DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This final office action is in response to the amendments filled on 08/18/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 17 and 18 are amended. Claims 1-19 are pending and examined below.
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 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, 7, 9, 11 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0270084 (“Takahashi”), and in view of US 2020/0307102 (“Swallow”), and further in view of US 2025/0115166 (“Takaki”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 17 and 18), Takahashi discloses a method for predicting a transverse dynamic stabilization behavior of a present vehicle configuration of a vehicle (see at least [0010], where “The disclosed vehicle control device can driving performance and stability of a vehicle.”; see also [0018]), the method comprising:
ascertaining ([0049] of PGPub of submitted specification describe load characteristic, where “The load characteristics 7 characterize the loads acting on the utility vehicle 300 in the present vehicle configuration 3, which result here from the intrinsic weight of the utility vehicle 300, from the first cargo 312, and from the second cargo 314.”; see Takahashi at least [0025], where “the body weight is represented by M; the vehicle body velocity (vehicle velocity) is represented by V”; see also equation 2, where braking and driving force is determined based on the weight of the vehicle current configuration. weight of the vehicle current configuration is interpreted as load characteristics of the present vehicle configuration);
generating an individualized vehicle model of the present vehicle configuration from a vehicle base model of the vehicle using the geometric characteristics and the load characteristics (see at least [0049], where “The model calculating unit 16 calculates, based on a predetermined vehicle model, estimated values of a vehicle velocity, the wheel velocity, the vehicle body acceleration, and the like when the wheels 5R and 5L are driven by the output torque T.”; predetermined vehicle model includes geometric characteristics; braking and driving force is determined based on the weight of the vehicle current configuration. So, individualized vehicle model is generated using the geometric characteristics and the load characteristics);
predicting dynamic properties of the present vehicle configuration using the individualized vehicle model (see at least fig 4, where driving force is estimated by model calculation unit. Driving force is dynamic property); and,
defining at least one driving dynamics limiting value for the vehicle based on the dynamic properties of the present vehicle configuration (see at least fig 4, where limiting unit set upper limit value; see also [0009] and [0054]).
Additional limitation of claim 18, a vehicle (see at least fig 1) comprising:
at least two axles (see at least fig 1, where 4R and 4L two axles);
a driver assistance system having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon (see at least [0007], where “enhance the running performance and the stability of a vehicle.”; see also [0022]).
Takahashi does not disclose the following limitations:
ascertaining two or more geometric characteristics of the present vehicle configuration;
ascertaining two or more load characteristics; and
the dynamic properties including a natural angular frequency of the vehicle or a damping level of the vehicle.
However, Swallow discloses a method wherein ascertaining two or more geometric characteristics of the present vehicle configuration (see at least [0008], where “generate a unique model of the custom vehicle based on the selection”; see also [0015], where “a desired size, shape, and material properties.”; see also [0033]); and
ascertaining two or more load characteristics of the present vehicle configuration (see at least [0035], where “It is contemplated that the user may make only the selection of a particular body style, in some circumstances, and thereafter specify certain criteria (e.g., size, shape, performance, etc.) for the remainder of vehicle 12 (Step 210). For example, the user may select a width, a length, a torque, an acceleration, a top speed, a braking capacity, a fuel efficiency, a fuel type, a seating capacity, a number and/or types of gauges, a level of automation, a comfort level, a ground clearance, a cargo volume, etc.).”; see also [0037]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Swallow by including the above feature for increasing payload capacity, improves space utilization, and enhances transportation efficiency.
Takahashi in view of Swallow does not disclose the following limitation:
the dynamic properties including a natural angular frequency of the vehicle or a damping level of the vehicle.
However, Takaki discloses a method wherein the dynamic properties including a natural angular frequency of the vehicle or a damping level of the vehicle (see at least [0117], where “The type, number, and position of the damper 54 can be determined considering the size and weight of the tank case 51 and other relevant factors.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takahashi in view of Swallow to incorporate the teachings of Takaki by including the above feature for optimizing a vehicle's ride, handling, and safety before building physical prototypes.
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi further discloses a method wherein the driving dynamics limiting value is a maximum permissible vehicle speed, a maximum permissible lateral acceleration, a maximum permissible vehicle acceleration, a maximum permissible vehicle deceleration, a maximum permissible steering angle gradient, a maximum permissible steering angle frequency, or a minimum permissible curve radius of the vehicle (see at least [0009] and fig 5).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi further discloses a method wherein: said ascertaining the two or more geometric characteristics, said ascertaining the two or more load characteristics, said generating the individualized vehicle model, said predicting the dynamic properties of the present vehicle configuration, and said defining the at least one driving dynamics limiting value are performed during a vehicle activation of the vehicle (see at least fig 5, where start time is interpreted as vehicle activation); and,
a renewed performance of at least said predicting the dynamic properties of the present vehicle configuration and said defining the at least one driving dynamics limiting value is executed if a change of at least one characteristic underlying the prediction of the dynamic properties is detected (see at least [0042], where “Compared with at the time of the start of the vehicle 1, the acceleration tends to easily increase if target slip ratio y is not excessively limited in the medium to high velocity range.”). Rejection relied on Carrasco for geometric characteristics and load characteristics.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi further discloses a method comprising providing the at least one driving dynamics limiting value at an interface (see at least [0022] and fig 4).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi further discloses a method comprising ascertaining a present coefficient of frictional connection for the vehicle, wherein the present coefficient of frictional connection for the vehicle is taken into consideration when predicting the dynamic properties (see at least [0026], [0042] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi further discloses a method comprising:
monitoring an actual vehicle behavior of the vehicle in operation (see at least [0023], where “The steering angle sensor 23 is a sensor that detects a steering angle (actual rudder angle or steering angle of the steering) of the left and right wheels 5.”);
comparing the actual vehicle behavior to a setpoint vehicle behavior, which is ascertained using the individualized vehicle model (see at least [0049]); and,
detecting an instability if the actual vehicle behavior deviates from the setpoint vehicle behavior (see at least [0047], where “After that, an amount (e.g., P1 control amount) of feed-back control on the torque is calculated such that the difference between the actual angular velocity ω and the angular velocity target value ω* of corresponding one of the wheels 5R and 5L in the previous arithmetic cycle becomes small (ideally, the difference becomes 0).”).
Regarding claim 19, Takahashi further discloses a computer program product comprising: program code stored on a computer-readable medium (see at least [0022]);
said program code being configured, when executed by a processor, to perform the method of claim 1 (see citation on claim 1).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0270084 (“Takahashi”), and in view of US 2020/0307102 (“Swallow”), and in view of US 2025/0115166 (“Takaki”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0032184 (“Carrasco”).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi in view of Swallow and Takai does not disclose claim 2. However, Carrasco discloses a method wherein said generating of the individualized vehicle model of the present vehicle configuration includes:
approximating a mass distribution of the present vehicle configuration in at least one vehicle longitudinal direction using the geometric characteristics and the load characteristics (see at least [0027], where “determining a weight distribution proportion for each wheel”; weight distribution is interpreted as mass distribution); and
generating the individualized vehicle model of the present vehicle configuration from the vehicle base model of the vehicle using the geometric characteristics and the approximated mass distribution (see at least [0226-227] and [0038]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takahashi in view of Swallow and Takai to incorporate the teachings of Carrasco by including the above feature for providing a stable customized vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi in view of Swallow and Takai does not disclose claim 4. However, Carrasco further discloses a method wherein the geometric characteristics include at least a number of the axles of the vehicle and an axle spacing between axles of the vehicle (see at least [0018], [0216] and fig 8A-C).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0270084 (“Takahashi”), and in view of US 2020/0307102 (“Swallow”), and in view of US 2025/0115166 (“Takaki”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2025/0388218 (“Yong”).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi in view of Swallow and Takai does not disclose claim 6. However, Yong discloses a method wherein one or more of the ascertained characteristics are checked for plausibility after beginning a journey of the vehicle (see at least [0017], [0039] and [0047]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takahashi in view of Swallow and Takai to incorporate the teachings of Yong by including the above feature for increasing safety by checking characteristics credibility.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0270084 (“Takahashi”), and in view of US 2020/0307102 (“Swallow”), and in view of US 2025/0115166 (“Takaki”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2025/0206355 (“Oba”).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi in view of Swallow and Takai does not disclose claim 8. However, Oba discloses a method comprising taking into consideration the at least one driving dynamics limiting value provided at the interface via a virtual driver during a trajectory planning for the vehicle (see at least [0590], [0301] and [0250]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takahashi in view of Swallow and Takai to incorporate the teachings of Oba by including the above feature for increasing safety by considering supervised control parameters.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi in view of Swallow and Takai does not disclose claim 10. However, Oba further discloses a method wherein historic control interventions of a stability control system for comparable vehicle configurations are taken into consideration when predicting the dynamic properties of the present vehicle configuration (see at least [0107], [0109] and [0139]).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi in view of Swallow and Takai does not disclose claim 12. However, Oba further discloses a method comprising performing a safety operation if the vehicle exceeds one or more driving dynamics limiting values provided at the interface in operation (see at least [0051], [0060] and [0070]).
Regarding claim 13, Oba further discloses a method wherein the safety operation includes at least one of setting a stability control system of the vehicle into a preventive regulation mode and applying an additional yaw torque during steering of the vehicle (see at least [0102], [0126], [0575]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0270084 (“Takahashi”), and in view of US 2020/0307102 (“Swallow”), and in view of US 2025/0115166 (“Takaki”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2014/0032184 (“Carrasco”), and further in view of US 2022/0185048 (“Yhr”).
Regarding claim 14, Carrasco further discloses a method wherein the vehicle is a vehicle train made up of a (see at least fig 7 and fig 8, where a tractor-trailer combination vehicle is shown).
Takahashi in view of Swallow, Takai and Carrasco does not disclose the following limitation:
vehicle train made up of a towing vehicle and at least one trailer vehicle.
However, Yhr discloses a method wherein vehicle train made up of a towing vehicle and at least one trailer vehicle (see at least [0145], fig 1 and fig 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takahashi in view of Swallow, Takai and Carrasco to incorporate the teachings of Yhr by including the above feature for providing several services at once by transferring vehicles while transporting goods.
Regarding claim 15, Carrasco further discloses a method wherein the individualized overall vehicle model of the vehicle train is a reduced individualized vehicle model if no geometric characteristics or load characteristics can be ascertained for one of the towing vehicle and the at least one trailer vehicle of the vehicle train (Carrasco discloses a method wherein vehicle model is generated based on geometric characteristics. If geometric characteristics are not available no vehicle model is generated. If geometric characteristics of one vehicle is available then one vehicle model is generated. see citation above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 5712703976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights