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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (as identified in the Requirement for Restriction dated 12/18/2025) in the reply filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species I (as identified in the Requirement for Restriction dated 12/18/2025), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/18/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, both recitations of “an free wheel speed” should read “a free wheel speed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 14-16, 18, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 7, “the vehicle seed” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the vehicle seed” to mean “the vehicle speed”.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites “a vehicle yaw rate”. It is unclear if “a vehicle yaw rate” in claim 14 refers to “a vehicle yaw rate” in claim 9 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a vehicle yaw rate”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a vehicle yaw rate” in claim 14 to mean any vehicle yaw rate.
Regarding claims 15-16, these claims depend from claim 14 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 14 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 14 noted above.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites “a target wheel torque of a left wheel and a target wheel torque of a right wheel”. It is unclear if “a target wheel torque of a left wheel and a target wheel torque of a right wheel” in claim 16 refers to “a target wheel torque for the yaw damping” in claim 16 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a target wheel torque”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a target wheel torque of a left wheel and a target wheel torque of a right wheel” in claim to mean any target wheel torque of a left wheel and any target wheel torque of a right wheel.
Regarding claim 18, “the interface” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the interface” to mean “an interface”.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites “a target torque of the motor”. It is unclear if “a target torque of the motor” in claim 20 refers to “a target torque of a motor” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a target torque”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a target torque of the motor” in claim 20 to mean any target torque of the motor.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji (JP 2010025272 A) in view of Zhou (US 20240182108 A1).
Claim 1
Koji teaches:
A method of controlling drift of a vehicle, the method comprising (Koji - Paragraphs 0049-0053) “yaw control that realizes suitable turning travel during drift travel”
and generating a drift index configured to indicate a current degree of the drift (Koji - Paragraphs 0049-0053) “vehicle body side slip angle… front wheel side slip angle”
determining, by the controller, a target yaw moment for left and right speed control depending on a driving situation or a braking situation of the vehicle (Koji - Paragraphs 0020, 0049-0053) “the target yaw moment (required yaw moment) M .sub.req is determined based on the target yaw angular velocity γ .sub.ref and the actual yaw angular velocity”
and target yaw moments for drift assistance control depending on a driver input and a vehicle state (Koji - Paragraphs 0020, 0049-0053) “the target yaw moment (required yaw moment) M .sub.req is determined based on the target yaw angular velocity γ .sub.ref and the actual yaw angular velocity”
and generating and outputting, by the controller, a target torque of a motor configured to drive each wheel of the vehicle based on the determined target yaw moments (Koji - Paragraphs 0049-0053) “torque distribution control device 50 (the electric motor M) is controlled based on the target yaw moment”
Koji does not teach:
Determining a drift entry or release situation.
However, Zhou teaches:
determining, by a controller, whether a current driving situation of the vehicle is a drift entry situation or a release situation based on vehicle driving information configured to indicate a current driving state of the vehicle (Zhou - Paragraphs 0035, 0082) “the drift mode of the vehicle enters in an active state in a case that a final vehicle velocity, a steering angle, etc. meet a corresponding condition”
from a result of the determining (Zhou - Paragraphs 0035, 0082) “the drift mode of the vehicle enters in an active state in a case that a final vehicle velocity, a steering angle, etc. meet a corresponding condition”
in the drift entry situation (Zhou - Paragraphs 0035, 0082) “the drift mode of the vehicle enters in an active state in a case that a final vehicle velocity, a steering angle, etc. meet a corresponding condition”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koji with determining a drift entry situation of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Koji and Zhou are in the field of vehicle drifting. One would have been motivated to combine as this reduces drift failure (Zhou – Paragraph 0075).
Claim 20
The combination of Koji and Zhou teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Koji further teaches:
in the generating and outputting the target torque of the motor, the controller is configured to (Koji - Paragraphs 0043, 0050-0052) “the torque distribution control device 50 generates the target yaw moment M .sub.req by operating the motor M”
determine a target wheel torque of each wheel by distributing the determined target yaw moment into each wheel torque based on target driving force (Koji - Paragraphs 0043, 0050-0052, 0058) “torque distribution control device 50 that controls the torque distribution to the pair of left and right rear wheels 24”
and determine a target torque of the motor configured for driving each wheel of the vehicle based on the target wheel torque (Koji - Paragraphs 0043, 0050-0052) “the torque distribution control device 50 generates the target yaw moment M .sub.req by operating the motor M”
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji and Zhou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20140379220 A1) and Scheuerell (US 20220144338 A1).
Claim 6
The combination of Koji and Zhou teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Koji further teaches:
the determining the target yaw moment for left and right speed control includes (Koji - Paragraphs 0020, 0049-0053) “the target yaw moment (required yaw moment) M .sub.req is determined based on the target yaw angular velocity γ .sub.ref and the actual yaw angular velocity”
determining whether the left and right speed control is on or off (Koji - Paragraph 0020, 0030) “drift mode switch 46, either the state in which the drift traveling of the vehicle is permitted as the first control state or the state in which the drift traveling of the vehicle is prohibited”
Koji does not teach:
Determining a left and right wheel speed difference and a target wheel speed difference, a wheel speed difference error, and a target yaw moment based on the wheel speed difference.
However, Lee teaches:
determining a target left and right wheel speed difference depending on the driving situation or braking situation of the vehicle based on wheel speeds of a left wheel and a right wheel (Lee - Paragraphs 0028-0030) “define a difference between the target wheel speed and a wheel speed of each of the plurality of wheels”
a vehicle speed (Lee - Paragraph 0024) “a resultant vehicle speed may be estimated”
and a target internal wheel slip amount depending on a turning direction of the vehicle (Lee - Paragraph 0027) “A target wheel speed may be calculated by reflecting a slip ratio of each of the plurality of wheels”
determining a left and right wheel speed difference from the wheel speeds of the left wheel and the right wheel (Lee - Paragraphs 0029-0030) “define a difference between the target wheel speed and a wheel speed of each of the plurality of wheels”
and a left and right wheel speed difference error depending on the driving situation or braking situation of the vehicle based on the determined target left and right wheel speed difference, the determined left and right wheel speed difference, and the determined turning direction of the vehicle (Lee - Paragraphs 0029-0030) “define a difference between the target wheel speed and a wheel speed of each of the plurality of wheels as a sliding surface”
and determining a target yaw moment configured to cause the left and right wheel speed difference to follow the target left and right wheel speed difference in an ON state of the left and right speed control (Lee – Paragraphs 0030-0032) “the at least one target control value is one or more of a steering angle of each of the plurality of wheels, a target yaw moment of the vehicle”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koji with determining a left and right wheel speed difference and a target wheel speed difference, a wheel speed difference error, and a target yaw moment based on the wheel speed difference of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Koji and Lee are in the field of vehicle turning control. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves driving performance and stability (Paragraph 0009).
Koji does not teach:
determining the turning direction of the vehicle from vertical forces of the left wheel and the right wheel or a longitudinal acceleration and a lateral acceleration of the vehicle.
However, Scheuerell teaches:
determining the turning direction of the vehicle from vertical forces of the left wheel and the right wheel or a longitudinal acceleration and a lateral acceleration of the vehicle (Scheuerell - Paragraph 0204) “change a direction of the vehicle 2 based on steering information and/or IMU information (e.g., yaw rate, velocity, and/or lateral/longitudinal acceleration)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koji with determining a turning direction from the longitudinal and lateral acceleration of a vehicle of Scheuerell with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Koji and Scheuerell discuss vehicle turning control. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves vehicle stability (Scheuerell – Paragraph 0076).
Claim 8
The combination of Koji, Zhou, Lee, and Scheuerell teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as seen above.
Koji further teaches:
in the determining whether the left and right speed control is on or off (Koji - Paragraphs 0024-0028)
whether the left and right speed control is on or off is determined depending on the turning direction (Koji - Paragraphs 0024-0028) “the torque distribution control device 50 is not controlled”
Koji does not teach:
The left and right wheel speed difference error; Whether the left and right speed control is on or off based on the target wheel speed difference, wheel speed difference, a driver’s requested torque, and internal wheel torque; Determining the wheel speed difference error.
However, Lee teaches:
the left and right wheel speed difference error (Lee - Paragraphs 0029-0030) “define a difference between the target wheel speed and a wheel speed of each of the plurality of wheels as a sliding surface”
based on the target left and right wheel speed difference, the left and right wheel speed difference (Lee - Paragraphs 0029-0030) “define a difference between the target wheel speed and a wheel speed of each of the plurality of wheels”
a driver’s requested torque, and a target internal wheel torque for torque vectoring control (Lee - Paragraphs 0112-0113) “For wheel torque control, a target speed and a target yaw rate may be determined by the driver's steering input and acceleration and/or braking inputs”
and the left and right wheel speed difference error is determined depending on the turning direction based on the target left and right wheel speed difference and the left and right wheel speed difference (lee - Paragraphs 0029-0030) “define a difference between the target wheel speed and a wheel speed of each of the plurality of wheels as a sliding surface”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koji with the left and right wheel speed difference error; Whether the left and right speed control is on or off based on the target wheel speed difference, wheel speed difference, a driver’s requested torque, and internal wheel torque; Determining the wheel speed difference error of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Koji and Lee are in the field of vehicle turning control. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves driving performance and stability (Paragraph 0009).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji, Zhou, Lee, and Scheuerell, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wright (US 20230356586 A1).
Claim 7
The combination of Koji, Zhou, Lee, and Scheuerell teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as seen above.
Koji does not teach:
Determining the target left and right wheel speed difference based on a free wheel speed or vehicle speed, and a target left and right wheel speed difference in a braking situation.
However, Lee teaches:
in the determining the target left and right wheel speed difference (Lee - Paragraphs 0028-0030) “define a difference between the target wheel speed and a wheel speed of each of the plurality of wheels”
in case of the driving situation of the vehicle, the target left and right wheel speed difference is determined as a value corresponding to a difference between an free wheel speed of the left wheel and an free wheel speed of the right wheel or the vehicle seed (Lee - Paragraphs 0137) “The target wheel speed generator 223a receives a vehicle speed and generates a target wheel angular speed”
and in case of the braking situation of the vehicle, the target left and right wheel speed difference is determined as a value corresponding to a difference between a target internal wheel speed and an external wheel speed (Lee - Paragraphs 0030, 0032) “define a difference between the target wheel speed and a wheel speed of each of the plurality of wheels”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Koji for the same reasons as seen in claim 6.
Koji does not teach:
A target internal wheel speed based on the target internal wheel slip amount.
However, Wright teaches:
a target internal wheel speed determined from the target internal wheel slip amount depending on the turning direction of the vehicle among the left wheel and the right wheel and the vehicle speed (Wright - Paragraph 0040) “the target linear speed of each wheel is determined as a reference to this desired vehicle speed, e.g., from the speed differentials described above (e.g., by multiplying the desired vehicle speed by the corresponding speed differential to obtain a linear wheel speed corresponding to a geometric no-slip condition in a turn)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koji with a target internal wheel speed based on the target internal wheel slip amount of Wright with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Koji and Wright are both in the field of vehicle turning control. One would have been motivated to combine as this minimizes wheel slip through a turn (Wright – Paragraphs 0005-0006).
Claims 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji and Zhou, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou 2 (CN 113085999 A).
Claim 9
The combination of Koji and Zhou teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Koji further teaches:
in the determining the target yaw moment for left and right speed control and the target yaw moments for drift assistance control, the drift assistance control depending on the driver input and the vehicle state (Koji - Paragraphs 0020, 0049-0053 ) “the target yaw moment (required yaw moment) M .sub.req is determined based on the target yaw angular velocity γ .sub.ref and the actual yaw angular velocity”
acceleration assistance control and steering assistance control configured to assist the vehicle in drifting depending on the driver input and the generated drift index (Koji - Paragraphs 0049-0053, 0061-0062) “torque distribution control device 50 (the electric motor M) is controlled based on the target yaw moment”
Koji does not teach:
The drift entry situation.
However, Zhou teaches:
in the drift entry situation includes (Zhou - Paragraphs 0035, 0082) “the drift mode of the vehicle enters in an active state in a case that a final vehicle velocity, a steering angle, etc. meet a corresponding condition”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koji for the same reasons as seen in claim 1.
Koji does not teach:
Yaw damping assistance control.
However, Zhou 2 teaches:
and yaw damping assistance control configured to assist the vehicle in drifting depending on the vehicle speed and a vehicle yaw rate (Zhou 2 – Abstract) “calculating the vehicle yaw rate of the target vehicle according to the vehicle state information, and when the vehicle yaw rate is greater than the preset threshold value, obtaining the yaw damping moment of the target vehicle, and using yaw damping torque to control the deflection of the target vehicle”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koji with yaw damping assistance control during drifting of Zhou 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Koji and Zhou 2 are in the field of vehicle steering control. One would have been motivated to combine as this this improves the safety and driving experience of the vehicle (Zhou 2 – Abstract).
Claim 13
The combination of Koji, Zhou, and Zhou 2 teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as seen above.
Koji further teaches:
the determining a target yaw moment for the steering assistance control includes (Koji - Paragraphs 0020, 0049-0053) “the target yaw moment (required yaw moment) M .sub.req is determined based on the target yaw angular velocity γ .sub.ref and the actual yaw angular velocity”
determining a drift target yaw rate based on the vehicle yaw rate detected, corrected, or estimated by a yaw rate sensor among the vehicle driving information (Koji - Paragraph 0020, 0038) “the actual yaw angular velocity γ.sub.real detected by the yaw rate sensor 40”
determining a yaw rate control error which is a difference between the determined drift target yaw rate and the detected, corrected, or estimated vehicle yaw rate (Koji - Paragraphs 0038-0042) “yaw angular velocity deviation is γ”
and determining a target yaw moment configured to cause the vehicle yaw rate to follow the drift target yaw rate based on the yaw rate error (Koji - Abstract, Paragraphs 0009, 0038-0043, 0052) “obtain a yaw moment according to the target yaw angular speed γ .sub.ref calculated by the target yaw angular speed calculation means 66”
Claim 19
The combination of Koji, Zhou, and Zhou 2 teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as seen above.
Koji further teaches:
the controller is configured to perform yaw moment and wheel torque control of the vehicle using the vehicle driving information (Koji - Paragraph 0050-0051) “the torque distribution control device 50 (the electric motor M) is controlled based on the target yaw moment”
including driving force information of the vehicle in left and right wheel speed control (Koji - Paragraphs 0043, 0058) “torque distribution control device 50 that controls the torque distribution to the pair of left and right rear wheels 24”
and in the acceleration assistance control (Koji - Paragraphs 0049-0053) “torque distribution control device 50 (the electric motor M) is controlled based on the target yaw moment”
and the steering assistance control among the drift assistance control (Koji - Paragraphs 0049-0054, 0061-0062) “control the steering angle of one or both of the front and rear wheels independently of the steering wheel operation”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji, Zhou, and Zhou 2, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yin (CN 111267856 B).
Claim 10
The combination of Koji, Zhou, and Zhou 2 teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as seen above.
Koji further teaches:
in the determining a target yaw moment for the acceleration assistance control, the target yaw moment for the acceleration assistance control is determined using (Koji - Paragraphs 0049-0053) “the target yaw moment (required yaw moment) M .sub.req is determined based on the target yaw angular velocity γ .sub.ref and the actual yaw angular velocity”
Koji does not teach:
The target yaw moment based on a driver’s request torque and vertical forces of a left and right wheel.
However, Yin teaches:
a driver’s requested torque determined based on the vehicle driving information (Yin - Page 8 Paragraph 8 – Page 8 Paragraph 9) “inputting the longitudinal force commands of the two wheels”
vertical force of a left wheel, and vertical force of a right wheel, as inputs (Yin - Page 8 Paragraph 8 – Page 8 Paragraph 9) “calculating the ratio of the vertical load of the left and right wheels”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koji with the target yaw moment based on including a driver’s request torque and vertical forces of a left and right wheel of Yin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Koji and Yin are in the field of vehicle drifting. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves control reliability and adaptability (Yin – Page 5 Paragraph 3 – Page 5 Paragraph 6).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji, Zhou, and Zhou 2, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 115610401 A).
Claim 18
The combination of Koji, Zhou, and Zhou 2 teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as seen above.
Koji does not teach:
An interface connected to the controller, and receiving control values tuned for the driver input by the driver.
However, Yang teaches:
the controller is provided so that through the interface connected to the controller, the controller is configured (Yang - Page 6 Paragraph 5 – Page 6 Paragraph 8) “drift control of a vehicle by means of a man-machine interaction interface (HMI)”
to receive a predetermined value tuned for the acceleration assistance control and the steering assistance control or a control value tuned for the driver input, by the driver (Yang - Page 20 Paragraph 5, Page 21 Paragraph 3 – Page 22 Paragraph 1, Claim 7) “the driver adjusts the effort value of the drift gesture”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Koji with an interface connected to the controller, and receiving control values tuned for the driver input by the driver of Yang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Koji and Yang are in the field of vehicle drift control. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the drifting safety and experience for the driver (Yang – Page 2 Paragraph 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 17 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.
Claims 14-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 recites (emphasis added):
“The method of claim 10, wherein the determining the target yaw moment for the acceleration assistance control includes:
normalizing the driver’s requested torque by determining a normalization ratio which is a ratio of a filtered driver’s requested torque, obtained by filtering the driver’s requested torque, to a maximum driver’s requested torque;
determining a driver’s requested torque for the acceleration assistance control as a value obtained by multiplying the normalization ratio by the maximum driver’s requested torque;
determining a gain for the acceleration assistance control based on the vehicle speed, vertical force of the left wheel, and vertical force of the right wheel; and
determining the target yaw moment for the acceleration assistance control based on the determined driver’s requested torque for the acceleration assistance control, the determined gain for the acceleration assistance control, and the drift index”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Koji (JP 2010025272 A) teaches acceleration assistance control and a vehicle speed.
Koji, however, does not teach a gain.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 11 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 11 is objected to.
Claim 12 is objected to based upon its dependency from claim 11.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 recites (emphasis added):
“The method of claim 9, wherein, in the determining a target yaw for the yaw damping assistance control, the target yaw for the yaw damping assistance control is determined using the vehicle speed, a vehicle yaw rate detected by a yaw rate sensor, and a vehicle yaw acceleration obtained from the vehicle yaw rate or a lateral slip angle change rate among the vehicle driving information, as inputs”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Koji (JP 2010025272 A) teaches a vehicle yaw rate and slip angle.
However, Koji does not teach a vehicle yaw acceleration obtained from the vehicle yaw rate or a lateral slip angle change rate.
Jens (DE 10102633 A1) teaches damping based on the actual yaw acceleration (Page 3 Paragraph 2) “damping of dynamic processes be derived by deriving the actual yaw rate and the resulting actual yaw acceleration”
However, Jens does not teach the yaw acceleration is obtained from the yaw rate or lateral slip angle change rate.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 14 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 14 recites allowable subject matter.
Claims 15-16 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from claim 14.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 17 recites (emphasis added):
“The method of claim 9,
wherein a plurality of modes including a comfort mode and a sports mode configured to implement different degrees of drift at a same driver input in the acceleration assistance control and the steering assistance control is set in the controller, and
wherein the controller is configured to perform assistance control depending on a mode selected by a driver through an interface connected to the controller”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Koji (JP 2010025272 A) teaches a drifting assistance and a drifting prohibited mode.
Koji, however, does not teach different degrees of drift.
Wright 2 (US 8718897 B2) teaches modes with different degrees of drift based on a user key (Col. 9 Line 27 – Col. 9 Line 41) “ an Advanced Driver key… A Stunt Key”
Wright 2, however, does not teach a mode selected by a driver through an interface.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 17 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 17 is objected to.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights