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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-23 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim 9 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 setpoint yaw rate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 12-14, 16-19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa (DE 112020001117 T5) hereinafter Nakagawa.
Claim 1:
Nakagawa discloses a vehicle control method for a vehicle having an electronically controllable steering system, the vehicle control method comprising: ascertaining a setpoint trajectory for the vehicle; [¶8; Fig. 1; ¶¶22-24, 29; driving control device 14] ascertaining a setpoint steering angle for driving on the setpoint trajectory ; [¶¶24, 29, 33-34; driving control device 14 and FF operating quantity calculation unit 16-1, normative vehicle model] ascertaining an actual variable of the vehicle; [¶¶30, 35] making an early detection of an unstable driving state of the vehicle at least using the actual variable and the setpoint trajectory; ascertaining during early detection whether the unstable driving state is understeering of the vehicle or oversteering of the vehicle; and, [Figs. 4, 8; ¶¶104-106, 142-144; step S2000, S2001] in response to the early detection of the unstable driving state: defining a steering angle correction for the setpoint steering angle, [¶¶112-113, 117-118; 16-8 determines yaw; S2010] wherein the steering angle correction includes a steering-angle limitation of an actual steering angle that can be provided by the electronically controllable steering system when the unstable driving state is understeering of the vehicle, and wherein the steering angle correction includes a countersteering angle directed counter to the setpoint steering angle when the unstable driving state of the vehicle is oversteering; and, [¶¶117-122; S2010, 16-8; ¶¶148-150; S2031] steering of the vehicle using the steering angle correction. [Fig. 8; ¶¶119-121, 148-151]
Claim 2:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakagawa also discloses further comprising, in response to the early detection of the unstable driving state, individual wheel deceleration of at least one wheel of the vehicle. [¶¶123; Fig. 8, Step S2012]
Claim 3:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakagawa also discloses wherein the steering-angle limitation corresponds to the setpoint steering angle plus a steering-angle supplement when the unstable driving state is understeering of the vehicle. [¶117-119]
Claim 4:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Nakagawa also discloses wherein the steering-angle supplement is ascertained using surface information of a roadway which is encompassed by the setpoint trajectory. [¶¶157-160]
Claim 5:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakagawa also discloses further comprising: monitoring of a situation of the vehicle; ascertaining a trajectory deviation of the vehicle using the setpoint trajectory and the monitored situation; and, ascertaining a rate of change of trajectory deviation. [Figs. 3, 4, 6; ¶¶70-75]
Claim 6:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakagawa also discloses wherein the actual variable is an actual yaw rate and the early detection of the unstable driving state of the vehicle at least using the actual variable and the setpoint trajectory comprises: ascertaining a setpoint yaw rate for the vehicle using the setpoint trajectory; and, ascertaining the unstable driving state when the actual yaw rate is outside a yaw-rate tolerance range around the setpoint yaw rate. [¶¶30-35]
Claim 8:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Nakagawa also discloses wherein understeering or oversteering of the vehicle is only ascertained if the rate of change of trajectory deviation characterizes an increasing trajectory deviation of the vehicle from the setpoint trajectory.
Claim 12:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Nakagawa also discloses wherein the actual variable is the actual steering angle and the early detection of the unstable driving state of the vehicle at least using the actual variable and the setpoint trajectory comprises: carrying out a variance comparison between the actual steering angle and the setpoint steering angle; and, early detection of the unstable driving state if a trajectory deviation is ascertained and the actual steering angle deviates from the setpoint steering angle at least by a steering-angle tolerance value. [¶¶70-75, 104-105]
Claim 13:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
Nakagawa also discloses wherein when the actual steering angle deviates from the setpoint steering angle at least by a steering-angle tolerance value and a trajectory deviation is ascertained, the early detection of the unstable driving state comprises: making an early detection of understeering of the vehicle if the trajectory deviation comprises a lateral deviation directed toward an outside of a bend and a directional error directed toward the outside of the bend; and, making an early detection of oversteering of the vehicle if the trajectory deviation comprises a directional error directed toward an inside of the bend. [¶¶70-75, 104-105]
Claim 14:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Nakagawa also discloses wherein at least one of the following applies: i) the early detection of understeering; and, ii) the early detection of oversteering only takes place when the rate of change of trajectory deviation characterizes an increasing trajectory deviation of the vehicle from the setpoint trajectory. [¶¶70-75, 104-105]
Claim 16:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakagawa also discloses wherein the vehicle is an at least semi-autonomous vehicle, the ascertainment of the setpoint steering angle takes place via a position controller of the vehicle and the steering of the vehicle takes place via a control unit of a vehicle control system as soon as the unstable driving state is detected. [¶¶21-24]
Claim 17:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Nakagawa also discloses wherein the definition of the steering angle correction takes place via the control unit of the vehicle control system. [¶¶21-24; movement control assumed steering angle correction]
Claim 18:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Nakagawa also discloses further comprising: ascertaining whether a stable driving state of the vehicle is achieved; and, transferring the electronically controllable steering system of the vehicle from the control unit of the vehicle control system to the position controller of the vehicle when a stable driving state of the vehicle is achieved. [¶¶31-37; Figs. 2-4; control units transfer functions depending on determined state]
Claim 19:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakagawa also discloses further comprising, in response to the early detection of the unstable driving state, reduction of a motor torque of the vehicle. [¶¶124; step 2012 influences braking and driving]
Claim 21:
Nakagawa discloses a vehicle control system for a vehicle, the vehicle control system comprising: a control unit configured to: ascertain a setpoint trajectory for the vehicle; [¶8; Fig. 1; ¶¶22-24, 29; driving control device 14] ascertain a setpoint steering angle for driving on the setpoint trajectory; [¶¶24, 29, 33-34; driving control device 14 and FF operating quantity calculation unit 16-1, normative vehicle model] ascertain an actual variable of the vehicle; [¶¶30, 35] make an early detection of an unstable driving state of the vehicle at least using the actual variable and the setpoint trajectory; ascertaining during early detection whether the unstable driving state is understeering of the vehicle or oversteering of the vehicle; and, [Figs. 4, 8; ¶¶104-106, 142-144; step S2000, S2001] in response to the early detection of the unstable driving state: define a steering angle correction for the setpoint steering angle, [¶¶112-113, 117-118; 16-8 determines yaw; S2010] wherein the steering angle correction includes a steering-angle limitation of an actual steering angle that can be provided by the electronically controllable steering system when the unstable driving state is understeering of the vehicle, and wherein the steering angle correction includes a countersteering angle directed counter to the setpoint steering angle when the unstable driving state of the vehicle is oversteering; and, [¶¶117-122; S2010, 16-8; ¶¶148-150; S2031] steer of the vehicle using the steering angle correction. [Fig. 8; ¶¶119-121, 148-151]
Claim 22:
Nakagawa discloses a vehicle comprising: an electronically controllable steering system; a virtual driver configured to carry out trajectory planning to obtain a setpoint trajectory for the vehicle; a vehicle control system having a control unit which is configured to: ascertain a setpoint trajectory for the vehicle; [¶8; Fig. 1; ¶¶22-24, 29; driving control device 14] ascertain a setpoint steering angle for driving on the setpoint trajectory; [¶¶24, 29, 33-34; driving control device 14 and FF operating quantity calculation unit 16-1, normative vehicle model] ascertain an actual variable of the vehicle; [¶¶30, 35] make an early detection of an unstable driving state of the vehicle at least using the actual variable and the setpoint trajectory; ascertaining during early detection whether the unstable driving state is understeering of the vehicle or oversteering of the vehicle; and, [Figs. 4, 8; ¶¶104-106, 142-144; step S2000, S2001] in response to the early detection of the unstable driving state: define a steering angle correction for the setpoint steering angle, [¶¶112-113, 117-118; 16-8 determines yaw; S2010] wherein the steering angle correction includes a steering-angle limitation of an actual steering angle that can be provided by the electronically controllable steering system when the unstable driving state is understeering of the vehicle, and wherein the steering angle correction includes a countersteering angle directed counter to the setpoint steering angle when the unstable driving state of the vehicle is oversteering; and, [¶¶117-122; S2010, 16-8; ¶¶148-150; S2031] steer of the vehicle using the steering angle correction. [Fig. 8; ¶¶119-121, 148-151]
Claim 23:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakagawa also discloses a computer program product comprising a program code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, said program code being configured, when executed by a processor. [¶8; Fig. 1; ¶¶22-24, 29; driving control device 14]
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Horiguchi et al. (US 2020/0307551 A1) hereinafter Horiguchi.
Claim 7:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Nakagawa doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein understeering of the vehicle is ascertained when the magnitude of the actual yaw rate is below the yaw-rate tolerance range and wherein oversteering of the vehicle is ascertained if the magnitude of the actual yaw rate is above the yaw-rate tolerance range.
However, Horiguchi discloses wherein understeering of the vehicle is ascertained when the magnitude of the actual yaw rate is below the yaw-rate tolerance range and wherein oversteering of the vehicle is ascertained if the magnitude of the actual yaw rate is above the yaw-rate tolerance range. [¶¶122-127]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Nakagawa with the understeer determination of Horiguchi to improve detection thus improve control.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa as applied to claims 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Suzumura (US 2007/0095604 A1) hereinafter Suzumura.
Claim 9:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Nakagawa doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the ascertainment of the setpoint yaw rate for the vehicle using the setpoint trajectory comprises: ascertaining a curvature of the setpoint trajectory; ascertaining an actual speed of the vehicle; and, ascertaining the setpoint yaw rate at least using the curvature of the setpoint trajectory and the actual speed of the vehicle.
However, Suzumura discloses wherein the ascertainment of the setpoint yaw rate for the vehicle using the setpoint trajectory comprises: ascertaining a curvature of the setpoint trajectory; ascertaining an actual speed of the vehicle; and, ascertaining the setpoint yaw rate at least using the curvature of the setpoint trajectory and the actual speed of the vehicle. [¶¶36-38]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Nakagawa with the setpoint yaw rate determination of Suzumura to improve detection thus improve control.
Claim 11:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Nakagawa doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the countersteering angle is ascertained using a yaw-rate deviation between the actual yaw rate and the setpoint yaw rate when the unstable driving state is oversteering.
However, Suzumura discloses wherein the countersteering angle is ascertained using a yaw-rate deviation between the actual yaw rate and the setpoint yaw rate when the unstable driving state is oversteering. [¶¶29-30; Fig. 3]
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Nakagawa with the setpoint yaw rate determination of Suzumura to improve detection thus improve control.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lo (US 2024/0227808 A1) hereinafter Lo.
Claim 10:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Nakagawa doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the yaw-rate tolerance range has a width of at least one of the following: ±0.1*/s to ±10*/s and ±0.5*/s to ±2*/s, around the setpoint yaw rate.
However, Lo discloses wherein the yaw-rate tolerance range has a width of at least one of the following: ±0.1*/s to ±10*/s and ±0.5*/s to ±2*/s, around the setpoint yaw rate. [¶88]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Nakagawa with the stability determination of Lo to determine if the vehicle is in experiencing a loss of traction [¶88].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN114604256A) hereinafter Liu.
Claim 15:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Nakagawa doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the countersteering angle is ascertained on the basis of directional errors directed toward the inside of the bend.
However, Horiguchi discloses wherein the countersteering angle is ascertained on the basis of directional errors directed toward the inside of the bend. [pgs. 1-2, see underlined section of attached reference]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Nakagawa with the steering correction of Liu to enable recovery from oversteering events.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hecker et al. (IDS EP1167141B1) hereinafter Hecker.
Claim 20:
Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nakagawa doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle is a road train having a towing vehicle and at least one trailer vehicle, wherein, in response to the early detection of the unstable driving state, the method further comprises: braking the trailer vehicle, wherein the braking of the trailer vehicle takes place based on an articulation angle between the towing vehicle and the trailer vehicle.
However, Hecker discloses wherein the vehicle is a road train having a towing vehicle and at least one trailer vehicle, wherein, in response to the early detection of the unstable driving state, the method further comprises: braking the trailer vehicle, wherein the braking of the trailer vehicle takes place based on an articulation angle between the towing vehicle and the trailer vehicle. [¶¶3, 30-32]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Nakagawa with the trailer control of Hecker to improve vehicle and stability control while towing a trailer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang (US 2022/0111834 A1) discloses and controlling a vehicle based on camera images in front of the vehicle coupled with speed sensors fed into a neural network to determine steering angles to compare with thresholds used to determine stability.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights