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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are withdrawn for being drawn to a nonelected species. Claims 8-14 are examined on the merits herein.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/05/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 03/17/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts without significantly more.
Claim 8 recites a method for real-time lateral interference detection in a vehicle equipped with a driver assistance system, the method comprising (judicial exceptions in bold and additional elements underlined):
pre-calibrating a desired yaw rate induced by a steering torque applied by EPS of the vehicle at different vehicle speeds to obtain a relationship between the desired yaw rate and the vehicle speed and the steering torque applied by the EPS;
obtaining an actual steering torque TEPS applied by the EPS at a time t;
obtaining the vehicle speed v at a time t+Δt and the actual yaw rate Ws at the time t+Δt, where Δt represents a preset time delay for the yaw rate to be generated after the EPS applies the steering torque;
calculating an estimated steering torque TEXP applied by the EPS at the time t based on the vehicle speed v at the time t+Δt, the actual yaw rate Ws at the time t+Δt, and the relationship between the desired yaw rate and the vehicle speed and the steering torque applied by the EPS; and
comparing the estimated steering torque TEXP with the actual steering torque TEPS, and when an absolute value of a difference between the estimated steering torque TEXP and the actual steering torque TEPS is greater than a threshold Tth,
determining that the real-time lateral interference experienced by the vehicle has reached a preset level requiring a driver to take over vehicle control.
The analysis of claim 8 continues as:
Step 2A prong 1: The claim recites:
The mental processes of limitations (a), (d), (e), and (f).
Step 2A prong 2: The claim recites:
The additional elements of limitations (b) and (c).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (b) and (c) are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the data gathering limitations (b) and (c) are disclosed at a high level of generality are therefore taken as well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity.
Claims 9-11 and 14 are ineligible for failing to recite additional limitations capable of integrating the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application or providing an inventive concept.
Claims 12 and 13 are eligible at step 2A prong 2 because the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Closest Prior Art
WATANABE (US 2021/0197812, provided by Applicant on 03/17/2025) and SAKAYORI (US 12,110,072) are the closest prior art of record.
WATANABE discloses a method for real-time lateral interference detection in a vehicle equipped with a driver assistance system (0117 lines 1-5).
SAKAYORI teaches obtaining an actual steering torque TEPS applied by the EPS at a time t (col. 3 lines 62-64);
SAKAYORI further teaches comparing the estimated steering torque TEXP with the actual steering torque TEPS, and determining whether an absolute value of a difference between the estimated steering torque TEXP and the actual steering torque TEPS is greater than a threshold Tth (col. 8 line 66 - col. 9 line 2).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “pre-calibrating a desired yaw rate induced by a steering torque applied by EPS of the vehicle at different vehicle speeds to obtain a relationship between the desired yaw rate and the vehicle speed and the steering torque applied by the EPS; obtaining the vehicle speed v at a time t+Δt and the actual yaw rate Ws at the time t+Δt, where Δt represents a preset time delay for the yaw rate to be generated after the EPS applies the steering torque; calculating an estimated steering torque TEXP applied by the EPS at the time t based on the vehicle speed v at the time t+Δt, the actual yaw rate Ws at the time t+Δt, and the relationship between the desired yaw rate and the vehicle speed and the steering torque applied by the EPS; and comparing the estimated steering torque TEXP with the actual steering torque TEPS, and when an absolute value of a difference between the estimated steering torque TEXP and the actual steering torque TEPS is greater than a threshold Tth, determining that the real-time lateral interference experienced by the vehicle has reached a preset level requiring a driver to take over vehicle control” in the manner defined in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are 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 MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747