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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
CN 108944910 TO Liu et al.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method for controlling a vehicle in a driving situation (abstract), the method comprising:
determining a target self-steering gradient of the vehicle for the driving situation (abstract, 0080,0087, the “understeer gradient” is determined, see figure 3, also any understeer gradient other than 0 is undesirable, see formula 10/11);
determining an actual steering angle of the vehicle in the driving situation (para 0080-0082, steering wheel angle);
determining an actual steering gradient of the vehicle in the driving situation on a basis of the actual steering angle (0087-0091, oversteer/understeer is calculated taking into account tire slip);
determining a target/actual deviation between the target self-steering gradient and the actual self-steering gradient (0095-0098, see figure 3, steps 205/206, the vehicle’s stability factor is greater than or equal to 0 and less than .5 the vehicle is determined to be in a severely unstable state;
providing a first limit value for the target/actual deviation (0097, the value is less than .5);
early detection of instability of the vehicle when the determined target/actual deviation violates the first limit value (0098, the value is greater than 0 and less than.5 the VSC intervenes via braking/torque requests);
and, in response to the early detection of instability of the vehicle, executing at least one vehicle dynamics intervention via at least one vehicle actuator of the vehicle to counteract the instability of the vehicle (0098).
Regarding claim 2, Liu utilizes a lookup table at 0093 (looking up a table by using the calculated functional correspondence between the understeer gradient value and the wheel slip ratio and the driving stability factor value) and thus teaches:
wherein said determining the target self-steering gradient of the vehicle for the driving situation includes: determining driving data of at least one analogous driving situation; and, determining the target self-steering gradient from the driving data.
Regarding claim 3 Liu discloses at 0064-0066 monitoring yaw rate, lateral acceleration and steering wheel angle and as discussed in claim 1, actual steering angle and thus teaches:
the method of claim 1 further comprising at least one of :determining a yaw rate of the vehicle in the driving situation; and, detecting a lateral acceleration of the vehicle in the driving situation;
wherein an actual self-steering gradient of the vehicle in the driving situation is determined on the basis of the actual steering angle and at least one of the following:
additionally using the determined yaw rate; and ii) using the determined lateral acceleration.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses determining at least one geometric characteristic of a current vehicle configuration of the vehicle (understeer/oversteer) ;wherein an actual self-steering gradient of the vehicle in the driving situation is determined on the basis of the actual steering angle additionally using the geometric characteristic of the vehicle (0080-0082, 0095-0098, see formula 11).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the VSC interviewing at 0098 and thus teaches: wherein the driving dynamics intervention at least partially compensates for the instability (0095-0098).
Regarding claim 6, at 0056, Liu discloses that when the stability margin is 1, the VSC doesn’t intervene and thus teaches: the method of claim 5, further comprising terminating the driving dynamics intervention when the target/actual deviation reaches or falls below a tolerance limit.
Regarding claim 7, see Liu at 0072, 0080, 0094 and 0098:, wherein the provision of a first limit value for the target/actual deviation comprises:
determining at least one load characteristic of the current vehicle configuration; and, defining the first limit value for the target/actual deviation using the at least one determined load characteristic (0094, In practical applications, the driving stability factor value is related not only to the understeer gradient value and wheel slip ratio, but also to the characteristic driving parameters. The specific driving parameters are set by relevant technical personnel according to the specific vehicle model, and the embodiments of the present invention do not impose any restrictions on this.).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses wherein the driving dynamics intervention is a braking intervention on one or more brakes of the vehicle (0098, braking), an engine torque limitation of an engine of the vehicle (0098), and at least one of the following: I) a provision of asymmetrical drive torques on wheels of the vehicle (0095-0098, asymmetric torque between axels); and ii) a provision of an assisting steering torque via a steerable auxiliary axle of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Liu at 0087 discloses during early detection of instability of the vehicle, a determination is made as to whether the instability is understeering of the vehicle or oversteering of the vehicle in the driving situation.
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses at 0045 fishtailing phenomena and the VSC intervening to brake and thus discloses:
determining a steering oscillation using a time history of the actual steering angle; and in response to the determination of a steering oscillation, reducing the first limit value if a steering oscillation is determined which lies in a natural frequency band of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses determining a tire slip ratio taking into account vehicle speed (0089, 0102) and that when the lip ratio exceeds 20% there’s a non-linear relationship (0091) and thus teaches:
determining a current vehicle speed of the vehicle in the driving situation; and, wherein providing a first limit value for the target/actual deviation comprises defining the first limit value at least using the determined vehicle speed, wherein the first limit value is indirectly proportional to the vehicle speed.4
Regarding claim 13, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses at 0046 there are 2 axels.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 1.
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.
Claim11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108944910 TO Liu et al in view of US 2024/0067220 A1 to Shahriari et al.
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses employing a vehicle stability control system in response to understeer/oversteer conditions and reducing over/understeer.
Liu fails to teach:
determining an actual articulation angle between a towing vehicle and a trailer vehicle of the vehicle;
determining a target articulation angle for the driving situation;
and, reducing the first limit value when the actual articulation angle exceeds the target articulation angle by an articulation angle tolerance value.
Shahriari discloses determining an actual articulation angle between a towing vehicle and a trailer vehicle of the vehicle (figure 1, vehicle with trailer, 0060, a hitch angle and hitch force is collected);
determining a target articulation angle for the driving situation (sway limit calculation 0071-0101, formulas shown with variable definitions at that citation);
and, reducing the first limit value when the actual articulation angle exceeds the target articulation angle by an articulation angle tolerance value (0105-008, if an instability condition is detected that would result in a jackknife condition, automated control of the vehicle kicks in to maintain the vehicle below a jackknife condition speed via the ADAS via one or more of braking, speed, and steering control).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu’s ADAS stability control features to inclue the towing/trailer control features of Shahriari for the advantages of reducing jackknife conditions and preventing instability and optimize driver experience and safety (0108 abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER B LONSBERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-7298. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, TC Director James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6713. 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.
HUNTER B. LONSBERRY
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights