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 .
Application Status
This non-final Office Action is in response to the application filed 03/24/2025. Claims 1-12 are pending and rejected as detailed below. The specification is objected to as detailed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant has claimed priority to the PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA application CN2024 1038 1127.6 filed on 03/29/2024.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 8, line 27; “FIG. 2 to FIG. 5” should say “FIG. 2 to FIG. 6”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 fails to further limit the claims as written. Claim 11 depends on claim 10 which depends on claim 1; therefore claim 11 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 already claims, "a vehicle" while claim 10 already claims "the controller." Claim 11 does not further limit this as the controller and the vehicle are already claimed, claim 11 is merely restating this combination in one claim, and provides no further limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to "software per se." Claim 12 recites that it is “a computer program product, comprising computer executable instructions.” There is insufficient structure to this claim and therefore it is purely software, there is no physical or tangible form. While the claim does depend on claim 1, which is a method and not software per se, MPEP 2106.03.II. recites, “A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason.” Claim 12 under its BRI would contain both statutory and non-statutory embodiments, therefore it would not be eligible for patent protection.
If the applicant could amend claim 12 in a way to add sufficient physical structure to the claim it may shift the BRI to be solely in a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang (US PG Pub 2022/0111834).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method for controlling traveling of a vehicle on a bend, ([0051] teaches the system determining that the vehicle is travelling on a curved road) comprising:
obtaining road information of the bend in response to detecting that the vehicle is located on the bend; ([0051] teach the system determining road information, including lane lines and curvature. [0055] further teaches the system determining road information)
obtaining vehicle traveling information for the bend, the vehicle traveling information comprising current traveling information and historical traveling information; ([0052]-[0055] teach the system obtaining vehicle traveling information including stored steering angles and current steering angles/speeds) and
controlling traveling of the vehicle on the bend through the road information and the vehicle traveling information. ([0046]-[0047] teach a controller configured to control the vehicle based on calculated information)
Claim 9 is substantially similar in scope to claim 1 and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the road information comprises a radius of curvature of the bend, ([0068] teaches the system obtaining the radius of the turn) and
wherein the current traveling information comprises: at least one of a current speed of the vehicle ([0049] teaches the system obtaining current vehicle traveling information. [0052] teaches the system obtaining the current speed of the vehicle) and a theoretical turn angle for the current speed and the radius of curvature, ([0054] teaches the system determining a ”calculated steering angle” which is based on the road and speed information)
wherein the historical traveling information comprises: a customary turn angle for the current speed and the radius of curvature. ([0053] teaches the system obtaining the driving steering angle, i.e. the usual turning angle the driver takes)
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the theoretical turn angle corresponds to a theoretical wheel end rotation angle for enabling the vehicle to travel along a predetermined turn route in case that a predetermined traveling control function is enabled, ([0052]-[0054] teach the calculated steering angle.[0056] teaches the system further determining the calculated steering angle and determining that this is based on the road and speed information required to maintain the current route) and
wherein the customary turn angle corresponds to a customary wheel end rotation angle of the vehicle in case that the predetermined traveling control function is not enabled. ([0053] teaches a system in which a driver drives a vehicle and the system captures and stores the steering angle used by the driver as a historical angle)
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein controlling traveling of the vehicle on the bend through the road information and the vehicle traveling information comprises: determining a wheel end rotation angle difference between the customary wheel end rotation angle and the theoretical wheel end rotation angle; ([0052] and [0076]-[0079] teaches the system determining a difference between the calculated and customary steering angle)
controlling traveling of the vehicle on the bend using the customary wheel end rotation angle in response to the wheel end rotation angle difference being less than or equal to a predetermined threshold; ([0076]-[0079] teach the system determining the difference between the angles is below and threshold and controls the vehicle in a first manner) and
controlling traveling of the vehicle on the bend using the theoretical wheel end rotation angle in response to the wheel end rotation angle difference being greater than the predetermined threshold. ([0076]-[0079] teach the system determining the difference between the angles is below and threshold and controls the vehicle in a second manner)
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising one of: obtaining the customary wheel end rotation angle through all historical wheel end rotation angles; obtaining the customary wheel end rotation angle through a most recent predetermined number of the historical wheel end rotation angles; and obtaining the customary wheel end rotation angle through the historical wheel end rotation angles within a most recent predetermined period of time, ([0057]-[0058] teaches the system obtaining previous steering angles for any given period of time)
wherein the historical wheel end rotation angle represents a wheel end rotation angle of the vehicle traveling on the bend with the radius of curvature at the current speed in case that the predetermined traveling control function is not enabled prior to current time. ([0053] teaches a system in which a driver drives a vehicle and the system captures and stores the steering angle used by the driver as a historical angle)
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches a controller, comprising: at least one processor, ([0084] teaches a processor to carry out the program) and
a memory, coupled to the at least one processor, and having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to perform the method according to claim 1. ([0084] teaches a memory equipped to a processor that can store computer programs and use the processor to execute them)
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches a vehicle, comprising the controller according to claim 10. (0046] teaches a vehicle with a processor)
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches a computer program product, comprising computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions are executed by a processor to implement the method according to claim 1. ([0148] teaches a computer program that can be executed to carry out the steps of claim 1.)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yan (US PG Pub 2020/0317194).
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein controlling traveling of the vehicle on the bend using the customary wheel end rotation angle comprises:
determining a compensation wheel end rotation angle through a current position and a current orientation of the vehicle during traveling of the vehicle, the compensation wheel end rotation angle being used for correcting a traveling error of the vehicle during traveling; ([0056]-[0059] teach the vehicle determining a compensation angle to adjust the vehicle to based on differences between a calculated and actual steering angle) and
adjusting a current wheel end rotation angle of the vehicle through the compensation wheel end rotation angle to control traveling of the vehicle on the bend. ([0059]-[0061] teaches the system adjusting the final vehicle rotation by performing compensation through the vehicle system. It achieves this goal by adjusting various vehicle operational elements, such as speed, to achieve the desired turning)
Yang does not teach adjusting a wheel end rotation angle of the vehicle to the customary wheel end rotation angle.
However, Yan teaches “adjusting a wheel end rotation angle of the vehicle to the customary wheel end rotation angle.” ([0214] teaches the system setting the vehicle wheels to a angle required for transit. [0217] further adds that the system can be steering based on a previous input of a driver for the predicted path)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Yang with Yan; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle control systems to control vehicles through turning maneuvers. As Yan teaches in [0218] the system can determine that it correctly predicted the future turning angle of the vehicle based on driver input. This driver input shows the vehicle system that its calculated turn is accurate and matches what the vehicle driver would customarily do.
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein determining the compensation wheel end rotation angle through the current position and the current orientation of the vehicle comprises: determining a first compensation wheel end rotation angle for adjusting the vehicle to the predetermined turn route through the current position and the current orientation of the vehicle; ([0056]-[0059] teaches the system determining a compensation angle, which allows the vehicle to compensate for differences in the driving and calculated steering angles for the given road) and
adjusting the first compensation wheel end rotation angle through the wheel end rotation angle difference to obtain a second compensation wheel end rotation angle, ([0057]-[0058] teaches the system obtaining a second or “final” compensation angle based on the first determined compensation angle)
wherein adjusting the current wheel end rotation angle of the vehicle through the compensation wheel end rotation angle comprises: adjusting the current wheel end rotation angle through the second compensation wheel end rotation angle. ([0059]-[0061] teaches the system adjusting the final vehicle rotation by performing compensation through the vehicle system)
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein determining the compensation wheel end rotation angle through the current position and the current orientation of the vehicle comprises: determining an actual turn route for traveling of the vehicle on the bend through the radius of curvature, the current speed, and the customary wheel end rotation angle; ([0049]-[0053] teaches the system determining the actual road information and route for the vehicle to travel on based on the driving angle) and
determining a third compensation wheel end rotation angle for adjusting the vehicle to the actual turn route through the current position and the current orientation of the vehicle, ([0056]-[0059] teach the vehicle system determining a compensation angle to rotate the vehicle with)
wherein adjusting the current wheel end rotation angle of the vehicle through the compensation wheel end rotation angle comprises: adjusting the current wheel end rotation angle through the third compensation wheel end rotation angle. ([0059]-[0061] teaches the system adjusting the final vehicle rotation by performing compensation through the vehicle system)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Munning (US PG Pub 2024/0308509) teaches apparatus, system and method for assisting a motor vehicle in assisted cornering. In order to carry out the cornering, two different assistance modes are provided in the driver assistance system, and from each of these modes different potential cornering speeds for driving through the corner are provided. A selection routine is configured in order to prioritize one of the two potential cornering speeds as a target speed for driving through the corner. According to the selection routine, a set driving mode can be taken into account, for example. Additionally or alternatively, a tiredness level of the driver can be incorporated into the selection.
Saigo (US PG Pub 2023/0347970) teaches a vehicle steering assist device in which the steering assist ECU calculates a target steering angle for driving a vehicle along a traveling path, and is vehicle steering assist device that a calculates a target steering guide torque for facilitating the steering angle to become a target steering angle by reducing a return torque for urging the steering wheel to a neutral position in an area where the steering angle is smaller than the target steering angle, wherein when the steering angular velocity is higher than the target steering angular velocity, the steering support ECU calculates a target steering angular velocity control torque acting in a direction opposite to a direction in which the steering angle changes, and controls the control steering torque generating device so as to generate a control steering torque including a sum of the target steering guide torque and the target steering angular velocity control torque.
Itou (US PG Pub 2019/0276077) teaches an automatic steering controller that generates an automatic steering control amount and a manual steering controller that generates a manual steering control amount, and selects either one of an automatic steering mode and a manual steering mode to control an electric motor. When steering torque exceeds a predetermined value during the control in the automatic steering mode, the manual steering controller generates a manual steering control amount change based on the change in the manual operation amount with reference to the time of exceeding, generates the manual steering control amount based on the steering torque, controls the electric motor based on a control amount obtained by adding the manual steering control amount change to the automatic steering control amount at the time of exceeding, and then controls the electric motor in the manual steering mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights