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.
Effective Filing Date
The driver intent model of claims 3 and 13 is not supported by the provisional application 63/605,166. Accordingly, claims 3 and 13 have been assigned an effective filing date of 11/12/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I. states in computer-implemented functional claims the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. The algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation “obtaining the at least one of the reference yaw rate and the reference yaw acceleration using … a driver intent model” in lines 1-3. Applicant has not disclosed an algorithm for obtaining the reference yaw rate or reference yaw acceleration using a driver intent model in sufficient detail to evidence possession of such a model at the time of filing.
Claim Analysis - 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 1-20 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the controlling step in each independent claim integrates the recited mental processes into a practical application.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 11-12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by TAKIMOTO (US 7,383,111).
Regarding claim 1, TAKIMOTO discloses a method for controlling handwheel torque in a steering system of a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining a reference yaw rate of the vehicle (output of 37, Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 31-36);
obtaining a yaw rate error based on the reference yaw rate (col. 5 lines 46-52);
obtaining a handwheel torque modifier (Ir, Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 47-48) based on the yaw rate error (Ir1, Gy, and Gd are based on the error, Fig. 2);
adjusting a reference torque (output of 33, Fig. 2) using the handwheel torque modifier (Fig. 2); and
controlling the handwheel torque using the reference torque as adjusted using the handwheel torque modifier (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, TAKIMOTO discloses the method of claim 1.
TAKIMOTO further discloses obtaining the reference yaw rate (output of 37, Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 31-36) based on a roadwheel angle (Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 31-36).
Regarding claim 4, TAKIMOTO discloses the method of claim 1.
TAKIMOTO further discloses obtaining the yaw rate error based on the reference yaw rate and an actual yaw rate (col. 5 lines 46-52, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, TAKIMOTO discloses the method of claim 1.
TAKIMOTO further discloses wherein adjusting the reference torque using the handwheel torque modifier (Ir, Fig. 2) includes applying the handwheel torque modifier to an output of an effort function (base motor current as corrected by 32 and 33, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, TAKIMOTO discloses a system for controlling handwheel torque in a steering system of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in memory (implied/inherent in “ECU”, i.a. col. 3 lines 63-64), wherein executing the instructions causes the processor to
obtain a reference yaw rate of the vehicle (output of 37, Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 31-36),
obtain a yaw rate error based on the reference yaw rate (col. 5 lines 46-52),
obtain a handwheel torque modifier (Ir, Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 47-48) based on the yaw rate error (Ir1, Gy, and Gd are based on the error, Fig. 2),
adjust a reference torque (output of 33, Fig. 2) using the handwheel torque modifier (Fig. 2), and
control the handwheel torque using the reference torque as adjusted using the handwheel torque modifier (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, TAKIMOTO discloses the system of claim 11.
TAKIMOTO further discloses wherein the processor is configured to obtain the reference yaw rate (output of 37, Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 31-36) based on a roadwheel angle (Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 31-36).
Regarding claim 14, TAKIMOTO discloses the system of claim 11.
TAKIMOTO further discloses wherein the processor is configured to obtain the yaw rate error based on the reference yaw rate and an actual yaw rate (col. 5 lines 46-52, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, TAKIMOTO discloses the system of claim 11.
TAKIMOTO further discloses adjusting the reference torque using the handwheel torque modifier (Ir, Fig. 2) includes applying the handwheel torque modifier to an output of an effort function (base motor current as corrected by 32 and 33, Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by IM (US 12,330,727).
Regarding claim 1, IM discloses a method for controlling handwheel torque in a steering system of a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining at least one of a reference yaw rate of the vehicle (col. 6 lines 60-62);
obtaining at least one of a yaw rate error based on the reference yaw rate (col. 7 lines 1-6);
obtaining a handwheel torque modifier (index, Fig. 2) based on the yaw rate error (Fig. 2);
adjusting a reference torque using the handwheel torque modifier (Fig. 5, col. 8 lines 26-32); and
controlling the handwheel torque using the reference torque as adjusted using the handwheel torque modifier (implied, i.a. col. 8 lines 33-39).
Regarding claim 5, IM discloses the method of claim 1.
IM further discloses wherein the yaw rate error indicates at least one of an understeer condition and an oversteer condition of the vehicle (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, IM discloses the method of claim 5.
IM further discloses wherein when the yaw rate error indicates the understeer condition (S25, Fig. 2), the handwheel torque modifier is configured to decrease the reference torque (for gains > 1 and f ∈ (1,2] in Eqn. 3 the value of
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
is less than 1, i.e., the target torque is decreased when multiplied by
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
); Fig. 2, col. 8 lines 26-32, Fig. A below; n.b. gain is any adjustable value).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Oversteer)][AltContent: textbox (Understeer)]
PNG
media_image1.png
535
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A Annotations of
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
in IM Eqn. 3 where gain has been set at 1.5 as plotted in Wolfram Alpha.
Regarding claim 7, IM discloses the method of claim 5.
IM further discloses when the yaw rate error indicates the oversteer condition (S24, Fig. 2), the handwheel torque modifier is configured to increase the reference torque (for gains > 1 and f ∈ [0,1) in Eqn. 3 the value of
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
is more than 1, i.e., the target torque is increased when multiplied by
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
); Fig. 2, col. 8 lines 26-32, Fig. A above; n.b. gain is any adjustable value).
Regarding claim 11, IM discloses a system for controlling handwheel torque in a steering system of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in memory (implied/inherent in “controller”, i.a. col. 8 line 50), wherein executing the instructions causes the processor to
obtain a reference yaw rate of the vehicle (col. 6 lines 60-62),
obtain a yaw rate error based on the reference yaw rate (col. 7 lines 1-6),
obtain a handwheel torque modifier (index, Fig. 2) based on the yaw rate error (Fig. 2),
adjust a reference torque using the handwheel torque modifier (Fig. 5, col. 8 lines 26-32), and
control the handwheel torque using the reference torque as adjusted using the handwheel torque modifier (implied, i.a. col. 8 lines 33-39).
Regarding claim 15, IM discloses the system of claim 11.
IM further discloses wherein the yaw rate error indicates at least one of an understeer condition and an oversteer condition of the vehicle (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, IM discloses the system of claim 15.
IM further discloses when the yaw rate error indicates the understeer condition (S25, Fig. 2), the handwheel torque modifier is configured to decrease the reference torque (for gains > 1 and f ∈ (1,2] in Eqn. 3 the value of
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
is less than 1, i.e., the target torque is decreased when multiplied by
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
); Fig. 2, col. 8 lines 26-32, Fig. A above; n.b. gain is any adjustable value).
Regarding claim 17, IM discloses the system of claim 15.
IM further discloses when the yaw rate error indicate the oversteer condition (S24, Fig. 2), the handwheel torque modifier is configured to increase the reference torque (for gains > 1 and f ∈ [0,1) in Eqn. 3 the value of
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
is more than 1, i.e., the target torque is increased when multiplied by
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
); Fig. 2, col. 8 lines 26-32, Fig. A above; n.b. gain is any adjustable value).
Regarding claim 20, IM discloses a system for controlling a handwheel torque of a steering system of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a roadwheel actuator controller (part of the “controller”, i.a. col. 8 line 50; c.f. Applicant’s 0034 lines 9-11) configured to
(i) obtain a reference yaw rate of the vehicle (col. 6 lines 60-62) and
(ii) obtain a yaw rate error based on the reference yaw rate (col. 7 lines 1-6) ; and
a handwheel actuator controller (part of the “controller”, i.a. col. 8 line 50; c.f. Applicant’s 0034 lines 9-11) configured to
(i) obtain a handwheel torque modifier (index, Fig. 2) based on the yaw rate error (Fig. 2),
(ii) adjust a reference torque using the handwheel torque modifier (Fig. 5, col. 8 lines 26-32), and
(iii) control the handwheel torque using the reference torque as adjusted using the handwheel torque modifier (implied, i.a. col. 8 lines 33-39),
wherein the handwheel actuator controller is configured to use the handwheel torque modifier to
(i) decrease the reference torque (for gains > 1 and f ∈ (1,2] in Eqn. 3 the value of
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
is less than 1, i.e., the target torque is decreased when multiplied by
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
); Fig. 2, col. 8 lines 26-32, Fig. A above; n.b. gain is any adjustable value) in response to a determination that the yaw rate error indicates that the vehicle is in an understeer condition (S25, Fig. 2) and
(ii) increase the reference torque (for gains > 1 and f ∈ [0,1) in Eqn. 3 the value of
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
is more than 1, i.e., the target torque is increased when multiplied by
1
-
f
×
g
a
i
n
+
f
); Fig. 2, col. 8 lines 26-32, Fig. A above; n.b. gain is any adjustable value) in response to a determination that the yaw rate error indicates that the vehicle is in an oversteer condition (S24, Fig. 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKIMOTO (US 7,383,111) in view of HASEGAWA (JP 2023-031176).
Regarding claim 3, TAKIMOTO discloses the method of claim 1.
TAKIMOTO discloses obtaining the reference yaw rate using a look-up table (col. 5 lines 31-36) rather than a vehicle model as claimed.
HASEGAWA teaches obtaining a reference yaw rate (estimated yaw rate, pg. 3 line 12; n.b. the estimated yaw rate is compared to the actual yaw rate at S502, pg. 3 lines 26-27 in the same manner Applicant forms a yaw rate error) using a vehicle model (Equation 1, an equation may be considered a model of vehicle dynamics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vehicle model taught by HASEGAWA for the look-up table of TAKIMOTO for obtaining the reference yaw rate in order to eliminate the need to store a look-up table in memory that covers the full dynamic range of the vehicle operating envelope.
Regarding claim 13, TAKIMOTO discloses the system of claim 11.
TAKIMOTO discloses wherein the processor is configured to obtain the reference yaw rate using a look-up table (col. 5 lines 31-36) rather than a vehicle model as claimed.
HASEGAWA teaches obtaining a reference yaw rate (estimated yaw rate, pg. 3 line 12; n.b. the estimated yaw rate is compared to the actual yaw rate at S502, pg. 3 lines 26-27 in the same manner Applicant forms a yaw rate error) using a vehicle model (Equation 1, an equation may be considered a model of vehicle dynamics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vehicle model taught by HASEGAWA for the look-up table of TAKIMOTO for obtaining the reference yaw rate in order to eliminate the need to store a look-up table in memory that covers the full dynamic range of the vehicle operating envelope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SUGITANI (US 6,823,245) discloses a method for controlling handwheel torque (n.b. col. 21 lines 36-39) in a steering system of a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining at least one of a reference yaw rate of the vehicle (standard yaw rate, Fig. 1);
obtaining at least one of a yaw rate error (yaw rate deviation Δγ, Fig. 1) based on the reference yaw rate (Fig. 1);
obtaining a handwheel torque modifier (Kγ) based on the at least one of the yaw rate error (Kγ=f(Δγ), col. 19 line 59);
adjusting a reference torque (“reaction force of virtual torsion bar control” may be considered a reference torque which is then corrected based on coefficients K2-K5 and Kγ, i.a. Figs. 8-11, col. 14 lines 5-6, 21-22, and 41-45) using the handwheel torque modifier (col. 19 57-59); and
controlling the handwheel torque using the reference torque (i.a. col. 14 lines 53-61) as adjusted using the handwheel torque modifier (Fig. 14).
YAMAMOTO (US 5,774,819) discloses a method for controlling handwheel torque in a steering system of a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining a reference yaw rate of the vehicle (step 24);
obtaining a yaw rate error based on the reference yaw rate (step 26);
obtaining a handwheel torque modifier based on the yaw rate error (TA through T2, steps 32-33, Fig. 5, col. 5 lines 29-32);
adjusting a reference torque (output of EPS control unit 22 in Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 11-12) using the handwheel torque modifier (TA is added to the output of EPS control unit 22, col. 5 lines 10-12); and
controlling the handwheel torque using the reference torque as adjusted using the handwheel torque modifier (implied).
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