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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 of US Application No. 19/248,382, filed on 24 June 2025, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 24 June 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
The information disclosure statement filed 24 June 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Applicant has not provided a legible copy of KR 10-2005-0066154.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required.
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.
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) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redder et al. (US 2018/0273005 A1, “Redder”) in view of Matsuno (US 2002/0052681 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Redder discloses a system and method for steering compensation and teaches:
a controller including a processor and a memory, the memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the processor, the one or more programs including instructions for:
determining whether a steering system fails based on the state information (PTC 112 may determine, based on data from one or more sensors, that one or more steering components has malfunctioned or failed – see at least ¶ [0024]),
when it is determined that the steering system fails, determining a yaw moment of the vehicle based on a yaw rate desired by a driver of the vehicle and an actual yaw rate (ESP 706 may detect that the vehicle is not going where the driver is steering by comparing driver’s intended direction with vehicle rotation (yaw) – see at least ¶ [0039]);
when it is determined that the steering system fails, generating a control signal to apply partial braking to the vehicle by providing a partial braking force to turn-direction inner wheels of the vehicle according to a steering situation to allow the vehicle to turn left or right (in response to EPS system 110 failure, brake torque may be applied to inside turning wheel – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0025]), and
when it is determined that the steering system fails, generating a control signal to apply compensated driving to the vehicle by providing a compensating driving force (motor torque may be applied to one or more outside wheels 104, 108 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0025]),
wherein the partial braking force to be provided to the turn-direction inner wheels of the vehicle is determined based on the yaw moment (ESP 706 may detect that the vehicle is not going where the driver is steering by comparing driver’s intended direction with vehicle rotation (yaw) – see at least ¶ [0039]; i.e., the brake torque is replied in response to, i.e., based on, determination of steering system failure using yaw),
wherein the compensating driving force is determined based on both (i) a reduction in braking force by the determined partial braking force and (ii) the yaw moment (motor torque 122 and braking torque120 are determined such that the resultant force achieves the desired steering angle – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0025]).
Redder fails to teach wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: correcting the partial braking force to be provided to corresponding wheels to prevent wheel locking of the wheels based on a wheel slip of the wheels to which the partial braking is applied, calculating a target wheel slip based on the yaw moment, wherein the partial braking force is corrected based on the calculated target wheel slip.
However, Matsuno discloses an apparatus and method for controlling vehicle behavior and teaches:
wherein the one or more programs include instructions for:
correcting the partial braking force to be provided to corresponding wheels to prevent wheel locking of the wheels based on a wheel slip of the wheels to which the partial braking is applied (wheel speed control unit 47 converts the braking force as necessary to achieve target slip ratios and outputs the braking force to brake drive unit 25 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0091]),
calculating a target wheel slip based on the yaw moment (target slip ratio setting unit 46 computes target slip ratio based on target yaw – see at least ¶ [0086]-[0088]),
wherein the partial braking force is corrected based on the calculated target wheel slip (wheel speed control unit 47 converts the braking force as necessary to achieve target slip ratios – see at least ¶ [0091]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for steering compensation of Redder to provide for correcting the partial braking force, as taught by Matsuno, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would prevent improper lane deviations while reflecting intentions of the driver (Matsuno at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Redder further teaches:
wherein the one or more programs include instructions for: determining a left-turn situation when a yaw rate desired by a driver of the vehicle is greater than a preset yaw rate, and determining a right-turn situation when the yaw rate desired by the driver is less than the preset yaw rate (ESP 706 can determine driver’s intended direction based on the measured steering angle in comparison to the vehicle’s actual direction, which can be determined through vehicle yaw – see at least ¶ [0039]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redder in view of Matsuno, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Post et al. (US 2008/0183353 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Redder and Matsuno fail to teach but Post discloses vehicle systems for improving stability and teaches:
wherein the partial braking force is corrected based on whether the wheel slip of the wheel increases due to a road condition (if wheel slip is detected, brake application is performed – see at least Fig. 10A and ¶ [0125]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system and method for steering compensation of Redder and Matsuno to provide for correcting the partial braking force, as taught by Post, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would regulate wheel slip to maximize wheel traction (Post at ¶ [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights