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
This is in response to applicant’s filing date of November 12, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Application KR10-2024-0075375, filed on June 11, 2024. The certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 12, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: sensor unit and controller in claims 11-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections -- 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamori et al (US-20200394907-A1)(“Takamori”) and Kalkkuhl et al (US-20110112722-A1)(“Kalkkuhl”).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 1, Takamori discloses a method of controlling a vehicle (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
detecting an object satisfying preset object conditions and driving conditions for approaching the vehicle (Takamori at Figure 2, host vehicle 1 and vehicle 10, and Para. [0040] discloses that based on the position of the object (vehicle 10) it could be used to mitigate conditions from a measured crosswind:” the other vehicle 10 and the host vehicle 1 pass each other, the other vehicle 10 is located on the windward side with respect to the host vehicle 1 (i.e., the other vehicle 10 is located windward of the host vehicle 1), and serves as a shielding object that shields the host vehicle 1 against the crosswind.”) ;
determining (See Figures 4a-e which illustrate various condition of a first and second vehicle being subjected to a crosswind which under the broadest interpretation is considered a control time which the host vehicle has to control for. ) i) a first control time based on the driving conditions (Takamori at Figure 4a, condition where host vehicle 1 has a first driving condition with no protection from wind A, and Para. [0056] disclosing how the effects of the crosswind is mitigated by host vehicle 1: “yaw moment with the tendency of oversteer is generated by the crosswind. In this condition, the effect due to the crosswind can be reduced by reducing the auxiliary drive force as compared to that in the case of no wind.”) and ii) a second control time after the first control time (Takamori at Figure 4c, leeward of the other vehicle 10, and Para. [0058] disclosing a control strategy based on a substantially crosswind free scenario:” the host vehicle 1 temporarily receives no wind. Therefore, the yaw moment due to the crosswind is not generated, and the auxiliary drive force equivalent to that in the case of no wind is transmitted to the right and left rear wheels 14, 13.”);
performing first vehicle stability control at the first control time (Takamori at Figure 5A, yaw moment generated by the crosswind at various periods, and Figure 5B, drive force control to counter crosswinds, and Para. [0065] disclosing performing stability control based on the determined crosswind:” a vehicle behavior can be stabilized by changing the auxiliary drive force in synchronization with changes in effect due to the crosswind such that the effect due to the crosswind is reduced.”); and
performing second vehicle stability control in an (Takamori at Figure 5B, drive force control, and Figures 6a-e, vehicle yaw moment at various crosswind exposures, and Paras. [0071]-[0075] performing a stability control at a time period that is different than the first time period:” control device 6B supplies an excitation current to the electromagnetic coil 56 of each of the right-side drive force transmission device 5R and the left-side drive force transmission device 5L so as to counter the yaw moment that is estimated to be generated by the crosswind, based on the forecast information acquired from the crosswind effect estimation device 7.” At Para. [0075].).
While countering the yaw moment produced by a crosswind, Takamori does not explicitly disclose that second vehicle stability control is an opposite yaw-rate control direction to the first vehicle stability control.
Takamori does not disclose, but Kalkkuhl discloses a first stability control and second stability control that is an opposite yaw-rate control direction to the first vehicle stability control (Kalkkuhl at Figure 2, yaw moments G1 & G2 at control times t0-t5, and Para. [0010] discloses creating a “first counter-yaw moment can be built up by means of the brake system or a wheel brake intervention in a particularly dynamic and fast manner”; and Para. [0035] disclosing second counter measure that removes the influence of the first control measure:” a fourth time t3, the first counter-yaw moment G1 is removed completely, so that the entire necessary counter-yaw moment is only provided through the second counter-yaw moment G2 from this time onwards.”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Takamori with the teachings of Kalkkuhl because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.). In the instant case, all of the base devices are similar systems for improving vehicle driving dynamics during windy conditions; however, Kalkkuhl’s device has been improved by implementing brake force to create lateral force. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Kalkkuhl’s known improvement to the Takamori device using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because side-differential braking force has long been used to counter undesirable vehicle lateral motion resulting from sudden environmental influences like snow and ice, thus its application to wind-induced lateral motion would be a predictable benefit.
As per claim 2, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a method of claim 1, wherein:
the first control time is determined to be a first time at which lateral crossing of the vehicle begins (Takamori Figures 5A-5B, control time Ta – Te, and Para. [0053] disclosing the different control setting especially time Tb when the initial crossing of the second vehicle which will protect vehicle 1 from the generated crosswinds A:” the time point when the condition shown in the portion (a) in FIG. 4 occurs corresponds to Ta in the graphs shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B. Similarly, the conditions shown in the portions (b) to (e) in FIG. 4 correspond to Tb to Te shown in the graphs in FIGS. 5A and 5B, respectively.”) , and the second control time is determined to be a second time at which the lateral crossing of the vehicle ends (Takamori Figures 5A-5B, control time Ta – Te, and Para. [0060] disclosing that passing the protective vehicle 10 the host vehicle 1 reverts back to a control before the first control time:” portion (e) in FIG. 4 indicates the condition where the host vehicle 1 has passed the position on the leeward side with respect to the other vehicle 10 (i.e., the position that is leeward of the other vehicle 10). In this condition, the yaw moment with the tendency of oversteer, which is equivalent to the yaw moment in the condition before the host vehicle 1 overlaps the other vehicle 10 in the direction of the crosswind as shown in the portion (a) in FIG. 4, is generated.”).
As per claim 3, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a method of claim 2, wherein performing the first vehicle stability control comprises performing lopsided braking control on a wheel of the vehicle that is provided on a side facing the object in a lateral direction of the vehicle (Kalkkuhl at Para. [0024] discloses that the first control is applying brake intervention to one or more wheels inclusive of wheels on a particular side of the vehicle which the examiner using broadest reasonable interpretation as lopsided braking:” wheel brake intervention is basically carried out at least at one wheel 2.1, 2.4 or 2.2, 2.3 of one vehicle side, in order to generate a counter-yaw moment counteracting the transversal disturbance. In order to design the wheel brake intervention as comfortable as possible for the driver, only, or at least in a first brake intervention step, the corresponding non-steerable wheel 2.1 or 2.2 at the rear axle of the vehicle can be braked, so that possibly perceivable repercussions at the steering wheel of the vehicle 1 remain as small as possible.”) .
As per claim 4, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a method of claim 2, wherein performing the second vehicle stability control comprises performing lopsided braking control on a wheel of the vehicle that is provided on a side opposite the object in a lateral direction of the vehicle (Kalkkuhl at Para. [0026] discloses that for the second control applying brake intervention to one or more wheels inclusive of wheels on a particular side of the vehicle which the examiner using broadest reasonable interpretation as lopsided braking :” dynamic disturbance of the transversal dynamics due to an occurring side wind SW is compensated at least partially by the wheel brake intervention. The disturbance variable determination device 5 and/or the brake force activation device 4 is formed for this purpose to determine a necessary brake force at a wheel or several wheels 2.1-2.4 of the vehicle 1 by means of a suitable method or model, in order to correspondingly--as has already been mentioned--to compensate for the occurred dynamic disturbance of the vehicle transversal dynamics.”).
As per claim 5, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a method of claim 3, wherein performing the first vehicle stability control comprises outputting a compensation torque corresponding to lopsided braking torque of the first vehicle stability control to control a driving torque of the vehicle (Takamori at Figure 5B, command torque, and Para. [0062] disclosing that a command torque is formulated to cause a yaw moment that compensate for the wind disturbance:” the control unit 611 corrects the command torque by multiplying the command torque T obtained by referring to the map information 622 by a correction coefficient corresponding to the magnitude of the yaw moment indicated by the forecast information, and sets a duty ratio for a PWM signal to be supplied to the switching circuit 63 based on the corrected command torque.”).
As per claim 6, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a method of claim 1, further comprising controlling a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle in at least one of the first vehicle stability control or the second vehicle stability control (Kalkkuhl at Figure 2 and Para. [0021] discloses controlling acceleration of the host vehicle 1:” sensors 6.1-6.n serve for determining one or more actual variables of the vehicle 1, such as a yaw rate, a longitudinal speed, a steering angle, the steering wheel angle, the hand moment at the steering wheel 11 applied by the driver and/or a transversal acceleration. Corresponding sensor signals SS1-SSn are transmitted by the sensors 6.1-6.n to the disturbance determination device 5.”).
As per claim 7, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a method of claim 6, wherein:
the first vehicle stability control comprises control to reduce the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle (Kalkkuhl at Para. [0025] discloses braking application as a first stability control reduces the longitudinal acceleration:” brake force distribution between the steerable front wheel 2.3 or 2.4 and the non-steerable rear wheel 2.2 or 2.1 can for example depend on parameters as the amount of the transversal dynamics disturbance variable, the steering angle, the longitudinal speed, the transversal acceleration, the yaw rate, or other longitudinal and transversal dynamic vehicle state variables.”); and
the second vehicle stability control comprises control to increase the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle (Kalkkuhl at Para. [0026] discloses applying a brake intervention on one or more of the wheels which is known by those in the art to slow the vehicle, it follows then that a release will increase the acceleration of the vehicle:” dynamic disturbance of the transversal dynamics due to an occurring side wind SW is compensated at least partially by the wheel brake intervention. The disturbance variable determination device 5 and/or the brake force activation device 4 is formed for this purpose to determine a necessary brake force at a wheel or several wheels… to compensate for the occurred dynamic disturbance of the vehicle transversal dynamics.”).
As per claim 9, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a method of claim 1, wherein:
the driving conditions are determined based on at least one of relative distance between the object and the vehicle or image information of the object (Takamori at Para. [0051] discloses uses the positional information between the host vehicle 1 and the object to determine crosswind conditions:” estimation unit 713 generates the forecast information, including the time when or the position where the effect on the host vehicle 1 due to the crosswind increases and decreases, based on the overall length of the other vehicle. Further, the estimation unit 713 estimates the magnitude of the effect on the host vehicle 1 due to the crosswind based on the size of the other vehicle that is the shielding object, and generates the forecast information including this estimated value.”); and
the object conditions are determined based on at least one of a size of the object or a relative speed between the object and the vehicle (Takamori at Para. [0051] discloses using the size of the other vehicle 10 to determine the effect on a wind disturbance:” second acquisition unit 712 detects another vehicle that is capable of performing the inter-vehicle communication as the shielding object, the second acquisition unit 712 acquires the information on the size of the other vehicle, including the overall length and overall height of the other vehicle. The estimation unit 713 generates the forecast information, including the time when or the position where the effect on the host vehicle 1 due to the crosswind increases and decreases, based on the overall length of the other vehicle.”).
As per claim 10, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a method of claim 3, wherein performing the first vehicle stability control comprises performing the lopsided braking control based on a yaw rate, wherein the yaw rate is determined based on a preset model using at least one of a size of the object (Takamori at Para. [0051] discloses using a model to determine yaw rate:” the yaw moment to be generated in the host vehicle 1 is estimated as the effect due to the crosswind. The magnitude of the effect due to the crosswind corresponds to the magnitude of the yaw moment.”), a speed of the vehicle, a relative speed between the object and the vehicle, or a relative distance between the object and the vehicle (Takamori at Para. [0050] discloses using the speed of other vehicle to estimate when changes in the crosswind disturbance are to occur:” the second acquisition unit 712 acquires information on the vehicle speed and traveling direction of the other vehicle via the inter-vehicle communication. The estimation unit 713 generates the forecast information including the time when or the position where the effect due to the crosswind changes, based on the vehicle speed and the traveling direction of the other vehicle.”).
As per claim 11, Takamori discloses a vehicle (Figure 2, host vehicle 1)comprising:
a sensor unit (Figure 3, second acquisition unit 712.) configured to detect an object that satisfies preset object conditions and driving conditions for approaching the vehicle (Takamori at Figure 2, host vehicle 1 and vehicle 10, and Para. [0040] discloses that based on the position of the object (vehicle 10) it could be used to mitigate conditions from a measured crosswind:” the other vehicle 10 and the host vehicle 1 pass each other, the other vehicle 10 is located on the windward side with respect to the host vehicle 1 (i.e., the other vehicle 10 is located windward of the host vehicle 1), and serves as a shielding object that shields the host vehicle 1 against the crosswind.”); and
a controller (Figure 3, controller 6) configured to determine i) a first control time based on the driving conditions (Takamori at Figure 5B, control times Ta to Te, where Ta and Tb would be designated as a first control time when the vehicle 1 is being influenced by vehicle 10 like shown at Fig. 4b. ) and ii) a second control time after the first control time (Takamori at Figure 5B, control times Ta to Te, where Tc and Td would be designated as a second control time when the vehicle 1 is no longer being influenced by vehicle 10 like shown at Fig. 4d. ), perform first vehicle stability control at the first control time (Takamori at Para. [0065] disclosing performing stability control based on the determined crosswind:” a vehicle behavior can be stabilized by changing the auxiliary drive force in synchronization with changes in effect due to the crosswind such that the effect due to the crosswind is reduced.”), and
perform second vehicle stability control in an (Takamori at Figure 5B, drive force control, and Figures 6a-e, vehicle yaw moment at various crosswind exposures, and Paras. [0071]-[0075] performing a stability control at a time period that is different than the first time period:” control device 6B supplies an excitation current to the electromagnetic coil 56 of each of the right-side drive force transmission device 5R and the left-side drive force transmission device 5L so as to counter the yaw moment that is estimated to be generated by the crosswind, based on the forecast information acquired from the crosswind effect estimation device 7.” At Para. [0075].).
While countering the yaw moment produced by a crosswind, Takamori does not explicitly disclose that second vehicle stability control is an opposite yaw-rate control direction to the first vehicle stability control.
Takamori does not disclose, but Kalkkuhl discloses a first stability control and second stability control that is an opposite yaw-rate control direction to the first vehicle stability control (Kalkkuhl at Figure 2, yaw moments G1 & G2 at control times t0-t5, and Para. [0010] discloses creating a “first counter-yaw moment can be built up by means of the brake system or a wheel brake intervention in a particularly dynamic and fast manner”; and Para. [0035] disclosing second counter measure that removes the influence of the first control measure:” a fourth time t3, the first counter-yaw moment G1 is removed completely, so that the entire necessary counter-yaw moment is only provided through the second counter-yaw moment G2 from this time onwards.”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Takamori with the teachings of Kalkkuhl because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.). In the instant case, all of the base devices are similar systems for improving vehicle driving dynamics during windy conditions; however, Kalkkuhl’s device has been improved by implementing brake force to create lateral force. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Kalkkuhl’s known improvement to the Takamori device using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because side-differential braking force has long been used to counter undesirable vehicle lateral motion resulting from sudden environmental influences like snow and ice, thus its application to wind-induced lateral motion would be a predictable benefit.
As per claim 12, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a vehicle of claim 11, wherein:
the first control time is determined to be a first time at which lateral crossing of the vehicle begins (Takamori Figures 5A-5B, control time Ta – Te, and Para. [0053] disclosing the different control setting especially time Tb when the initial crossing of the second vehicle which will protect vehicle 1 from the generated crosswinds A:” the time point when the condition shown in the portion (a) in FIG. 4 occurs corresponds to Ta in the graphs shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B. Similarly, the conditions shown in the portions (b) to (e) in FIG. 4 correspond to Tb to Te shown in the graphs in FIGS. 5A and 5B, respectively.”) , and the second control time is determined to be a second time at which the lateral crossing of the vehicle ends (Takamori Figures 5A-5B, control time Ta – Te, and Para. [0060] disclosing that passing the protective vehicle 10 the host vehicle 1 reverts back to a control before the first control time:” portion (e) in FIG. 4 indicates the condition where the host vehicle 1 has passed the position on the leeward side with respect to the other vehicle 10 (i.e., the position that is leeward of the other vehicle 10). In this condition, the yaw moment with the tendency of oversteer, which is equivalent to the yaw moment in the condition before the host vehicle 1 overlaps the other vehicle 10 in the direction of the crosswind as shown in the portion (a) in FIG. 4, is generated.”).
As per claim 13, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a vehicle of claim 12 wherein the controller is configured to, at the first time, perform lopsided braking control on a wheel of the vehicle that is provided on a side facing the object in a lateral direction of the vehicle (Kalkkuhl at Para. [0024] discloses that the first control is applying brake intervention to one or more wheels inclusive of wheels on a particular side of the vehicle which the examiner using broadest reasonable interpretation as lopsided braking:” wheel brake intervention is basically carried out at least at one wheel 2.1, 2.4 or 2.2, 2.3 of one vehicle side, in order to generate a counter-yaw moment counteracting the transversal disturbance. In order to design the wheel brake intervention as comfortable as possible for the driver, only, or at least in a first brake intervention step, the corresponding non-steerable wheel 2.1 or 2.2 at the rear axle of the vehicle can be braked, so that possibly perceivable repercussions at the steering wheel of the vehicle 1 remain as small as possible.”).
As per claim 14, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a vehicle of claim 12 wherein the controller is configured to, at the second time, perform lopsided braking control on a wheel of the vehicle that is provided on a side opposite the object in a lateral direction of the vehicle (Kalkkuhl at Para. [0026] discloses that for the second control applying brake intervention to one or more wheels inclusive of wheels on a particular side of the vehicle which the examiner using broadest reasonable interpretation as lopsided braking:” dynamic disturbance of the transversal dynamics due to an occurring side wind SW is compensated at least partially by the wheel brake intervention. The disturbance variable determination device 5 and/or the brake force activation device 4 is formed for this purpose to determine a necessary brake force at a wheel or several wheels 2.1-2.4 of the vehicle 1 by means of a suitable method or model, in order to correspondingly--as has already been mentioned--to compensate for the occurred dynamic disturbance of the vehicle transversal dynamics.”).
As per claim 15, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a vehicle of claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to output a compensation torque corresponding to lopsided braking torque of the first vehicle stability control to control a driving torque of the vehicle (Takamori at Figure 5B, command torque, and Para. [0062] disclosing that a command torque is formulated to cause a yaw moment that compensate for the wind disturbance:” the control unit 611 corrects the command torque by multiplying the command torque T obtained by referring to the map information 622 by a correction coefficient corresponding to the magnitude of the yaw moment indicated by the forecast information, and sets a duty ratio for a PWM signal to be supplied to the switching circuit 63 based on the corrected command torque.”).
As per claim 16, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a vehicle of claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to control a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle in at least one of the first vehicle stability control or the second vehicle stability control (Kalkkuhl at Figure 2 and Para. [0021] discloses controlling acceleration of the host vehicle 1:” sensors 6.1-6.n serve for determining one or more actual variables of the vehicle 1, such as a yaw rate, a longitudinal speed, a steering angle, the steering wheel angle, the hand moment at the steering wheel 11 applied by the driver and/or a transversal acceleration. Corresponding sensor signals SS1-SSn are transmitted by the sensors 6.1-6.n to the disturbance determination device 5.”).
As per claim 17, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a vehicle of claim 16, wherein:
the first vehicle stability control comprises control to reduce the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle (Kalkkuhl at Para. [0025] discloses braking application as a first stability control reduces the longitudinal acceleration:” brake force distribution between the steerable front wheel 2.3 or 2.4 and the non-steerable rear wheel 2.2 or 2.1 can for example depend on parameters as the amount of the transversal dynamics disturbance variable, the steering angle, the longitudinal speed, the transversal acceleration, the yaw rate, or other longitudinal and transversal dynamic vehicle state variables.”); and
the second vehicle stability control comprises control to increase the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle (Kalkkuhl at Para. [0026] discloses applying a brake intervention on one or more of the wheels which is known by those in the art to slow the vehicle, it follows then that a release will increase the acceleration of the vehicle:” dynamic disturbance of the transversal dynamics due to an occurring side wind SW is compensated at least partially by the wheel brake intervention. The disturbance variable determination device 5 and/or the brake force activation device 4 is formed for this purpose to determine a necessary brake force at a wheel or several wheels… to compensate for the occurred dynamic disturbance of the vehicle transversal dynamics.”).
As per claim 19, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a vehicle of claim 11, wherein:
the driving conditions are determined based on at least one of relative distance between the object and the vehicle or image information of the object (Takamori at Para. [0051] discloses uses the positional information between the host vehicle 1 and the object to determine crosswind conditions:” estimation unit 713 generates the forecast information, including the time when or the position where the effect on the host vehicle 1 due to the crosswind increases and decreases, based on the overall length of the other vehicle. Further, the estimation unit 713 estimates the magnitude of the effect on the host vehicle 1 due to the crosswind based on the size of the other vehicle that is the shielding object, and generates the forecast information including this estimated value.”); and
the object conditions are determined based on at least one of a size of the object or a relative speed between the object and the vehicle (Takamori at Para. [0051] discloses using the size of the other vehicle 10 to determine the effect on a wind disturbance:” second acquisition unit 712 detects another vehicle that is capable of performing the inter-vehicle communication as the shielding object, the second acquisition unit 712 acquires the information on the size of the other vehicle, including the overall length and overall height of the other vehicle. The estimation unit 713 generates the forecast information, including the time when or the position where the effect on the host vehicle 1 due to the crosswind increases and decreases, based on the overall length of the other vehicle.”).
As per claim 20, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a vehicle of claim 13, wherein performing the first vehicle stability control comprises performing the lopsided braking control based on a yaw rate, wherein the yaw rate is determined based on a preset model using at least one of a size of the object (Takamori at Para. [0051] discloses using a model to determine yaw rate:” the yaw moment to be generated in the host vehicle 1 is estimated as the effect due to the crosswind. The magnitude of the effect due to the crosswind corresponds to the magnitude of the yaw moment.”), a speed of the vehicle, a relative speed between the object and the vehicle, or a relative distance between the object and the vehicle (Takamori at Para. [0050] discloses using the speed of other vehicle to estimate when changes in the crosswind disturbance are to occur:” the second acquisition unit 712 acquires information on the vehicle speed and traveling direction of the other vehicle via the inter-vehicle communication. The estimation unit 713 generates the forecast information including the time when or the position where the effect due to the crosswind changes, based on the vehicle speed and the traveling direction of the other vehicle.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamori and Kalkkuhl as applied to claims 1& 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US-20230150372-A1)(“Lee”).
As per claim 8, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a method of claim 6, wherein controlling the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle comprises controlling the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle (Takamori at Figure 5B, command torque, and Para. [0062] disclosing that a command torque is formulated to cause a yaw moment that compensate for the wind disturbance:” the control unit 611 corrects the command torque by multiplying the command torque T obtained by referring to the map information 622 by a correction coefficient corresponding to the magnitude of the yaw moment indicated by the forecast information, and sets a duty ratio for a PWM signal to be supplied to the switching circuit 63 based on the corrected command torque.”).
Takamori and Kalkkuhl do not disclose, but Lee discloses controlling a vehicle through coasting torque control (Lee at figure 3, braking control 300, and Para. [0071] disclosing that the braking pattern can include coasting control:” vehicle controller 150 may control the braking of the vehicle by distributing the coasting torque to the front wheel 1 and the rear wheel 7 (S315).”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Takamori and Kalkkuhl with the teachings of Lee because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.). In the instant case, all of the base devices are similar systems for improving vehicle driving dynamics during windy conditions; however, Lee’s device has been improved by implementing brake force to create a coasting torque. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Lee’s known improvement to the Takamori and Kalkkuhl device using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because side-differential braking force has long been used to counter undesirable vehicle lateral motion resulting from sudden environmental influences like snow and ice, thus its application to wind-induced lateral motion would be a predictable benefit.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamori and Kalkkuhl as applied to claims 11 & 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US-20230150372-A1)(“Lee”).
As per claim 18, Takamori and Kalkkuhl disclose a vehicle of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to control the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle through (Takamori at Figure 5B, command torque, and Para. [0062] disclosing that a command torque is formulated to cause a yaw moment that compensate for the wind disturbance:” the control unit 611 corrects the command torque by multiplying the command torque T obtained by referring to the map information 622 by a correction coefficient corresponding to the magnitude of the yaw moment indicated by the forecast information, and sets a duty ratio for a PWM signal to be supplied to the switching circuit 63 based on the corrected command torque.”).
Takamori and Kalkkuhl do not disclose, but Lee discloses controlling a vehicle through coasting torque control (Lee at figure 3, braking control 300, and Para. [0071] disclosing that the braking pattern can include coasting control:” vehicle controller 150 may control the braking of the vehicle by distributing the coasting torque to the front wheel 1 and the rear wheel 7 (S315).”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Takamori and Kalkkuhl with the teachings of Lee because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.). In the instant case, all of the base devices are similar systems for improving vehicle driving dynamics during windy conditions; however, Lee’s device has been improved by implementing brake force to create a coasting torque. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Lee’s known improvement to the Takamori and Kalkkuhl device using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because side-differential braking force has long been used to counter undesirable vehicle lateral motion resulting from sudden environmental influences like snow and ice, thus its application to wind-induced lateral motion would be a predictable benefit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JEON; Namju (US-20240253616-A1) APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING VEHICLE; discloses a controller configured to calculate a crosswind tendency including information on a strength and a direction of a crosswind applied to the vehicle based on the signal received from the sensor unit, calculate a partial braking torque for compensating for a pulling caused by the crosswind based on the crosswind tendency, and calculate a compensation steering torque for compensating for a steering angle deviation based on the partial braking torque.
Zarringhalam; Reza et al. (US-20230391324-A1) SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTION AND MITIGATION OF CROSSWIND EFFECTS; discloses systems and methods detect a crosswind impacting the vehicle by detecting a disturbance associated with the vehicle dynamics model caused by the crosswind and adapt control of the vehicle based on the detecting the crosswind impacting the vehicle.
OSHIMA; Kensuke et al. (US-20230294760-A1) VEHICLE DRIVING SUPPORT APPARATUS; discloses a disturbance estimation control calculator that estimates lateral-direction disturbance to calculate an amount of steering against the disturbance based on the estimated disturbance; and a coordination controller that corrects the amount of steering control with the amount of steering.
NAGANO; Hiroki et al. (US-20230101331-A1) VEHICLE COMPELLING FORCE DETECTION APPARATUS CAPABLE OF DETECTING COMPELLING FORCE DUE TO WIND DISTURBANCE APPLIED TO VEHICLE; discloses an apparatus to detect the compelling force due to the wind disturbance to which the vehicle is subjected, based on the body disturbance force applied to the vehicle and the road surface disturbance force, which are stored in the one or more memories.
YOON; Young Sik (US-20210094533-A1) INTEGRATED CHASSIS CONTROL SYSTEM; discloses a system comprising a first determinator configured to determine a degree of influence of a side wind, which is predicted to occur due to the first vehicle, based on the behavior information of the first vehicle, a second determinator configured to determine a variance in abnormal behavior of the own vehicle based on information sensed by the second sensor.
MITSUMOTO; Hisanori (US-20210016829-A1) VEHICLE DISTURBANCE HANDLING SYSTEM; discloses a disturbance handling system for a vehicle to handle a disturbance, the disturbance being an external force that acts on the vehicle and causes deflection of the vehicle.
Mitsumoto; Hisanori (US-20200172164-A1) VEHICLE DISTURBANCE DETECTION APPARATUS; discloses a vehicle disturbance detection apparatus includes an electronic control unit. The electronic control unit determines whether a disturbance occurs in a vehicle based on detection signals from a sensor device. The disturbance is a lateral external force that causes the vehicle to veer in a direction different from a direction expected by a driver.
MITSUMOTO; Hisanori et al. (US-20190152471-A1) BEHAVIOR CONTROL APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE; discloses a behavior control apparatus is provided which is configured to calculate a first normative yaw rate of the vehicle based on a vehicle speed, a steering angle and a lateral acceleration of the vehicle, to calculate a second normative yaw rate of the vehicle based on a vehicle speed and a steering angle, to determine, when deflection control is not being performed.
TERAYAMA SATORU et al. (JP-2019038394-A) DRIVE ASSISTANCE DEVICE FOR VEHICLE; discloses a driver assist system that makes it possible to obtain stable travel performance even if the own vehicle M is pulled in the direction of a preceding vehicle or pushed out in a vehicle width direction when passing a large preceding vehicle.
Nishiguchi; Haruhiko (US-20190071079-A1) VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEM, VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM; discloses a vehicle control system includes a first steering controller that executes first steering control for controlling a steering device such that a traveling lane is maintained, and a second steering controller that executes second steering control that is activated during execution of the first steering control.
Hawes; Kevin J. et al. (US-20180037259-A1) LANE KEEPING SYSTEM FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE IN WIND CONDITIONS USING VEHICLE ROLL; discloses a lane keeping system for a vehicle includes a first roll angle sensor configured to provide a first signal indicative of dynamic vehicle body roll. A second roll angle sensor is configured to provide a second signal indicative of an angle between vehicle sprung and unsprung masses and wherein the controller is configured to discern a vehicle roll angle in response to the first and second signals based upon effects of a lateral wind force on the vehicle.
FUKAGAWA KEN (JP-2016030465-A) TRAVELING CONTROL DEVICE OF VEHICLE ; discloses a control device that effectively reduce a change of the traveling motion of a vehicle resulting from a crosswind without causing an unnecessary change of a vehicle speed and an increase of energy consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS B. RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8920. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 5:00pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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.
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights