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 1-11 of US Application No. 19/332,275, filed on 18 September 2025, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 18 September 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 9 include both bullet points and indentations to segregate elements or steps of the claim. It is recommended to use only indentations to segregate the elements or steps of the claims.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are 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 5 recites “wherein the steering system is configured to receive the actual steering angle from a sensor associated with the steering system, and wherein the monitoring system receives the actual steering angle from a vehicle component being different from the sensor associated with the steering system”. Claim 5 depends from claim 1, which recites, “determining, by the monitoring system, a faulty deviation between the actual steering angle and the set steering angle indicating an error effect”. Claim 1 only uses a single actual steering angle in the determining step. However, claim 5 provides two actual steering angles – one from the steering system and one from the monitoring system. As claimed, which actual steering angle of claim 5 is used in the determining step in not clear. To advance prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation as a first actual steering angle received by the steering system and a second actual steering angle received by the monitoring system, where determining the faulty deviation comprises determining the faulty deviation between one of the first and second actual steering angles and the set steering angle.
Claim 6 recites the term “critical”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “critical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does disclose that the “ESP system 80 is able to detect a critical situation, where the vehicle becomes instable”, but “instable” is another relative term that does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redder et al. (US 2018/0273005 A1, “Redder”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Redder discloses a system and method for steering compensation and teaches:
receiving, by the monitoring system, a set steering angle and an actual steering angle (desired steering angle known by ECU of the ADAS – see at least ¶ [0025]; PTC 112 can detect the steering angle detected steering angle – see at least ¶ [0025]);
determining, by the monitoring system, a faulty deviation between the actual steering angle and the set steering angle indicating an error effect (detected steering angle compared to a desired steering angle – see at least ¶ [0025]); and
mitigating, by the monitoring system, the faulty deviation by measures suitable to weaken the error effect (in response to determined failure, PTC 112 can determine one or more vehicle operations in order to direct the vehicle over or nearly over the desired course of motion – see at least ¶ [0025]; e.g., applying braking torque to inside wheels, applying motor torque to one or more outside wheels – see at least ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Redder further teaches:
wherein the step of mitigating includes at least one of the following interventions:
reducing a vehicle speed,
triggering a steer-by-braking actuation (applying braking torque to inside wheels – see at least ¶ [0025]),
performing wheel-specific braking interventions (applying braking torque to inside wheels – see at least ¶ [0025]),
performing an engine intervention, or
activating a sustained-action brake.
Regarding claim 6, Redder further teaches:
wherein the vehicle includes an electronic stabilization program, ESP, configured to stabilize the vehicle in critical driving conditions (electronic stability system (ESP) 706/806 – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0039]), and wherein the step of mitigating is performed independently of stabilizing actions performed by the ESP (PTC 112, not ESP 706/806, determines one or more vehicle operations in order to direct the vehicle over or nearly over the desired course of motion – see at least ¶ [0025].
Regarding claim 7, Redder further teaches:
wherein the monitoring system is one of the following: a braking system, an engine control system, an autonomous driving system, a transmission control system, an electronic control unit in the vehicle (system 100 includes an EPS system 110, power-train controller 112 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0020]; PTC receives vehicle operation information from sensors and determines one or more vehicle operations – see at least ¶ [0022]).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Redder discloses a system and method for steering compensation and teaches:
a receiver adapted to receive a set steering angle and an actual steering angle (desired steering angle and detected steering angle – see at least ¶ [0022], [0025]; PTC receives vehicle operation information from sensors and determines one or more vehicle operations – see at least ¶ [0022]); and
a processor configured:
to determine a faulty deviation between the actual steering angle and the set steering angle indicating an error effect (detected steering angle compared to a desired steering angle – see at least ¶ [0025]); and
to mitigate the faulty deviation by measures suitable to weaken the error effect (in response to determined failure, PTC 112 can determine one or more vehicle operations in order to direct the vehicle over or nearly over the desired course of motion – see at least ¶ [0025]; e.g., applying braking torque to inside wheels, applying motor torque to one or more outside wheels – see at least ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Redder further teaches:
wherein the vehicle is an at least partially autonomously operable utility vehicle (vehicle includes advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), e.g., level 3 ADAS, that provides a level of autonomous assistance – see at least Fig. 8A and ¶ [0003]) and wherein the receiver is an interface for a vehicle bus to receive the set steering angle (52) from an autonomous driving system (modules, e.g., EPS, 802, ARS, 804, ESP, 806, and electric brake system 820 connected to an ADAS controller 800 and PTC 824 via CAN bus 820 – see at least Fig. 8A and ¶ [0043]).
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 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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redder in view of Bohner et al. (US 6,244,371 B1, “Bohner”).
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner contends that Redder inherently teaches the instant limitation. In this regard, determining a steering failure using a comparison between the actual and set steering angles, as disclosed by Redder, is inherently a deviation determination that is compared to a threshold.
However, to advance prosecution, the Examiner further notes that Bohner discloses a steering system for non-track-bound motor vehicles and teaches:
wherein a deviation between the actual steering angle and the set steering angle is tolerable if it is below a threshold and wherein the step of determining the faulty deviation includes determining a deviation exceeding the threshold, wherein the threshold indicates an absolute value or a relative value for the deviation (special steering state is activated when a deviation exceeds a threshold value – see at least 1:57 to 2:3).
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 thresholds, as taught by Bohner, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the thresholds may be used to measure the operating reliability of the steering system (Redder at 1:54-56).
Regarding claim 4, Redder further teaches:
wherein the interventions are applied with a strength dependent on a level of the faulty deviation (see Fig. 2 and ¶ [0025]; i.e., further deviation from desired trajectory requires larger application of torque 120 and/or torque 122 to cause the vehicle to follow the desired trajectory)
Redder fails to teach but Bohner discloses a steering system for non-track-bound motor vehicles and teaches:
wherein the level depends on a rate of change of the faulty deviation (time average of desired/actual deviation exceeding a third threshold may be used to determine intervention – see at least 5:22-28).
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 the response level based on rate of change of the faulty deviation, as taught by Bohner, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the thresholds may be used to measure the operating reliability of the steering system (Redder at 1:54-56).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redder in view of Fujita (US 2022/0410966 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Redder further teaches:
wherein the steering system is configured to receive the actual steering angle from a sensor associated with the steering system (EPS having one or more sensors to provide data regarding position of the steering column and manual torque provided by the driver – see at least ¶ [0002]).
Redder fails to teach wherein the monitoring system receives the actual steering angle from a vehicle component being different from the sensor associated with the steering system.
However, Fujita teaches a position detection device and teaches:
wherein the steering system is configured to receive the actual steering angle from a sensor associated with the steering system (steering wheel position sensor 11 – see at least Fig. 2A and ¶ [0023]; at S102, a steering angle theta is determined from detH obtained from sensor 11 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0032]), and wherein the monitoring system receives the actual steering angle from a vehicle component being different from the sensor associated with the steering system (tire position sensor 13 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0025]; at S101, a tire angle theta is determined from detT obtained from sensor 13 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0032]).
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 the actual steering angle from two different sensors, as taught by Fujita, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the sensor values may be compared to determine if backup steering control is necessary (Fujita at ¶ [0040]).
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
