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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally filed on 05/22/2025 and claimed priority on KR10-2024-0075433, which was filed on 06/11/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: “calcaulate” in line 1 of claim 2 should be “calculate”.
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 19-20 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 19 lacks antecedent basis for the terms “the first stages” and “the second stages”. It is unclear what stages Applicant is referring to.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN111874099A) in view of Tan et al (US 20230086480 A1) (Hereianfter referred to as Song and Tan respectively)
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Song teaches an apparatus for assisting driving of a host vehicle (See at least Song Page 1 Paragraph 10, the steer-by-wire device is interpreted as the apparatus for assisting driving), the apparatus comprising:
a method of assisting driving of a host vehicle, the method comprising (See at least Song Page 1 Paragraphs 6-8):
a sensor configured to detect a steering angle or a steering angular velocity of a steering wheel of the host vehicle (See at least Song Page 3 Paragraph 4, the sensor outputs the angle of the steering wheel); and
a controller connected to the sensor (See at least Song Page 4 Paragraphs 8-10, the controller obtains the angle of the steering wheel from the sensor),
the controller is configured to:
steer the host vehicle with a biased brake torque when a steering system fails (See at least Song Page 2 Paragraph 1, and Page 3 last Paragraph-Page 4 first Paragraph, the control component/controller applies the target braking force/torque to each wheel so that the vehicle turns when there is a failure in the steering system).
Song fails to disclose control a damping force of a damper provided on each wheel of the host vehicle when the host vehicle starts turning.
However, Tan teaches control a damping force of a damper provided on each wheel of the host vehicle when the host vehicle starts turning (See at least Tan Paragraph 0036 and Figure 1, the damping forces of each damper are controlled when the vehicle is turned).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Song with Tan to control a damping force of a damper provided on each wheel of the host vehicle when the host vehicle starts turning. This modification, as taught by Tan, would enable hydraulic anti-roll functions of the damping system during a turn (See at least Tan Paragraph 0036), thus, improving the stability of the vehicle when turning.
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 14, modified Song teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: calcaulate the biased brake torque based on the steering angle (See at least Song Page 5 Paragraphs 3-5, the target braking force/torque is determined by the state information, which includes the turning angle of the steering wheel); and transmit a signal including information about the biased brake torque to a braking system of the host vehicle (See at least Song Page 6 Paragraphs 2-4, and Page 9 Paragraphs 10-11, the controller transmits the braking force/torque of each wheel to the braking system),
wherein the braking system is configured to: steer the host vehicle based on the biased brake torque (See at least Song Page 6 Paragraphs 2-5, and Page 9 Paragraphs 10-11, the braking system is used to steer the vehicle based on the braking force/torque for each wheel).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, and in further view of Pinto et al (US 20130144476 A1) (Hereianfter referred to as Pinto)
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, modified Song teaches the controller is further configured to: determine whether the host vehicle starts turning based on the steering angle or the steering angular velocity (See at least Song Page 8 last two Paragraphs-Page 9 Paragraph 3, the rotation/steering angle is used to determine a steering operation).
Even though Tan teaches a damper on each wheel, modified Song fails to disclose determine a damping ratio of the damper.
However, Pinto teaches determine a damping ratio (See at least Pinto Paragraph 0080, the damping ratio is determined using the formula).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Pinto to determine a damping ratio of the damper. This modification, as taught by Tan, would allow the system to determine a target yaw rate which has a level of damping and apply an amount of differential torque to the respective first and second rearward positioned wheels so as to generate a desired amount of yaw torque to reduce transient yaw overshoots (See at least Pinto Paragraph 0015).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, and in further view of Ling et al (US 20250296564 A1) and Chen et al (US 20060069489 A1) (Hereianfter referred to as Ling and Chen respectively)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Song fails to explicitly disclose determine that the host vehicle starts turning when the steering angle is equal to or greater than a reference angle or the steering angular velocity is equal to or greater than a reference angular velocity.
However, Ling teaches determine that the host vehicle starts turning when the steering angle is equal to or greater than a reference angle (See at least Ling Paragraphs 0046-0047, the steering state is determined when the steering wheel angle is greater than a preset rotation angle threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Ling to determine that the host vehicle starts turning when the steering angle is equal to or greater than a reference angle. This modification, as taught by Ling, is well-known and routine in the art, and allows the system to determine that the vehicle is in a steering state by simply comparing the rotation angle of the steering wheel with a threshold value such as 5 degrees (See at least Ling Paragraphs 0046-0047), thus, improving the awareness of the system.
Even though Tan teaches a damper on each wheel, modified Song fails to disclose increase a damping ratio of the damper.
However, Chen teaches increase a damping ratio (See at least Chen Paragraph 0058, the damping ratio is increased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Chen to increase a damping ratio of the damper. This modification, as taught by Chen, would prevent excessive roll motion during a turn (See at least Chen Paragraph 0058), thus, improving the stability of the vehicle during a turn.
Claims 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, Ling, and Chen, and in further view of Morita (US 20160114644 A1) (Hereianfter referred to as Morita)
Regarding Claims 6-7, modified Song fails to disclose transmit a signal including information about the damping ratio of the damper to a suspension system of the host vehicle,
wherein the suspension system is configured to: control the damping force of the damper based on the damping ratio of the damper.
However, Morita teaches transmit a signal including information about the damping ratio of the damper to a suspension system of the host vehicle (See at least Morita Paragraph 0112, the damping ratio is transmitted to the shock absorbers of the suspension system),
wherein the suspension system is configured to: control the damping force of the damper based on the damping ratio of the damper (See at least Morita Paragraphs 0112 and 0114, the damping forces are controlled based on the damping ratio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Morita to control the damping force of the damper based on the damping ratio of the damper. This modification, as taught by Morita, would allow the system to control the damping forces of the damper/shock absorbers to improve vehicle attitude (See at least Morita Paragraphs 0030, and 0114).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Song fails to explicitly disclose determining that the host vehicle starts turning when the steering angle is equal to or greater than a reference angle or the steering angular velocity is equal to or greater than a reference angular velocity.
However, Ling teaches determining that the host vehicle starts turning when the steering angle is equal to or greater than a reference angle (See at least Ling Paragraphs 0046-0047, the steering state is determined when the steering wheel angle is greater than a preset rotation angle threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Ling to determine that the host vehicle starts turning when the steering angle is equal to or greater than a reference angle. This modification, as taught by Ling, is well-known and routine in the art, and allows the system to determine that the vehicle is in a steering state by simply comparing the rotation angle of the steering wheel with a threshold value such as 5 degrees (See at least Ling Paragraphs 0046-0047), thus, improving the awareness of the system.
Even though Tan teaches a damper on each wheel, modified Song fails to disclose increasing a damping ratio of the damper.
However, Chen teaches increasing a damping ratio (See at least Chen Paragraph 0058, the damping ratio is increased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Chen to increase a damping ratio of the damper. This modification, as taught by Chen, would prevent excessive roll motion during a turn (See at least Chen Paragraph 0058), thus, improving the stability of the vehicle during a turn.
Modified Song fails to disclose transmitting a signal including information about the damping ratio of the damper to a suspension system of the host vehicle, and
controlling, by the suspension system, the damping force of the damper based on the damping ratio of the damper.
However, Morita teaches transmitting a signal including information about the damping ratio of the damper to a suspension system of the host vehicle (See at least Morita Paragraph 0112, the damping ratio is transmitted to the shock absorbers of the suspension system), and
controlling, by the suspension system, the damping force of the damper based on the damping ratio of the damper (See at least Morita Paragraphs 0112 and 0114, the damping forces are controlled based on the damping ratio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Morita to control the damping force of the damper based on the damping ratio of the damper. This modification, as taught by Morita, would allow the system to control the damping forces of the damper/shock absorbers to improve vehicle attitude (See at least Morita Paragraphs 0030, and 0114).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, Ling, and Chen, and in further view of Chiu et al (US 20150165850 A1) (Hereianfter referred to as Chiu)
Regarding Claim 8, even though Chen teaches increasing a damping ratio, modified Song fails to explicitly disclose increase the damping ratio of the damper provided on a wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied.
However, Chiu teaches increase the damping ratio of the damper provided on a wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied (See at least Chiu Paragraphs 0077, 0098, 0107, and 0134, the wheels of the trailer have a differential braking/biased brake torque applied and the damping ratio for the damper of the trailer is increased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Chiu to increase damping ratio of the damper provided on a wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied. This modification, as taught by Chiu, would reduce undesired oscillations (See at least Chiu Paragraphs 0134), thus, increasing the stability of the vehicle.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, Ling, Chen and Morita, and in further view of Chiu
Regarding Claim 17, even though Chen teaches increasing a damping ratio, modified Song fails to explicitly disclose increasing the damping ratio of the damper provided on a wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied.
However, Chiu teaches increasing the damping ratio of the damper provided on a wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied (See at least Chiu Paragraphs 0077, 0098, 0107, and 0134, the wheels of the trailer have a differential braking/biased brake torque applied and the damping ratio for the damper of the trailer is increased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Chiu to increase damping ratio of the damper provided on a wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied. This modification, as taught by Chiu, would reduce undesired oscillations (See at least Chiu Paragraphs 0134), thus, increasing the stability of the vehicle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, Ling, and Chen, and in further view of Kim et al (US 20220144252 A1) (Hereianfter referred to as Kim)
Regarding Claim 9, even though Song teaches applying biased brake torque to each wheel, modified Song fails to disclose adjust the damping force of the damper provided on a front wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied according to a first stage; and
adjust the damping force of the damper provided on a rear wheel to which the biased brake torque is applied according to a second stage;
wherein the damping force according to the first stage is larger than the damping force according to the second stage.
However, Kim teaches adjust the damping force of the damper provided on a front wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied according to a first stage (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0013, the damping force on the front wheel is hard, which is interpreted as a first stage); and
adjust the damping force of the damper provided on a rear wheel to which the biased brake torque is applied according to a second stage (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0013, the damping force on the rear wheel is soft, which is interpreted as a second stage);
wherein the damping force according to the first stage is larger than the damping force according to the second stage (See at least Kim Paragraph 0013, a hard damping force is greater than a soft damping force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Kim to adjust the damping force of the damper provided on a front wheel according to a first stage and adjust the damping force of the damper provided on a rear wheel according to a second stage. This modification, as taught by Kim, would control the yaw moment of the vehicle to be the target yaw moment when the vehicle is over steered (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0013), thus, improving the accuracy of the vehicle control.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, and in further view of Kim
Regarding Claim 18, even though Song teaches applying biased brake torque to each wheel, modified Song fails to disclose adjusting the damping force of the damper provided on a front wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied according to a first stage; and
adjusting the damping force of the damper provided on a rear wheel to which the biased brake torque is applied according to a second stage;
wherein the damping force according to the first stage is larger than the damping force according to the second stage.
However, Kim teaches adjusting the damping force of the damper provided on a front wheel, to which the biased brake torque is applied according to a first stage (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0013, the damping force on the front wheel is hard, which is interpreted as a first stage); and
adjusting the damping force of the damper provided on a rear wheel to which the biased brake torque is applied according to a second stage (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0013, the damping force on the rear wheel is soft, which is interpreted as a second stage);
wherein the damping force according to the first stage is larger than the damping force according to the second stage (See at least Kim Paragraph 0013, a hard damping force is greater than a soft damping force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Kim to adjust the damping force of the damper provided on a front wheel according to a first stage and adjust the damping force of the damper provided on a rear wheel according to a second stage. This modification, as taught by Kim, would control the yaw moment of the vehicle to be the target yaw moment when the vehicle is over steered (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0013), thus, improving the accuracy of the vehicle control.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, Ling, Chen, and Kim and in further view of Kikuchi et al (US 20150046035 A1) (Hereianfter referred to as Kikuchi)
Regarding Claim 10, even though Kim teaches controlling the damping force of the damper according to first stage or a second stage, modified Song fails to disclose control the damping force of the damper according to a plurality of the first stages or a plurality of the second stages.
However, Kikuchi teaches control the damping force of the damper according to a plurality of the first stages or a plurality of the second stages (See at least Kikuchi Paragraph 0151 and Figure 25, there are multiple values for the hard/first stage and soft/second stage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Kikuchi to control the damping force of the damper according to a plurality of the first stages or a plurality of the second stages. Kikuchi teaches that the first/hard stage and second/soft stage have a plurality of values that differ based on the stroke speed (See at least Kikuchi Paragraph 0151 and Figure 25). By controlling the damping force according to a plurality of first stages or second stages, the damper can be controlled according to the stroke speed, thus, the vehicle body attitude or behavior may be sufficiently stabilized irrespective of the stroke speed range (See at least Kikuchi Paragraph 0007).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, and in further view of Kikuchi
Regarding Claim 19, even though Kim teaches controlling the damping force of the damper according to first stage or a second stage, modified Song fails to disclose controlling the damping force of the damper according to a plurality of the first stages or a plurality of the second stages.
However, Kikuchi teaches controlling the damping force of the damper according to a plurality of the first stages or a plurality of the second stages (See at least Kikuchi Paragraph 0151 and Figure 25, there are multiple values for the hard/first stage and soft/second stage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Kikuchi to control the damping force of the damper according to a plurality of the first stages or a plurality of the second stages. Kikuchi teaches that the first/hard stage and second/soft stage have a plurality of values that differ based on the stroke speed (See at least Kikuchi Paragraph 0151 and Figure 25). By controlling the damping force according to a plurality of first stages or second stages, the damper can be controlled according to the stroke speed, thus, the vehicle body attitude or behavior may be sufficiently stabilized irrespective of the stroke speed range (See at least Kikuchi Paragraph 0007).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, Ling, Chen, Kim, and Kikuchi, and in further view of Tu et al (US 20250388260 A1) (Hereianfter referred to as Tu)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Song fails to disclose the controller is further configured to: calculate a turning angle of the host vehicle based on the steering angle or the steering angular velocity.
However, Tu teaches calculate a turning angle of the host vehicle based on the steering angle (See at least Tu Paragraph 0015, the steering angle of the vehicle is determined based on the steering wheel angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Tu to calculate a turning angle of the host vehicle based on the steering angle. This modification, as taught by Tu, is well-known and routine, and allows the system to determine the target steering angle of the vehicle based on the steering wheel angle (See at least Tu Paragraph 0015), so that the vehicle can be controlled using the steering wheel.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Song fails to disclose the controller is further configured to: determine the plurality of the first stages or the plurality of the second stages according to the turning angle of the host vehicle.
However, Kikuchi teaches determine the plurality of the first stages or the plurality of the second stages according to the turning angle of the host vehicle (See at least Kikuchi Paragraphs 0111, 0151 and Figure 25, the damping force, which includes multiple values for the hard/first stage and soft/second stage, is determined according to the steering angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Kikuchi to determine the plurality of the first stages or the plurality of the second stages according to the turning angle of the host vehicle. This modification, as taught by Kikuchi, would suppress the roll motion caused during a turn and prevent nose lifting (See at least Kikuchi Paragraph 0111), thus, improving the stability of the vehicle during the turn.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Tan, and Kikuchi, in further view of Tu
Regarding Claim 20, modified Song fails to disclose calculating a turning angle of the host vehicle based on the steering angle or the steering angular velocity.
However, Tu teaches calculating a turning angle of the host vehicle based on the steering angle (See at least Tu Paragraph 0015, the steering angle of the vehicle is determined based on the steering wheel angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Tu to calculate a turning angle of the host vehicle based on the steering angle. This modification, as taught by Tu, is well-known and routine, and allows the system to determine the target steering angle of the vehicle based on the steering wheel angle (See at least Tu Paragraph 0015), so that the vehicle can be controlled using the steering wheel.
Modified Song fails to disclose determining the plurality of the first stages or the plurality of the second stages according to the turning angle of the host vehicle.
However, Kikuchi teaches determining the plurality of the first stages or the plurality of the second stages according to the turning angle of the host vehicle (See at least Kikuchi Paragraphs 0111, 0151 and Figure 25, the damping force, which includes multiple values for the hard/first stage and soft/second stage, is determined according to the steering angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Song with Kikuchi to determine the plurality of the first stages or the plurality of the second stages according to the turning angle of the host vehicle. This modification, as taught by Kikuchi, would suppress the roll motion caused during a turn and prevent nose lifting (See at least Kikuchi Paragraph 0111), thus, improving the stability of the vehicle during the turn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hwang et al (US 20220080953 A1) teaches improving turning motion of a vehicle for an electronic controlled suspension
Akiyama et al (US 20190054916 A1) teaches controlling the braking force of the wheels to steer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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 at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights