Method of Testing Vehicle Clear Vision
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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s reply filed 08/06/2026 which has amendments to the claims and Applicant's arguments related to the previous rejection. The above have been entered and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the objections to the claims are obviated by the amendments. The examiner is persuaded and withdraws the objections.
Applicant argues Turner is directed to real-world vehicle operation. Further, applicant argues the combination of Turner and Kawazoe changes the principle of operation of Turner and would make Turner’s estimation and calibration algorithm useless, therefore the claims are not prima facie obvious over combined Turner.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertion. First, Turner does not limit the steering angle sensor calibration algorithm to real-world vehicle operation but does refer to real-time determination. Second, Turner’s algorithm calibrates a steering angle sensor during straight driving by: making a straight driving judgement, acquiring current steering angle sensor data and comparing current data to previous data to determine a potential fault. Nothing in Turner’s disclosure suggests operating Turner’s algorithm on a vehicle running on a dynamometer would break Turner and the examiner believes combined Turner, Kawazoe and Beck is desirable since it allows Turner to calibrate a steering angle sensor during straight driving in a controlled environment. The rejection is maintained.
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20120041658; “Turner”), in view of Kawazoe (US 20230194385; "Kawazoe"), and further in view of Beck (US 20250138046; “Beck”).
Regarding claim 1, Turner discloses, in figures 1-9, a method of testing (TITLE, “method for determining a steering angle for a vehicle”) a vehicle (12) that includes a propulsion system (18), drive wheels (14L, 14R, 16L, 16R), and a steering wheel (¶ 0032, “steering wheel”), the method comprising: operating the propulsion system (18) to rotate the drive wheels (14L, 14R, 16L, 16R) at a one or more speeds while actively adjusting a rotational position of the steering wheel to maintain straight vehicle travel (¶ 0058, Turner calibrates the steering angle sensor when the operator positions the steering wheel in its neutral position for operate the vehicle along a substantially straight path); measuring angle data of the steering wheel during the active adjusting of the rotational position of the steering wheel (¶ 0114, examiner notes Turner acquires steering position sensor data when substantially straight driving path estimation is determined); checking the measured angle data to determine if it is outside a predetermined angular range (¶ 0121, examiner notes Turner compares the current steering position sensor data with previously sampled values to determine if a variation is outside a predetermined threshold), and comparing steering angles to determine a fault error in the system (¶ 0134).
Turner fails to disclose driving the vehicle on a dynamometer and outputting a vehicle fault code under certain conditions.
Kawazoe teaches, in figure 1, positioning the vehicle (W) on a dynamometer (2), rotate the drive wheels (W1, W2) at a one or more predetermined speeds (¶ 0024, Kawazoe evaluates steering function at a low speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kawazoe’s use of a dynamometer into Turner’s method to provide an environmentally controlled region to undertake the process. Doing so protects the vehicle and operators from inclement weather.
Turner and Kawazoe fail to disclose outputting a vehicle vault code in response to angle data being outside a range.
Beck teaches, in figure 6, outputting, in response to the angle data being outside the predetermined angular range, a vehicle fault code (¶ 0018, Beck’s controller triggers diagnostic fault codes in the event of a steering angle sensor malfunction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Beck’s scheme triggering diagnostic fault codes into Turner and Kawazoe’s scheme of determining a system fault since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of communicating when a variation is outside a threshold.
Regarding claim 2, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Kawazoe’s figure 1, the active adjusting of the rotational position of the steering wheel is performed by a driver assist system (Kawazoe (4)) of the vehicle (Kawazoe, ¶ 0054, “The test piece W basically performs steering control… by an ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems”) controller”) or a robot (Kawazoe (4)).
Regarding claim 3, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Kawazoe’s figure 1, the active adjusting of the rotational position of the steering wheel (Kawazoe, ¶ 0054, “The driving robot 4 includes various actuators for operating a steering wheel… The test piece W basically performs steering control,… by… an AD (Autonomous Driving)) is performed when the vehicle (Kawazoe (W)) is not moving relative to a ground (¶ 0012, see fig. 1, Kawazoe’s vehicle travels on the chassis dynamometer therefore is not moving relative to the ground).
Regarding claim 4, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck fail to disclose the one or more predetermined speeds is greater than 40 mph (64.37 kph).
However, Applicant has not disclosed that running the vehicle wheels at a predetermined speed greater than 40 mph is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design a process of testing clear vision on as a matter of design choice to provide a standardized vehicle speed during tests of multiple vehicles. Do so allows for testing at typical driving conditions.
Regarding claim 5, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck fail to disclose the predetermined angular range is −2.5° to 2.5°.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that a predetermined angular range of −2.5° to 2.5° is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design a process of testing clear vision on as a matter of design choice to provide a standardized measured straight driving steering angle range. Do so allows for determining steering sensor failures or steering assembly misalignment.
Regarding claim 6, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Turner’s figures 1-9, the angle data checked (¶ 0121, “current steering angle value”) is angle data measured during a predetermined operating state (see fig. 5, examiner notes Turner makes a straight judgement of the operating state based on low slip ratio, low acceleration, speed above a minimum) of the vehicle (W), wherein the predetermined operating state is such the vehicle does have forward acceleration during the predetermined operating state (¶ 0070, Turner acceleration threshold represents a cruising condition with an acceleration of substantially zero).
Turner, Kawazoe and Beck fail to disclose the predetermined operating state is such that a transmission of the vehicle does not shift gears during the predetermined operating state.
However, applicant has not established the criticality of operating the vehicle so that the transmission does not shift gears for the instant invention. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to operate the vehicle so that the transmission does not shift gears, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success of operating the vehicle in a cruising state would be obvious to try. Doing so provides a reliable way of maintaining a vehicle cruising speed with zero acceleration.
Regarding claim 7, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Turner’s figures 1-9, the predetermined operating state is such that the one or more predetermined speeds is a constant speed (¶ 0070, Turner acceleration threshold represents a cruising condition with an acceleration of substantially zero).
Regarding claim 9, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Turner’s figures 1-9, the angle data measured is a rotational position relative to a centered rotational position (¶ 0032 and 0058, Turner’s steering angle sensor measures the rotational relationship between the steering wheel calibrated to a straight path of travel by a vehicle and the movement of the vehicle when the operator rotates the steering wheel) and is measured by a measurement device (Turner (38)) mounted adjacent to the steering column (¶ 0032, Turner’s steering angle sensor lies adjacent to the steering column).
The Examiner takes official notice that a steering angle sensor removeable mounted to the steering wheel is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known steering angle sensor removeable mounted to the steering wheel to measure Turner, Kawazoe and Beck’s angle data. Doing so provides a reliable way of positioning a sensor for data collection.
Regarding claim 10, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Turner’s figures 1-9, the angle data measured is measured by a measurement device (Turner (38)) mounted to a steering column (¶ 0032, Turner’s steering angle sensor lie’s adjacent to the steering column).
The Examiner takes official notice that a steering angle sensor mounted to a steering column is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known steering angle sensor mounted to the steering column to measure Turner, Kawazoe and Beck’s angle data. Doing so provides a reliable way of positioning a sensor for data collection.
Regarding claim 11, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Turner’s figures 1-9, the angle data measured is measured by a measurement device (Turner (38)).
Turner, Kawazoe and Beck fail to explicitly disclose a measurement device that includes an optical sensor configured detect an angular position of the steering wheel.
The Examiner takes official notice that a steering angle sensor that includes an optical sensor configured detect an angular position of the steering wheel is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known steering angle sensor that includes an optical sensor to measure Turner, Kawazoe and Beck’s angular position of the steering wheel. Doing so provides a reliable sensor technology for data collection.
Regarding claim 15, Turner discloses, in figures 1-9, a method of testing (TITLE, “method for determining a steering angle for a vehicle”) a vehicle (12) that includes a propulsion system (18), drive wheels (14L, 14R, 16L, 16R), and a steering wheel (¶ 0032, “steering wheel”), the method comprising: operating the propulsion system (18) to rotate the drive wheels (14L, 14R, 16L, 16R) at a one or more speeds while actively adjusting a rotational position of the steering wheel to maintain straight vehicle travel (¶ 0058, Turner calibrates the steering angle sensor when the operator positions the steering wheel in its neutral position for operate the vehicle along a substantially straight path); measuring angle data of the steering wheel by a measurement device (Turner (38)) during the active adjusting of the rotational position of the steering wheel (¶ 0114, examiner notes Turner acquires steering position sensor data when substantially straight driving path estimation is determined), the angle data being rotational position relative to a centered rotational position (¶ 0032 and 0058, Turner’s steering angle sensor measures the rotational relationship between the steering wheel calibrated to a straight path of travel by a vehicle and the movement of the vehicle when the operator rotates the steering wheel); checking the measured angle data to determine if it is outside a predetermined angular range (¶ 0121, examiner notes Turner compares the current steering position sensor data with previously sampled values to determine if a variation is outside a predetermined threshold), and comparing steering angles to determine a fault error in the system (¶ 0134).
Turner fails to disclose driving the vehicle on a dynamometer and outputting a vehicle fault code under certain conditions, wherein the predetermined speed is greater than 40 mph.
Kawazoe teaches, in figure 1, positioning the vehicle (W) on a dynamometer (2), rotate the drive wheels (W1, W2) at a one or more predetermined speeds (¶ 0024, Kawazoe evaluates steering function at a low speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kawazoe’s use of a dynamometer into Turner’s method to provide an environmentally controlled region to undertake the process. Doing so protects the vehicle and operators from inclement weather.
Turner and Kawazoe fail to disclose outputting a vehicle vault code in response to angle data being outside a range, wherein the predetermined speed is greater than 40 mph.
Beck teaches, in figure 6, outputting, in response to the angle data being outside the predetermined angular range, a vehicle fault code (¶ 0018, Beck’s controller triggers diagnostic fault codes in the event of a steering angle sensor malfunction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Beck’s scheme triggering diagnostic fault codes into Turner and Kawazoe’s scheme of determining a system fault since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of communicating when a variation is outside a threshold.
Turner, Kawazoe and Beck fail to disclose the one or more predetermined speeds is greater than 40 mph (64.37 kph).
However, Applicant has not disclosed that running the vehicle wheels at a predetermined speed greater than 40 mph is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design a process of testing clear vision on as a matter of design choice to provide a standardized vehicle speed during tests of multiple vehicles. Do so allows for testing at typical driving conditions.
Regarding claim 16, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Kawazoe’s figure 1, the active adjusting of the rotational position of the steering wheel is performed by a driver assist system (Kawazoe (4)) of the vehicle (Kawazoe, ¶ 0054, “The test piece W basically performs steering control… by an ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems”) controller”.
Regarding claim 17, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Turner’s figures 1-9, the angle data checked (¶ 0121, “current steering angle value”) is angle data measured during a predetermined operating state (see fig. 5, examiner notes Turner makes a straight judgement of the operating state based on low slip ratio, low acceleration, speed above a minimum) of the vehicle (W), wherein the predetermined operating state is such the vehicle does have forward acceleration during the predetermined operating state (¶ 0070, Turner acceleration threshold represents a cruising condition with an acceleration of substantially zero).
Turner, Kawazoe and Beck fail to disclose the predetermined operating state is such that a transmission of the vehicle does not shift gears during the predetermined operating state.
However, applicant has not established the criticality of operating the vehicle so that the transmission does not shift gears for the instant invention. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to operate the vehicle so that the transmission does not shift gears, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success of operating the vehicle in a cruising state would be obvious to try. Doing so provides a reliable way of maintaining a vehicle cruising speed with zero acceleration.
Regarding claim 18, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Turner’s figures 1-9, the predetermined operating state is such that the one or more predetermined speeds is a constant speed (¶ 0070, Turner acceleration threshold represents a cruising condition with an acceleration of substantially zero).
Regarding claim 20, Turner discloses, in figures 1-9, a method of testing (TITLE, “method for determining a steering angle for a vehicle”) a vehicle (12) that includes a propulsion system (18), drive wheels (14L, 14R, 16L, 16R), and a steering wheel (¶ 0032, “steering wheel”), the method comprising: operating the propulsion system (18) to rotate the drive wheels (14L, 14R, 16L, 16R) at a one or more speeds while actively adjusting a rotational position of the steering wheel to maintain straight vehicle travel (¶ 0058, Turner calibrates the steering angle sensor when the operator positions the steering wheel in its neutral position for operate the vehicle along a substantially straight path); measuring angle data of the steering wheel during the active adjusting of the rotational position of the steering wheel (¶ 0114, examiner notes Turner acquires steering position sensor data when substantially straight driving path estimation is determined); checking the measured angle data to determine if it is outside a predetermined angular range (¶ 0121, examiner notes Turner compares the current steering position sensor data with previously sampled values to determine if a variation is outside a predetermined threshold), and comparing steering angles to determine a fault error in the system (¶ 0134).
Turner fails to disclose driving the vehicle on a dynamometer and outputting a vehicle fault code under certain conditions, wherein the predetermined speed is greater than 40 mph.
Kawazoe teaches, in figure 1, positioning the vehicle (W) on a dynamometer (2), rotate the drive wheels (W1, W2) at a one or more predetermined speeds (¶ 0024, Kawazoe evaluates steering function at a low speed), wherein the active adjusting of the rotational position of the steering wheel is performed by at least one of a driver assist system (4) of the vehicle (Kawazoe, ¶ 0054, “The test piece W basically performs steering control… by an ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems”) controller”) and a robot ((4) ¶ 0054, “The driving robot 4 includes various actuators for operating a steering wheel… The test piece W basically performs steering control,… by… an AD (Autonomous Driving))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kawazoe’s use of a dynamometer and an ADAS or AD into Turner’s method to provide an environmentally controlled region to undertake the process. Doing so protects the vehicle and operators from inclement weather and reduces the number of operators needed to perform testing.
Turner and Kawazoe fail to disclose outputting a vehicle vault code in response to angle data being outside a range, wherein the predetermined speed is greater than 40 mph.
Beck teaches, in figure 6, outputting, in response to the angle data being outside the predetermined angular range, a vehicle fault code (¶ 0018, Beck’s controller triggers diagnostic fault codes in the event of a steering angle sensor malfunction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Beck’s scheme triggering diagnostic fault codes into Turner and Kawazoe’s scheme of determining a system fault since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of communicating when a variation is outside a threshold.
Turner, Kawazoe and Beck fail to disclose the one or more predetermined speeds is greater than 40 mph (64.37 kph).
However, Applicant has not disclosed that running the vehicle wheels at a predetermined speed greater than 40 mph is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design a process of testing clear vision on as a matter of design choice to provide a standardized vehicle speed during tests of multiple vehicles. Do so allows for testing at typical driving conditions.
wherein the active adjusting of the rotational position of the steering wheel is performed by at least one of a driver assist system of the vehicle and a robot;
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20120041658; “Turner”), Kawazoe (US 20230194385; "Kawazoe"), and Beck (US 20250138046; “Beck”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Brewer (US 20070088477; "Brewer").
Regarding claim 12, Turner, Kawazoe and Beck disclose, in Turner’s figures 1-9, the angle data measured is measured by a measurement device (Turner (38)).
Turner, Kawazoe and Beck fail to explicitly disclose the angle data measured is measured by a measurement device that includes at least one of a gyroscope and an accelerometer.
Brewer teaches, in figures 2, the angle data measured is measured by a measurement device (A, B) that includes at least one of a gyroscope (¶ 0077, Brewer’s sensors A and B are gyroscopes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Brewer’s scheme of using gyroscopes to collect steering wheel angular data with Turner, Kawazoe and Beck’s scheme measuring angular data since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of measuring steering angle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 13-14 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 8, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Turner, Kawazoe and Beck, as combined in the rejection of claims 1 and 6, to include the predetermined operating state is such that the one or more predetermined speeds includes an accelerating speed. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Regarding claim 13, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Turner, Kawazoe and Beck, as combined in the rejection of claim 1, to include performing a wheel alignment before operating the propulsion system to rotate the drive wheels at the one or more predetermined speeds. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Dependent claim 14 would be allowable for at least the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 19, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Turner, Kawazoe and Beck, as combined in the rejection of claims 15 and 17, to include the predetermined operating state is such that the one or more predetermined speeds includes an accelerating speed. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights