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 Interpretation
Claim limitations
a) a first means for detecting the start-up situation of the vehicle;
b) a second means for determining an actual behavior of the vehicle with regard to the lateral dynamics of the vehicle, and for determining a deviation of the actual behavior of the vehicle from a target behavior of the vehicle with regard to the lateral dynamics of the vehicle; and
c) a third means for adjusting the driving torque as a function of the deviation.
have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder
a) a first means
b) a second means
c) a third means
Coupled with functional language
a) detecting the start-up situation of the vehicle;
b) for determining an actual behavior of the vehicle with regard to the lateral dynamics of the vehicle, and for determining a deviation of the actual behavior of the vehicle from a target behavior of the vehicle with regard to the lateral dynamics of the vehicle; and
c) for adjusting the driving torque as a function of the deviation.
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 15 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
• page 6
a) the first means can contain at least one wheel rotation rate sensor
b) the second means can contain at least one rotation rate sensor
c) the third means can contain the electronic controller,
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 el seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because flow chart figure 2 does not have text in the boxes. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Tinskey et al (US PG Pub No. 2003/0125847).
Regarding claim 1, Tinskey teaches A method for stabilizing a vehicle in a start-up situation from a standstill, the vehicle being driven by a driving machine which generates a driving torque on driven wheels during the start-up process, the method comprising: (180 figure 1 e motor or figure 2)
a) detecting the start-up situation of the vehicle; (paragraph 4-5, 13-14 improve launch capabilities suggest detecting launch)
b) determining, in the case of the detected start-up situation, an actual behavior of the vehicle in relation to lateral dynamics of the vehicle, and (410 figure 4 receive signals from vehicle sensors and determine vehicle conditions paragraph 18)
c) determining a deviation of the actual behavior of the vehicle from a target behavior of the vehicle with regard to the lateral dynamics of the vehicle; and (430 and 440 figure 4 desired yaw rate and yaw rate error paragraph 18)
d) adjusting the drive torque depending on the deviation. (470 figure 4 apply torque commands)
Regarding claim 2, Tinskey teaches wherein a detected actual vehicle rotation rate of the vehicle represents the actual behavior of the vehicle and a target rotation rate of the vehicle represents the target behavior of the vehicle (430-470 figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Tinskey teaches wherein the target rotation rate of the vehicle is determined by the single-track model according to the following equation: ψ=(δ*v)/(wh+EG*v2) with: ψ=targetrotationrate
δ=wheelsteeringangle
V=vehiclespeed
EG=self-steeringgradient
lwh=wheelbase
(paragraph 15 and 16)
Regarding claim 4, Tinskey teaches wherein the vehicle speed is detected by evaluation of the rotation rate of at least one non-driven wheel (paragraph 18 wheel speeds suggest non-driven wheel).
Regarding claim 5, Tinksey teaches wherein a predetermined value is used as the target rotation rate of the vehicle (470 figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Tinskey teaches wherein a detected actual lateral acceleration of the vehicle represents the actual behavior of the vehicle and a target lateral acceleration of the vehicle represents the target behavior of the vehicle (paragraph 16 Fxf).
Regarding claim 7, Tinskey teaches wherein the start-up situation of the vehicle is detected by evaluating the rotation rate of at least one non-driven wheel. (paragraph 18 wheel speed).
Regarding claim 8, Tinksey teaches wherein the start-up situation of the vehicle is detected by determining that a vehicle speed detected by at least one sensor increases from zero to a vehicle limit speed. (paragraph 18 wheel speed).
Regarding claim 9, Tinksey teaches wherein if the deviation exceeds a limit value, the drive torque generated by the driving machine is reduced. (470 figure 4 paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 10, Tinskey teaches wherein the limit value is fixed, or depends on a lower vehicle limit speed, from which wheel rotation rates can be detected (paragraph 18 avoid understeering limit value is understeer).
Regarding claim 11, Tinksey teaches wherein the greater the deviation, the drive torque generated by the driving machine during the start-up process is reduced more (470 figure 4 reduce yaw rate error).
Regarding claim 14, Tinksey teaches wherein the start-up situation is controlled or triggered by a driver of the vehicle or autonomously (420 figure 4 driver input)
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 12-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinskey et al (US PG Pub No. 2003/0125847) in view of Turski et al (US Patent No. 8,175,785)
Regarding claim 12, Tinksey does not explicitly teach however Turski teaches wherein at least in the start-up situation the drive slip is determined and the reduction of the drive torque is carried out so that a maximum permissible drive slip is specified for the driven wheels which is less than a target drive slip specified by a traction control system (ASR). (column 1 line 30-40 launch control sets a target wheel slip profile. Column 1 line 15-25 TC is known)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tinskey based on the teachings of Turski to teach wherein at least in the start-up situation the drive slip is determined and the reduction of the drive torque is carried out so that a maximum permissible drive slip is specified for the driven wheels which is less than a target drive slip specified by a traction control system (ASR). The motivation would be to maximize control with some wheel slip (Turski column 3 line 5-15).
Regarding claim 13, Tinskey does not explicitly teach however Turski teaches wherein the adjustment of the drive torque is effected by controlling the driving machine to adjust the drive torque (524 figure 5 column 11 line 10-20 real time torque command).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tinskey based on the teachings of Turski to teach wherein the adjustment of the drive torque is effected by controlling the driving machine to adjust the drive torque. The motivation would be to maximize control with some wheel slip (Turski column 3 line 5-15).
Regarding claim 16, Tinksey teaches
wherein: a) the first means includes at least one wheel rotation rate sensor (paragraph 18 wheel speeds) on a non-driven wheel for generating a wheel rotation rate signal and an electronic controller with a signal transfer connection to this for evaluating the wheel rotation rate signal,
b) the second means includes at least one rotation rate sensor for generating a rotation rate signal and/or at least one lateral acceleration sensor for generating a lateral acceleration signal and the electronic controller with a signal transfer connection to this for evaluating the rotation rate signal and/or the lateral acceleration signal, and
c) the third means includes the electronic controller, which includes: (paragraph 18 yaw measured paragraph 5 yaw sensor)
c1) a drive control electronic system with a signal transfer connection to the electronic control system, which receives and implements a drive control signal generated by the electronic control system depending on the deviation, or (150 figure 1 or 250 figure 2)
Tinskey does not explicitly teach however Turski teaches
c2) a traction control system (ASR) with a signal transfer connection to the electronic control system, which receives and implements a slip specification signal representing a maximum permissible drive slip generated by the electronic control system depending on the deviation. (column 1 line 30-40 524 figure 5 column 11 line 10-20 real time torque command launch control)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tinksey based on the teachings of Turksi to teach c2) a traction control system (ASR) with a signal transfer connection to the electronic control system, which receives and implements a slip specification signal representing a maximum permissible drive slip generated by the electronic control system depending on the deviation. The motivation would be to maximize control with some wheel slip (Turski column 3 line 5-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747