw rate and steering angle, said vehicle motion control system comprising a Yaw Stability Control (YSC) (ESC) functionality with an oversteer control functionality [Paragraph 0031] wherein it comprises the step of: arranging the YSC functionality (ESC) to be fail-operational [Paragraph 0024] by:
providing at least a first and a second YSC system (redundant for ESC functions), such that when one is shut down (EBS-ECU), the other will still be working (FBM-ECU) [Paragraph 0024], for controlling the vehicle path by controlling a yaw and/or lateral vehicle state [Paragraph 0126], said at least first and second YSC systems being independent with each a controller with an oversteer control function [Paragraph 0031], and each connected to one or more sensor arrangements comprising a number of sensors [Paragraph 0027], said at least two YSC systems further comprising at least two of one or more YSC system(s) which is/are arranged to act on the/a steering system of the vehicle by acting on one or more steering system actuators comprising steering system gear or position actuators [Paragraph 0042-0043].
13. Regarding claim 52, the Roether reference further discloses:
comprises the step of providing a fail-operational YSC-functionality by providing at
least a first and a second fail-safe YSC system [Paragraph 0024].
14. Regarding claim 53, the Roether reference further discloses:
comprises the step of providing a fail-operational YSC-functionality by providing one
or more fail-operational vehicle systems or a combination of fail-safe and fail-operational subsystems or sub-functions (FIGS. 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Roether reference in view of the German ‘322 reference (DE 10 2020 117322 A1).
17. Regarding claim 31, the Roether reference further discloses:
wherein the, or each, sensor arrangement comprises at least one or more sensors for allowing calculation of one or more target yaw and/or lateral vehicle states using one
or more of steering angle, vehicle speed, by means of a vehicle model or calculated using a steering angle, a torsion-bar torque and an inverse steering torque feedback
calculation, the steering torque being a feedback or function of the yaw and or lateral
vehicle state, and, sensing or calculation of an actual yaw and/or lateral vehicle
state, e.g. vehicle yaw rate, vehicle lateral acceleration or vehicle slip, and in that
the/a difference between the/a target and the/n actual state is established or
calculated, forming at least one control error and in that said control error(s) is/are
input to each controller.
The German reference ‘322 teaches it is conventional in the art of motor control to provide as taught in [Paragraph 0012] wherein the, or each, sensor arrangement comprises at least one or more sensors for allowing calculation of one or more target yaw and/or lateral vehicle states using one or more of steering angle [Paragraph 0012], vehicle speed, by means of a vehicle model or calculated using a steering angle, a torsion-bar torque and an inverse steering torque feedback calculation, the steering torque being a feedback or function of the yaw and or lateral vehicle state, and, sensing or calculation of an actual yaw and/or lateral vehicle state, e.g. vehicle yaw rate, vehicle lateral acceleration or vehicle slip, and in that the/a difference between the/a target and the/n actual state is established or calculated, forming at least one control error and in that said control error(s) is/are input to each controller [Tsoll]. Such configurations/structures would allow checking if the vehicle is on the target trajectory or within the tolerance corridor TK [Paragraph 0056].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a system as taught in the Roether reference, such that the system further includes wherein the, or each, sensor arrangement comprises at least one or more sensors for allowing calculation of one or more target yaw and/or lateral vehicle states using oneor more of steering angle, vehicle speed, by means of a vehicle model or calculated using a steering angle, a torsion-bar torque and an inverse steering torque feedback calculation, the steering torque being a feedback or function of the yaw and or lateral vehicle state, and, sensing or calculation of an actual yaw and/or lateral vehicle state, e.g. vehicle yaw rate, vehicle lateral acceleration or vehicle slip, and in that the/a difference between the/a target and the/n actual state is established or calculated, forming at least one control error and in that said control error(s) is/are input to each controller, as clearly suggested and taught by the German reference ‘322, in order to allow checking if the vehicle is on the target trajectory or within the tolerance corridor TK [Paragraph 0056].
18. Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Roether reference in view of the Mattson reference (US 2004/0060765 A1).
19. Regarding claim 33, the Roether reference further discloses: wherein the steering control function comprising an oversteer control function [Paragraph 0031] of one of the at least two YSC systems (ESC).
The Roether reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the reference fails to disclose arranged to minimize an error between a target yaw and/or lateral vehicle state and an actual yaw and/or lateral vehicle state by controlling a steering system actuator controlling the steering angle generating lateral forces on wheel tires of the vehicle.
The Mattson reference teaches it is conventional in the art of control systems for vehicles to provide as taught in [Paragraph 0021] arranged to minimize an error between a target yaw and/or lateral vehicle state and an actual yaw and/or lateral vehicle state [Paragraph 0021] by controlling a steering system actuator controlling the steering angle generating lateral forces on wheel tires of the vehicle. Such configurations/structures would allow determination of the yaw rate error [Paragraph 0021].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a system as taught in the Matton reference, such that the system further includes arranged to minimize an error between a target yaw and/or lateral vehicle state and an actual yaw and/or lateral vehicle state by controlling a steering system actuator controlling the steering angle generating lateral forces on wheel tires of the vehicle, as clearly suggested and taught by the Mattson reference, in order to allow determination of the yaw rate error [Paragraph 0021].
20. Regarding claim 34, the Roether reference further discloses:
wherein the braking control function comprising an oversteer control function [Paragraph 0031] of one of the at least two YSC systems (ESC).
is arranged to minimize an error between a target yaw and/or lateral vehicle state and an actual yaw and/or lateral vehicle state by controlling a braking or a torque vectoring actuator controlling longitudinal forces on wheel tires of the vehicle.
The Mattson reference teaches it is conventional in the art of control systems for vehicles to provide as taught in [Paragraph 0021] arranged to minimize an error between a target yaw and/or lateral vehicle state and an actual yaw and/or lateral vehicle state [Paragraph 0021] by controlling a steering system actuator controlling the steering angle generating lateral forces on wheel tires of the vehicle [Paragraph 0024]. Such configurations/structures would allow determination of the yaw rate error [Paragraph 0021].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a system as taught in the Matton reference, such that the system further includes arranged to minimize an error between a target yaw and/or lateral vehicle state and an actual yaw and/or lateral vehicle state by controlling a steering system actuator controlling the steering angle generating lateral forces on wheel tires of the vehicle, as clearly suggested and taught by the Mattson reference, in order to allow determination of the yaw rate error [Paragraph 0021].
21. Claim(s) 37-39, 42, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Roether reference.
22. Regarding claim 37, the Roether reference fails to disclose:
the at least two YSC systems are independent. This would be obvious to try. The YSC systems would either be dependent, or independent, or not connected. These are three finite solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, claim 37 is obvious over the cited reference.
23. Regarding claim 38, the Roether reference fails to disclose:
wherein the at least two YSC systems are fail-safe. This would be obvious to try. The YSC systems would either be fail-safe or not. These are two finite solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, claim 38 is obvious over the cited reference.
24. Regarding clam 39, the Roether reference fails to disclose:
wherein the at least two YSC systems are fail-safe meeting ASIL-C requirements. This would be obvious to try. The YSC systems would either be fail-safe meeting ASIL-C requirements or not. These are two finite solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, claim 39 is obvious over the cited reference.
25. Regarding claim 42, the Roether reference fails to disclose:
wherein the common sensor arrangement is set-up or arranged to be fail- operational. wherein the at least two YSC systems are fail-safe. This would be obvious to try. The YSC systems would have at least two YSC systems are fail safe. These are two finite solutions with
a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, claim 42 is obvious over the cited reference.
26. Regarding claim 48, the Roether reference fails to disclose: wherein it is adapted for use in a steer-by-wire steering system or a wireless steering system. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use a steer-by-wire steering system for the purpose of reducing transmission assemblies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36, 41, 43-44 and 54 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747