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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Figure 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 read. 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 6, 9, and 15-16 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the variable" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the variable will be interpreted as antecedent to the quantity due to similarity to claim 19.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the deviation (i) between a target yaw rate... and a yaw rate achieved" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the deviation... (ii) between a target lateral acceleration... and a lateral acceleration achieved" in lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16’s recitation of “the deviation” is further unclear given antecedent basis to three potentially different deviations in its dependency: “a deviation between the steering request and a steering movement”, “the deviation (i) between a target yaw rate... and a yaw rate achieved”, and “the deviation… (ii) between a target lateral acceleration... and a lateral acceleration achieved”. It is unclear which deviation is utilized in claim 16 since only “the deviation” is recited within claim 16. Considering parallel claims 5 and 6, it is understood by the examiner that the intent is that the steering deviation includes one or both of the yaw rate deviation and the lateral acceleration deviation, so for the purpose of examination, the deviation of claim 16 will be interpreted as such.
To overcome the 112(b) rejections of claim 15 and 16 recited above, examiner recommends amending the claim language in claim 15 to parallel claim 5 or amend claim 15 to roughly read “…the deviation includes (i) a deviation between a target yaw rate... and a yaw rate achieved… and/or (ii) a deviation between a target lateral acceleration... and a lateral acceleration achieved…”. Either amendment would show adequate antecedent basis.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the limitations “if the deviation is greater…than a first threshold value” and “if the deviation is greater… than a second threshold value”, but due to dependency on claims 5 and 15 respectively, it is unclear how this is achieved if the deviation includes both a yaw rate deviation and a lateral acceleration deviation (see claim 16 “for the purpose of examination” interpretation above). Since both deviations contain different units, a singular threshold to compare the deviation to is unsatisfactory. Claims 6 and 16 only function as written if only one deviation is selected for calculation in claims 5 and 15, not both. It is possible that each of the first and second threshold values can contain two different thresholds applicable to yaw rate deviation and lateral acceleration deviation respectively, but as written, this is unclear and thus the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, claims 6 and 16 will be interpreted as if claims 5 and 15 read “or”, not “and/or”, such that only one deviation is selected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 11-13, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapis et al. WO 2019185462 A1 (hereinafter Lapis) and Hultén et al. US 20190047618 A1 (hereinafter Hultén).
Regarding claims 1 and 11,
Lapis teaches
A steering system for a vehicle (Abstract “vehicle”), comprising:
a steering angle actuator configured to detect a steering request (hand wheel actuator assembly shown in Figure 1; see also ¶ 0047 regarding assembly components and detecting user input);
and a steering actuator configured to move steered wheels of the vehicle (road wheel actuator assembly shown in Figure 1; see also ¶ 0047 regarding assembly components and steering control),
wherein, in response to a failure of the steering actuator (¶ 0062 discloses steering control in event of front wheel steering failure), the steering system is configured to:
provide lateral control of the vehicle via at least one of a brake (¶ 0064 discloses adjusting rear wheel braking to provide steering), a drive (¶ 0064 discloses adjusting rear wheel drive force to provide steering), and a rear axle steering system of the vehicle (¶ 0061 discloses performing independent rear wheel steering on the rear axle); and
detecting a deviation between the steering request and a steering movement achieved by the lateral control (¶ 0064 discloses determining if the actual yaw rate is smaller or greater than the target yaw rate and adjusting steering in relation to the difference).
Lapis does not teach
reporting the deviation back to a driver via the steering angle actuator.
Hultén teaches
detecting a deviation between the steering request and a steering movement achieved by the lateral control (¶ 0103 discloses determining a yaw deviation and a lateral state deviation); and
reporting the deviation back to a driver via the steering angle actuator (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque to the driver based on the deviations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Lapis to incorporate the teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a yaw rate deviation of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches that
the carrying out the lateral control of the vehicle is based on sensor information that describes driving dynamics of the vehicle (¶ 0028 disclose measuring actual yaw rate implying existence of a sensor to perform this measurement indirectly or directly; see ¶ 0058-0065 regarding control based on actual yaw rate).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 2 and 12 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches that
the sensor information that describes the driving dynamics of the vehicle is based on a yaw rate (¶ 0028 disclose measuring actual yaw rate) and/or lateral acceleration.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the reporting the deviation back to the driver includes feeding back the deviation to the steering angle actuator via a first artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator.
Hultén further teaches that
the reporting the deviation back to the driver includes feeding back the deviation to the steering angle actuator via a first artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque to the driver based on the deviations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a yaw rate deviation of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 7 and 17 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the artificial excitation is a vibration of the steering angle actuator.
Hultén further teaches that
the artificial excitation is a vibration of the steering angle actuator (¶ 130 discloses feedback is a vibration signal added to steering wheel torque).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a yaw rate deviation of Lapis, vibration steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches
A vehicle comprising the steering system (Abstract and Figures 1-2).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapis in view of Hultén as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bergmann US 20230311981 A1 (hereinafter Bergmann).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the steering angle actuator is movable up to an end stop, the method further comprising:
reporting reaching the end stop back to the driver with an end stop torque set via the steering angle actuator; and
adjusting the end stop torque depending on the deviation.
Bergmann teaches that
the steering angle actuator is movable up to an end stop (¶ 0021 discloses the steering wheel position approaching a virtual end stop), the method further comprising:
reporting reaching the end stop back to the driver with an end stop torque set via the steering angle actuator (¶ 0011 discloses providing an end stop damping torque; see also Abstract); and
adjusting the end stop torque depending on the deviation (¶ 0047 discloses end stop torque is dependent on degree of oversteering).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the teachings of Bergmann such that an end stop torque can be provided based on a degree of oversteer detected as taught by Bergmann wherein the degree of oversteer can be represented by the yaw rate deviation determination of Lapis/Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to avoid oversteer caused by operator steering as disclosed in Bergmann (¶ 0021).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 4 and 14 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the detecting of the deviation includes detecting at least one of (i) a deviation between a target yaw rate of the vehicle defined by the steering request and a yaw rate achieved by the lateral control and/or (ii) a deviation between a target lateral acceleration of the vehicle defined by the steering request and a lateral acceleration achieved by the lateral control.
Hultén further teaches that
the detecting of the deviation includes detecting a deviation between a target yaw rate of the vehicle defined by the steering request and a yaw rate achieved by the lateral control (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque based on deviation between actual and target yaw; see also ¶ 0105 where yaw data includes yaw rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that determination of steering deviation such as oversteer can be fed back to the driver based on a yaw deviation determination as taught by Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapis and Hultén as applied to claims 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Allan et al. US 12509138 B2 (hereinafter Allan).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claim 7 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches that
the steering actuator comprises a rack for moving the steered wheels (Figure 1 rack 13; see also ¶ 0047 regarding steering with the rack), and a steering movement provided by the steering actuator is fed back by a second artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (¶ 0047 discloses feedback to the operator to simulate road feedback based on driving behavior of the vehicle).
Lapis does not teach
a steering movement provided by the steering actuator is fed back by a second artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator, which is determined depending on a quantity of a rack force or a rack torque provided by the steering actuator.
Allan teaches
a steering movement provided by the steering actuator is fed back by a second artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (Abstract discloses providing a feedback signal to the steering wheel; see also col. 5 lines 25-32 regarding example feedback including steering wheel vibration), which is determined depending on a quantity of a rack force or a rack torque provided by the steering actuator (col. 5 lines 21-24 disclose feedback parameters include rack force).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the teachings of Allan such that during normal, faultless, operation of Lapis, a rack force can be utilized for applying a steering wheel feedback in accordance with Allan. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an increased steering and performance feel for the driver as disclosed in Allan (col. 5 lines 33-46).
Lapis does not teach
in response to the failure of the steering actuator, determining a replacement variable for the variable as a function of sensor information which describes driving dynamics of the vehicle;
and determining the first artificial excitation as a function of the replacement variable.
Hultén further teaches
in response to the failure of the steering actuator (¶ 0031 discloses that appropriate steering feedback is required in intervention control such as an intervention for oversteering; examiner understands this condition as one example of a failure condition), determining a replacement variable for the variable as a function of sensor information which describes driving dynamics of the vehicle (Figure 2 shows determining lateral state deviation 260 based on sensor data 210 and feeding that into a steering feedback controller 280; see also ¶ 0103);
and determining the first artificial excitation as a function of the replacement variable (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque based on determined deviation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a front steering failure of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claim 9 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the determining of the replacement variable for the variable is based on a yaw rate and/or a lateral acceleration.
Hultén further teaches that
the determining of the replacement variable for the variable is based on a yaw rate (¶ 103 discloses determining steering feedback based on yaw deviation; see also ¶ 0105 wherein yaw data includes yaw rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a front steering failure of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches that
the steering actuator comprises a rack for moving the steered wheels (Figure 1 rack 13; see also ¶ 0047 regarding steering with the rack),
the steering system is further configured to report back a steering movement provided by the steering actuator via an artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (¶ 0047 discloses feedback to the operator to simulate road feedback based on driving behavior of the vehicle)
Lapis does not teach that
the steering system is further configured to report back a steering movement provided by the steering actuator via an artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator which is determined as a function of a variable of a rack force or a rack torque provided by the steering actuator.
Allan teaches that
the steering system is further configured to report back a steering movement provided by the steering actuator via an artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (Abstract discloses providing a feedback signal to the steering wheel; see also col. 5 lines 25-32 regarding example feedback including steering wheel vibration) which is determined as a function of a variable of a rack force or a rack torque provided by the steering actuator (col. 5 lines 21-24 disclose feedback parameters include rack force).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the teachings of Allan such that during normal, faultless, operation of Lapis, a rack force can be utilized for applying a steering wheel feedback in accordance with Allan. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an increased steering and performance feel for the driver as disclosed in Allan (col. 5 lines 33-46).
Lapis does not teach that
in response to the failure of the steering actuator, the steering system is further configured to determine a replacement variable for the variable as a function of sensor information describing driving dynamics of the vehicle and to determine the artificial excitation as a function of the replacement variable.
Hultén further teaches that
in response to the failure of the steering actuator (¶ 0031 discloses that appropriate steering feedback is required in intervention control such as an intervention for oversteering; examiner understands this condition as one example of a failure condition), the steering system is further configured to determine a replacement variable for the variable as a function of sensor information describing driving dynamics of the vehicle (Figure 2 shows determining lateral state deviation 260 based on sensor data 210 and feeding that into a steering feedback controller 280; see also ¶ 0103) and to determine the artificial excitation as a function of the replacement variable (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque based on determined deviation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a front steering failure of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome all 112(b) rejections of record and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 5 and 15 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the end stop torque is determined with a first order of magnitude if the deviation is greater in absolute value than a first threshold value,
the end stop torque is determined with a second order of magnitude if the deviation is greater in absolute value than a second threshold value,
the first threshold value is smaller than the second threshold value, and
the second order of magnitude is greater than the first order of magnitude.
While Bergmann does generically teach adjusting the end stop torque depending on the deviation (¶ 0047 discloses end stop torque is dependent on degree of oversteering), this adjustment is a fluid adjustment based on a degree of oversteering. This means that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to utilize a fluid adjustment of end stop torque based on a degree of oversteer rather than the step-wise adjustment of end stop torque based on a yaw rate or lateral acceleration deviation using two distinct threshold values as claimed. While one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could feasibly substitute a yaw rate deviation for the degree of oversteering in the end torque determination in view of Hultén (see claim 5 and 15 rejection above), the two step adjustment would not be obvious in light of Bergmann. Therefore, the claimed invention appears to be novel and non-obvious in light of the prior art of record.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park US 20240317299 A1 discloses performing applying feedback torque to a steering wheel based on rack force.
Baechle et al. DE 102021207228 A1 discloses adjusting a feedback to a steering torque based on lateral acceleration deviation.
Lapis WO 2021140080 A1 discloses controlling actuators in event of a front wheel steering malfunction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights