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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on August 12, 2025 for application number 19/297,785. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 17, 2025 was submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2019-203253 filed on November 08, 2019.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by enough structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites enough structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting enough structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting enough structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“Arbitration unit” in claims 1-12.
“Electronic Control unit” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of US 12,420,773 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is just claim 1 of US 12,420,773 B2 with minor English language syntax differences. Further on, claim 1 of US 12,420,773 B2 anticipates claim 1 of the instant present application. Still further, please refer to the following table for the correspondence of claims between the present application and US 12,420,773 B2:
Application(19/297,785)Claims
Patent(US 12,420,773 B2)Claims
1
1
2
6
3
6
4
1
5
6
6
1
7
1 and 2
8
2
9
5
10
3 and/or 4
11
3 and/or 4
12
1
13
1
Therefore, claims 1-6 of US 12,420,773 B2 anticipates claims 1-13 of the instant present application separately alone or altogether.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of US 11,884,260 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is just claim 1 of US 11,884,260 B2 with minor English language syntax differences. Further on, claim 1 of US 11,884,260 B2 anticipates claim 1 of the instant present application. Still further, please refer to the following table for the correspondence of claims between the present application and US 11,884,260 B2:
Application(19/297,785)Claims
Patent(US 11,884,260 B2)Claims
1
1
2
1
3
6
4
1
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
2
9
3
10
4
11
5
12
1
13
1
Therefore, claims 1-7 of US 11,884,260 B2 anticipates claims 1-13 of the instant present application separately alone or altogether.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (TANAKA – US 2014/0005890 A1), in view of (Nakagawara – US 2019/0367044 A1).
Regarding claim 1, TANAKA discloses:
A vehicle control device comprising:
an arbitration unit (position/attitude control platform 20 and yaw rate control platform 40: Fig. 1) configured to:
acquire steering angles and yaw rates serving as control commands from a plurality of driving support applications that respectively implements driving support functions, wherein each of the plurality of driving support applications is respectively executed by an execution unit that is implemented by an electronic control unit (control platform 10: Fig. 1) ([0046]: The achievable position/attitude range conversion section 23 receives information expressing the achievable yaw rate range from the achievable yaw rate range conversion section 43, the vehicle characteristics, the current position of the vehicle and the current attitude angle of the vehicle, and uses the information to calculate the achievable position/attitude range. Information expressing the achievable position/attitude range is supplied to the position/attitude control request arbitration section 21 and to each of the position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 52, 53. The position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 62, 53 calculate respective requested positions and attitude angles based on the achievable position/attitude range, and thereby produce respective position/attitude control requests which are inputted to the position/attitude control request arbitration section 21 of the position/attitude control platform 20 as described above);
arbitrate the steering angles and yaw rates serving as the control commands by selecting a control command from the steering angles and the yaw rates acquired, based on a predetermined selection criterion ([0090-0098]: Specifically, the following processing is applied, in which MAX (A, B) signifies the larger one of two values A and B, while MIN (A, B) signifies the smaller one of the values A and B: If [pre-limitation requested yaw rate]<MAX ([minimum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), then [requested yaw rate]=MAX ([minimum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), and processing limitation status=ON state If MAX ([minimum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range]) .ltoreq.[pre-limitation requested yaw rate]. ltoreq.MIN ([maximum allowable yaw rate], [upper limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), then [requested yaw rate]=pre-limitation requested yaw rate, and processing limitation status=OFF state If [pre-limitation requested yaw rate]> MIN ([maximum allowable yaw rate], [upper limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), then [requested yaw rate]=MIN ([maximum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range])); and
output instructions based on the derived lateral momentum to a first control unit configured to control a steering actuator and a second control unit configured to control at least one of a brake actuator or a drive actuator ([0029-0034, 0082]: The control objectives of the position/attitude control requests produced from the position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 52, 53 are in the dimensions of position and attitude angle of the host vehicle. A position control request may designate a required position of the center of mass of the vehicle by XY global coordinates, as illustrated in FIG. 2. However it is equally possible to specify such a position with respect to a previously established reference position, attained at a previously registered time point. An attitude angle control request may specify a required attitude angle of the vehicle by XY global coordinates, e.g., as an angle .theta. between the X-axis and the straight-ahead direction of the vehicle at the current time, as illustrated in FIG. 2. However it would be equally possible to specify an angular difference with respect to the heading direction attained by the vehicle at a preceding reference time point. With this embodiment, each position/attitude control request produced from the position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 52, 53 contains a combination of such a position control request and attitude angle control request).
But TANAKA does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) derive a lateral momentum based on a result of arbitrating the steering angles and the yaw rates.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, Nakagawara ([0031-0032]) discloses/teaches the following:
Specifically, the VSA 62 is configured to control the brake device 72 to be described later based on the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the like detected by the vehicle speed sensor, the rudder angle sensor, the yaw rate sensor, and the lateral acceleration sensor described above. To be more specific, the VSA controls a fluid pressure unit configured to supply brake fluid pressure to a brake cylinder of each of front and rear, left and right wheels, and thereby controls the braking force of each wheel individually and improves travel stability. The AWD 63 is a so-called flexible all-wheel drive control system, and functions as a driving force distribution controller. In other words, the AWD 63 is equipped with AWD-ECU (not illustrated), and configured to flexibly control front and rear, left and right wheels' driving force distribution. More specifically, the AWD 63 controls an electromagnetic clutch, a driving motor, and the like in a front-and-rear left-and-right driving force distribution unit based on the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the like detected by the vehicle speed sensor, the rudder angle sensor, the yaw rate sensor, and the lateral acceleration sensor, and thereby changes front and rear, left and right wheels' driving force distribution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control system of TANAKA incorporating additional controller communications/calculation-unit modules as taught by Nakagawara to prevents excessive slip of wheels.
Regarding claim 12, TANAKA discloses:
A vehicle control device comprising:
an arbitration unit configured to:
acquire information that allows steering angles and yaw rates serving as a plurality of control commands to be specified from each of a plurality of driving support applications, the driving support applications respectively implementing driving support functions, wherein each of the plurality of driving support applications is respectively executed by an execution unit that is implemented by an electronic control unit (control platform 10: Fig. 1) ([0046]: The achievable position/attitude range conversion section 23 receives information expressing the achievable yaw rate range from the achievable yaw rate range conversion section 43, the vehicle characteristics, the current position of the vehicle and the current attitude angle of the vehicle, and uses the information to calculate the achievable position/attitude range. Information expressing the achievable position/attitude range is supplied to the position/attitude control request arbitration section 21 and to each of the position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 52, 53. The position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 62, 53 calculate respective requested positions and attitude angles based on the achievable position/attitude range, and thereby produce respective position/attitude control requests which are inputted to the position/attitude control request arbitration section 21 of the position/attitude control platform 20 as described above);
arbitrate the steering angles and yaw rates serving as the control commands by selecting a control command from the plurality of control commands acquired, based on a predetermined selection criterion ([0090-0098]: Specifically, the following processing is applied, in which MAX (A, B) signifies the larger one of two values A and B, while MIN (A, B) signifies the smaller one of the values A and B: If [pre-limitation requested yaw rate]<MAX ([minimum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), then [requested yaw rate]=MAX ([minimum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), and processing limitation status=ON state If MAX ([minimum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range]) .ltoreq.[pre-limitation requested yaw rate]. ltoreq.MIN ([maximum allowable yaw rate], [upper limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), then [requested yaw rate]=pre-limitation requested yaw rate, and processing limitation status=OFF state If [pre-limitation requested yaw rate]> MIN ([maximum allowable yaw rate], [upper limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), then [requested yaw rate]=MIN ([maximum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range])); and
output an instruction based on the derived lateral momentum to a first control unit configured to control a steering actuator and a second control unit configured to control at least one of a brake actuator and a drive actuator ([0029-0034, 0082]: The control objectives of the position/attitude control requests produced from the position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 52, 53 are in the dimensions of position and attitude angle of the host vehicle. A position control request may designate a required position of the center of mass of the vehicle by XY global coordinates, as illustrated in FIG. 2. However it is equally possible to specify such a position with respect to a previously established reference position, attained at a previously registered time point. An attitude angle control request may specify a required attitude angle of the vehicle by XY global coordinates, e.g., as an angle .theta. between the X-axis and the straight-ahead direction of the vehicle at the current time, as illustrated in FIG. 2. However it would be equally possible to specify an angular difference with respect to the heading direction attained by the vehicle at a preceding reference time point. With this embodiment, each position/attitude control request produced from the position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 52, 53 contains a combination of such a position control request and attitude angle control request).
But TANAKA does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) derive a lateral momentum based on a result of arbitrating the steering angles and the yaw rates.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, Nakagawara ([0031-0032]) discloses/teaches the following:
Specifically, the VSA 62 is configured to control the brake device 72 to be described later based on the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the like detected by the vehicle speed sensor, the rudder angle sensor, the yaw rate sensor, and the lateral acceleration sensor described above. To be more specific, the VSA controls a fluid pressure unit configured to supply brake fluid pressure to a brake cylinder of each of front and rear, left and right wheels, and thereby controls the braking force of each wheel individually and improves travel stability. The AWD 63 is a so-called flexible all-wheel drive control system, and functions as a driving force distribution controller. In other words, the AWD 63 is equipped with AWD-ECU (not illustrated), and configured to flexibly control front and rear, left and right wheels' driving force distribution. More specifically, the AWD 63 controls an electromagnetic clutch, a driving motor, and the like in a front-and-rear left-and-right driving force distribution unit based on the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the like detected by the vehicle speed sensor, the rudder angle sensor, the yaw rate sensor, and the lateral acceleration sensor, and thereby changes front and rear, left and right wheels' driving force distribution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control system of TANAKA incorporating additional controller communications/calculation-unit modules as taught by Nakagawara to prevents excessive slip of wheels.
Regarding claim 13, TANAKA discloses:
A vehicle control device comprising:
an electronic control unit configured to:
acquire steering angles and yaw rates serving as control commands from a plurality of driving support applications that respectively implements driving support functions, wherein each of the plurality of driving support applications is respectively executed by an execution unit that is implemented by an electronic control unit (control platform 10: Fig. 1) ([0046]: The achievable position/attitude range conversion section 23 receives information expressing the achievable yaw rate range from the achievable yaw rate range conversion section 43, the vehicle characteristics, the current position of the vehicle and the current attitude angle of the vehicle, and uses the information to calculate the achievable position/attitude range. Information expressing the achievable position/attitude range is supplied to the position/attitude control request arbitration section 21 and to each of the position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 52, 53. The position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 62, 53 calculate respective requested positions and attitude angles based on the achievable position/attitude range, and thereby produce respective position/attitude control requests which are inputted to the position/attitude control request arbitration section 21 of the position/attitude control platform 20 as described above);
arbitrate the steering angles and yaw rates serving as the control commands ([0090-0098]: Specifically, the following processing is applied, in which MAX (A, B) signifies the larger one of two values A and B, while MIN (A, B) signifies the smaller one of the values A and B: If [pre-limitation requested yaw rate]<MAX ([minimum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), then [requested yaw rate]=MAX ([minimum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), and processing limitation status=ON state If MAX ([minimum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range]) .ltoreq.[pre-limitation requested yaw rate]. ltoreq.MIN ([maximum allowable yaw rate], [upper limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), then [requested yaw rate]=pre-limitation requested yaw rate, and processing limitation status=OFF state If [pre-limitation requested yaw rate]> MIN ([maximum allowable yaw rate], [upper limit value of achievable yaw rate range]), then [requested yaw rate]=MIN ([maximum allowable yaw rate], [lower limit value of achievable yaw rate range])); and
output instructions based on the derived lateral momentum to a first control unit configured to control a steering actuator and a second control unit configured to control at least one of a brake actuator or a drive actuator ([0029-0034, 0082]: The control objectives of the position/attitude control requests produced from the position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 52, 53 are in the dimensions of position and attitude angle of the host vehicle. A position control request may designate a required position of the center of mass of the vehicle by XY global coordinates, as illustrated in FIG. 2. However it is equally possible to specify such a position with respect to a previously established reference position, attained at a previously registered time point. An attitude angle control request may specify a required attitude angle of the vehicle by XY global coordinates, e.g., as an angle .theta. between the X-axis and the straight-ahead direction of the vehicle at the current time, as illustrated in FIG. 2. However it would be equally possible to specify an angular difference with respect to the heading direction attained by the vehicle at a preceding reference time point. With this embodiment, each position/attitude control request produced from the position/attitude control request apparatuses 51, 52, 53 contains a combination of such a position control request and attitude angle control request).
But TANAKA does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) derive a lateral momentum based on a result of arbitrating the steering angles and the yaw rates.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, Nakagawara ([0031-0032]) discloses/teaches the following:
Specifically, the VSA 62 is configured to control the brake device 72 to be described later based on the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the like detected by the vehicle speed sensor, the rudder angle sensor, the yaw rate sensor, and the lateral acceleration sensor described above. To be more specific, the VSA controls a fluid pressure unit configured to supply brake fluid pressure to a brake cylinder of each of front and rear, left and right wheels, and thereby controls the braking force of each wheel individually and improves travel stability. The AWD 63 is a so-called flexible all-wheel drive control system, and functions as a driving force distribution controller. In other words, the AWD 63 is equipped with AWD-ECU (not illustrated), and configured to flexibly control front and rear, left and right wheels' driving force distribution. More specifically, the AWD 63 controls an electromagnetic clutch, a driving motor, and the like in a front-and-rear left-and-right driving force distribution unit based on the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the like detected by the vehicle speed sensor, the rudder angle sensor, the yaw rate sensor, and the lateral acceleration sensor, and thereby changes front and rear, left and right wheels' driving force distribution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control system of TANAKA incorporating additional controller communications/calculation-unit modules as taught by Nakagawara to prevents excessive slip of wheels.
Regarding claim 2, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 1, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein the arbitration unit is configured to:
output an instruction based on at least a steering angle serving as a control command after arbitration to the first control unit in a case where the control command after arbitration is able to be realized only by controlling the steering actuator (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]); and
output an instruction based on at least a yaw rate serving as the control command after arbitration to the second control unit in a case where the control command after arbitration is not able to be realized only by controlling the steering actuator (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 3, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 2, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein the case where the control command after arbitration is not able to be realized only by controlling the steering actuator is a case where a system including the steering actuator is not normal (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 4, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 3, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein the arbitration unit acquires, from the system including the steering actuator, an indication of whether the system including the steering actuator is operating normally (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 5, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 3, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein in a case where the system including the steering actuator is not operating normally, the arbitration unit notifies the plurality of driving support applications that the system including the steering actuator is not operating normally (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 6, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 2, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein the case where the control command after arbitration is not able to be realized only by controlling the steering actuator is a case where the steering angle serving as the control command after arbitration exceeds a maximum steering angle of the steering actuator (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 7, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 2, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein the case where the control command after arbitration is not able to be realized only by controlling the steering actuator is a case where the steering angle serving as the control command after arbitration deviates, by a predetermined value or more, from an actual steering angle of the steering actuator that has operated in accordance with the instruction based on the steering angle (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 8, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 1, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein the arbitration unit acquires the steering angles and the yaw rates as the control commands from the driving support applications at substantially the same time (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 9, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 1, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein the arbitration unit acquires a data frame including the steering angles and the yaw rates as the control commands from the driving support applications (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 10, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 1, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein the brake actuator is able to distribute a braking force between right and left wheels (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 11, TANAKA as combined above disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 1, and further on TANAKA as combined above also discloses:
wherein the drive actuator is able to distribute a driving force between right and left wheels (TANAKA [0029-0034, 0046, 0082, 0090-0098] and Nakagawara [0031-0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights