DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 2 and 11 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10, 12-14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aanen et al. (US 2003/0212476 A1) hereinafter Aanen and Miccinilli et al (US 2019/0092380 A1) hereinafter Miccinilli.
Claim 1:
Aanen discloses a method for calculating a handwheel angle associated with operation of a steering system of a vehicle, the method comprising: calculating a plurality of handwheel angles using a plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques; [Fig. 1, Item 26] wherein the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques includes two or more of a straight line driving calculation, a vehicle wheel speed vectoring calculation, and [¶¶50-64; the front and rear axle models are analogous to a wheel speed vectoring model] such that each of the plurality of handwheel angles corresponds to a different one of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques; [¶¶38-64 describes four different models producing their own angle, Lwref] outputting, as results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, the plurality of handwheel angles; obtaining, using the results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, a combined handwheel angle output; and controlling at least one function of the steering system of the vehicle using the combined handwheel angle output. [¶¶11, 65-67, 97; control is based on offset determined from Lwref]
Aanen doesn’t explicitly disclose a pinion torque profiling calculation.
However, Miccinilli does disclose a pinion torque profiling calculation [¶44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen with the pinion torque and angle determination of Miccinilli to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim 3:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Aanen also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes (i) obtaining respective weights for each of the results and (ii) calculating the combined handwheel angle output using the respective weights. [¶¶57, 64]
Claim 4:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Aanen also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes averaging the results. [¶¶11, 65-67]
Claim 5:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Aanen also discloses wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on a yaw rate of the vehicle. [¶¶38-49]
Claim 10:
Aanen discloses a system for calculating a handwheel angle associated with operation of a steering system of a vehicle, the system comprising: a processor configured to execute instructions stored in memory, wherein executing the instructions causes the processor to calculate a plurality of handwheel angles using a plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, [Fig. 1, Item 26] wherein the plurality of respective handwheel techniques includes two or more of a straight line driving calculation, a vehicle wheel speed vectoring calculation, and [¶¶50-64; the front and rear axle models are analogous to a wheel speed vectoring model] such that each of the plurality of handwheel angles corresponds to a different one of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, [¶¶38-64 describes four different models producing their own angle, Lwref] output, as results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, the plurality of handwheel angles, obtain, using the results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, a combined handwheel angle output, and control at least one function of the steering system of the vehicle using the combined handwheel angle output. [¶¶11, 65-67, 97; control is based on offset determined from Lwref]
Aanen doesn’t explicitly disclose a pinion torque profiling calculation.
However, Miccinilli does disclose a pinion torque profiling calculation [¶44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen with the pinion torque and angle determination of Miccinilli to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim 12:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Aanen also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes (i) obtaining respective weights for each of the results and (ii) calculating the combined handwheel angle output using the respective weights. [¶¶57, 64]
Claim 13:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Aanen also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes averaging the results. [¶¶11, 65-67]
Claim 14:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Aanen also discloses wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on a yaw rate of the vehicle. [¶¶38-49]
Claim 19:
Aanen discloses a system for calculating a handwheel angle associated with operation of a steering system of a vehicle, the system comprising: a handwheel actuator configured to calculate a plurality of handwheel angles using a plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, [Fig. 1, Item 26] the respective handwheel angle calculation techniques including two or more of a straight line driving calculation, a vehicle wheel speed vectoring calculation, and [¶¶50-64; the front and rear axle models are analogous to a wheel speed vectoring model] such that each of the plurality of handwheel angles corresponds to a different one of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, [¶¶38-64 describes four different models producing their own angle, Lwref] output, as results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, the plurality of handwheel angles, obtain, using the results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, a combined handwheel angle output by combining the results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, and control at least one function of the steering system of the vehicle using the combined handwheel angle output. [¶¶11, 65-67, 97; control is based on offset determined from Lwref]
Aanen doesn’t explicitly disclose a pinion torque profiling calculation.
However, Miccinilli does disclose a pinion torque profiling calculation [¶44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen with the pinion torque and angle determination of Miccinilli to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim 20:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 19.
Aanen also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes at least one of averaging the results, calculating a weighted average of the results, and omitting one or more of the results. [¶¶57, 64, the weights could be set to zero which would be the equivalent of omitting a result]
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aanen and Miccinilli as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Polack et al. (The Kinematic Bicycle Model: a Consistent Model for Planning Feasible Trajectories for Autonomous Vehicles?) hereinafter Polack.
Claim 6:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Aanen and Miccinilli doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on distance between a wheel and a center of gravity of the vehicle.
However, Polack does disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on distance between a wheel and a center of gravity of the vehicle. [Page 2; Section E: MPC using a kinematic bicycle model; specifically equation 2d which shows yaw can be determined from velocity, distance from wheel to center of gravity and slip angle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen and Miccinilli with the yaw calculation of Polack to provide a variable which can be used to determine a handwheel angle.
Claim 15:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Aanen and Miccinilli doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on distance between a wheel and a center of gravity of the vehicle.
However, Polack does disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on distance between a wheel and a center of gravity of the vehicle. [Page 2; Section E: MPC using a kinematic bicycle model; specifically equation 2d which shows yaw can be determined from velocity, distance from wheel to center of gravity and slip angle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen and Miccinilli with the yaw calculation of Polack to provide a variable which can be used to determine a handwheel angle.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aanen and Miccinilli as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (Hand-wheel steering signal estimation and diagnosis approaches for ground vehicles) hereinafter Feng.
Claim 7:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Aanen and Miccinilli doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on front steer rate of the vehicle.
However, Feng does disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on front steer rate of the vehicle. [Page 656; Section 2.2: Hand-wheel steering angle input observer; incorporates steering angle rate of change to determine an estimated vehicle hand wheel steering angle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen and Miccinilli with the handwheel angle estimate of Feng to provide a variable which can be used to determine a handwheel angle.
Claim 16:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Aanen and Miccinilli doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on front steer rate of the vehicle.
However, Feng does disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on front steer rate of the vehicle. [Page 656; Section 2.2: Hand-wheel steering angle input observer; incorporates steering angle rate of change to determine an estimated vehicle hand wheel steering angle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen and Miccinilli with the handwheel angle estimate of Feng to provide a variable which can be used to determine a handwheel angle.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aanen and Miccinilli as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Tarum et al. (US 2016/0137225 A1) hereinafter Tarum ‘225.
Claim 8:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Aanen and Miccinilli doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes obtaining the combined handwheel angle output based on an input from a motor sensor turns counter.
However, Tarum ‘225 does disclose wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes obtaining the combined handwheel angle output based on an input from a motor sensor turns counter. [¶¶25-27]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen and Miccinilli with the handwheel angle calculation of Tarum '225 to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim 9:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Aanen and Miccinilli doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one function of the steering system includes a driver assistance function.
However, Tarum ‘695 does disclose wherein the at least one function of the steering system includes a driver assistance function. [¶2]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen and Miccinilli with the parking assist of Tarum '695 to utilize the electronic power steering to enhance driver comfort by making it easier to park a vehicle.
Claim 17:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Aanen and Miccinilli doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes obtaining the combined handwheel angle output based on an input from a motor sensor turns counter.
However, Tarum ‘225 does disclose wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes obtaining the combined handwheel angle output based on an input from a motor sensor turns counter. [¶¶25-27]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen and Miccinilli with the handwheel angle calculation of Tarum '225 to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim 18:
Aanen and Miccinilli, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Aanen and Miccinilli doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one function of the steering system includes a driver assistance function.
However, Tarum ‘695 does disclose wherein the at least one function of the steering system includes a driver assistance function. [¶2]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Aanen and Miccinilli with the parking assist of Tarum '695 to utilize the electronic power steering to enhance driver comfort by making it easier to park a vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights