DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to the application received on 07 August 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
The claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged. A certified copy of the priority application has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS received on 07 August 2025 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
Where it appears in the claims, the term “and/or” is interpreted to mean “or” under a broadest reasonable standard.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (specifically, a mathematical relationship or concept) without significantly more. The claims are directed to a computer which implements a method that obtains vehicle data and performs calculations using the obtained data, but the claims do not recite a practical application of the method. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited by the claims are conventional computer elements which perform conventional functions such as obtaining and storing data and performing calculations. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements perform routine and well-understood functions.
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, 6, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12,017,642 B2 (Luo et al.) in view of US 10,625,777 B2 (Kimura).
Claim 1.
Luo discloses a computer system for determining a longitudinal slip limit for a steered axle of a vehicle having two steered axles, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire a reference body slip for a steered axle of the vehicle (col 7 ln 66-col 8 ln 5 - "The signal processing module receives an actual yaw velocity {dot over .phi.}.sub.act, a longitudinal acceleration a.sub.x, and a lateral acceleration a.sub.y that are sent by the inertial measurement unit 22, and a steering wheel angle .delta. sent by the steering wheel angle sensor 23, obtains a vehicle speed .nu., a road surface adhesion coefficient .mu., and an actual centroid side-slip angle .beta..sub.act through calculation based on the foregoing parameters", col 8 ln 10-13 - "The expected value calculation module calculates [...] an expected centroid side-slip angle .beta..sub.ref based on .nu. and .delta., and sends [...] .beta..sub.ref to the correction yawing moment calculation module");
acquire a current body slip for the steered axle (col 7 ln 66-col 8 ln 5);
determine a first difference between the reference body slip and the current body slip (col 8 ln 14-20 - "The correction yawing moment calculation module obtains [...] an error .DELTA..beta.=.beta..sub.act-.beta..sub.ref between the actual centroid side-slip angle and the expected centroid side-slip angle");
determine an adjusted longitudinal slip limit for the steered axle based on the first difference and the initial longitudinal slip limit for the steered axle (col 8 ln 14-24 - "The correction yawing moment calculation module obtains a current correction yaw torque .DELTA.M of the vehicle through calculation based on an error [...] between the actual yaw velocity and the expected yaw velocity, and an error .DELTA..beta.=.beta..sub.act-.beta..sub.ref between the actual centroid side-slip angle and the expected centroid side-slip angle. It may be understood that .DELTA.M is a yawing moment used to correct a steering status of the vehicle. Then, the correction yawing moment calculation module sends .DELTA.M to the front and rear axle torque distribution module and the ESC intervention determining module").
Kimura teaches the limitations not expressly disclosed by Luo, namely:
acquire an initial longitudinal slip limit for the steered axle (col 14 ln 26-35 - "The upper limit determining unit 35 outputs the estimated driving force upper limit value F.sub.lim calculated by using Expression (7) to the correction coefficient determining unit 332 of the rear-wheel steering angle determining unit 33. The estimated driving force upper limit value F.sub.lim obtained by using Expression (7) is the resultant force of the driving force and the lateral force generated on the front wheels 11A and 11B at the reference time, and does not therefore exceed a value of a radius of a tire friction circle").
As of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Luo and Kimura because both relate to systems for stabilizing a turning vehicle. The combination would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Kimura by providing the vehicle with an additional degree of stability control in steerable rear wheels.
Claim 2.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Kimura further teaches wherein the steered axle is a front steered axle or a rear steered axle of the vehicle (Fig 1 - front wheel steering (14), rear wheel steering (23)).
Claim 3.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Kimura further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the reference body slip for the steered axle by determining a reference body slip for the vehicle using a bicycle model (col 7 ln 32-37 - "As illustrated in FIG. 3, the modeled vehicle 100 is a modeled vehicle in which the front wheels 11A and 11B of the vehicle 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 are equivalently replaced with one front wheel 10 and the rear wheels 21A and 21B of the vehicle 1 are equivalently replaced with one rear wheel 20").
Claim 6.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Kimura further teaches wherein the initial longitudinal slip limit for the steered axle is based on a surface friction and/or one or more tyre properties of the steered axle (col 14 ln 26-35).
Claim 10.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Luo further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to transmit the adjusted longitudinal slip limit to a controller of the vehicle for use in controlling one or more motion parameters of at least one steered axle of the vehicle, such that an implemented longitudinal slip adheres to the adjusted longitudinal slip limit (col 9 ln 3-16 - "when determining that an ESC intervention determining result is being to intervene, the front and rear axle torque distribution module [...] outputs [front axle driving torque] T.sub.F and [rear axle driving torque] T.sub.R to the front axle motor controller 27 and the rear axle motor controller 28 respectively. The front axle motor controller 27 controls, based on T.sub.F, the front drive motor 29 to run, and the rear axle motor controller 28 controls, based on T.sub.R, the rear drive motor 210 to run, to help the driver reduce a trend of understeer and a trend of oversteer in a steering working condition, so as to improve steering stability of the vehicle").
Claim 11.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer system of claim 10.
Luo further discloses wherein the one or more motion parameters of the steered axle comprise a torque, a force, a longitudinal slip, and/or a steering angle of the steered axle (col 9 ln 3-16).
Claim 12.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Luo further discloses a vehicle comprising the computer system (col 6 ln 10-11 - "The method for front and rear driving torque distribution of a vehicle provided in this application").
Claim 13.
The limitations recited by claim 13 correspond to those of claim 1. Claim 13 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 14.
The limitations recited by claim 14 correspond to those of claim 2. Claim 13 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 15.
The limitations recited by claim 15 correspond to those of claim 3. Claim 15 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 18.
The limitations recited by claim 18 correspond to those of claim 10. Claim 18 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claim 19.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13.
Luo further discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 13 (col 26 ln 27-30 - "all or a part of the steps of the method embodiments may be implemented by a program instructing relevant hardware. The program may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium").
Claim 20.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13.
Luo further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 13 (col 26 ln 31-35 - "The foregoing storage medium includes: any medium that can store program code, such as a removable storage device, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a magnetic disk, or an optical disc").
Claims 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Kimura and US 12,122,359 B2 (Chen et al.).
Claim 4.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Chen teaches the limitations not expressly further taught by the combination of Luo and Kimura, namely:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the reference body slip for a steered axle according to:
.beta..sub.ref,f/r = .beta..sub.ref + L.sub.f/r * .omega..sub.z / v.sub.x
where .beta..sub.ref,f is the reference body slip for a front steered axle, .beta..sub.ref,r is the reference body slip for a rear steered axle, .beta..sub.ref is the reference body slip for the vehicle, L.sub.f is the distance from the centre of gravity of the vehicle to the front steered axle, L.sub.r is the distance from the centre of gravity of the vehicle to the rear steered axle, .omega..sub.z is the yaw rate of the vehicle, and v.sub.x is the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle (col 11 ln 37-53 - "the wheel side slip angle .alpha. is divided into a front wheel side slip angle .alpha..sub.f and a rear wheel side slip angle .alpha..sub.r, which are capable of being respectively calculated by using the following equation:
[Equation (4)]
wherein .delta..sub.f and .delta..sub.r respectively represent the front wheel steering angle and the rear wheel steering angle of the vehicle, and wherein .beta. and .gamma. respectively represent the mass center side slip angle and the yaw velocity of the vehicle").
As of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Luo and Chen because both relate to systems for controlling the stability of a turning vehicle. The combination would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Chen by providing a means for the vehicle to compensate for instability at either the front wheels or rear wheels.
Claim 5.
The combination of Luo and Kimura teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Chen teaches the limitations not expressly further taught by the combination of Luo and Kimura, namely:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the current body slip for the steered axle based on a current body slip for the vehicle, a distance from the centre of gravity of the vehicle to the steered axle, a current yaw rate of the vehicle, and a current longitudinal velocity of the vehicle (col 10 ln 67-col 11 ln 2 - "wherein L.sub.f and L.sub.r respectively represent the distances from the front and rear axles to the mass center of the vehicle", col 11 ln 37-53).
See claim 4 for a statement of an obviousness rationale.
Claim 16.
The limitations recited by claim 16 correspond to those of claim 4. Claim 16 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 17.
The limitations recited by claim 17 correspond to those of claim 5. Claim 17 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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. Alternatively, the respective independent claims may be amended to include subject matter indicated as allowable including the limitations of any intervening claims. The allowability of claims 7-9 would also require the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action to be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: whether alone or in combination, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the feature of determining an adjusted slip limit using a multiple of the first difference as recited by claim 7. Claims 8-9 would be allowable at least for their dependence from claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form 892 (Notice of References Cited) but not relied upon is considered relevant to the present application because it discloses a stability system for a vehicle having front and rear wheels that are both driven by a propulsion system and steered by a steering system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Todd Melton whose telephone number is (571)270-3871. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9:30am - 6:00pm (Eastern time). 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights