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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/4/26. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,8,12-14,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wang et al US 2018/0056986.
In Re 1,2,12 Wang teaches
A computer system (ECU 56 fig 1 paras 14,20-22, abstract), computer-implemented method (para 14 computer fig 5), non-transitory computer readable storage medium (paras 48-49), for changing a steering angle of a steered wheel (fig 1 14) of a vehicle (10), the steered wheel being connected to a steering actuator (26 fig 1) adapted to change the steering angle (alpha fig 2), of the steered wheel, the steering actuator having a steering actuator capacity threshold (T_m,max diminished paras 16,36, 73 fig 5), the method comprising:
- determining, by a processor device of a computer system, a speed value (V_x para 28) indicative of a current or (optional) predicted speed of the vehicle;
- determining, by the processor device, a load value indicative of a vertical load (para 33 “front wheel vertical loads”) imparted on the steered wheel;
- determining, by the processor device, a target steering angle displacement (alpha yielding pat p 84 fig 6, per fig 5 para 43) of the steered wheel;
- determining, by the processor device, a target steering angle displacement rate (steering rate paras 24-34, fig 4) of the steered wheel;
- based on the speed value (V_x), the load value (F_r a function of vertical load per para 33), the target steering angle displacement (alpha) and the target steering angle displacement rate (steering rate), determining, by the processor device (56), whether or not the steering actuator can affect the target steering angle displacement without exceeding the steering actuator capacity threshold (step 78); and
- in response to determining that the steering actuator cannot affect the target steering angle displacement without exceeding the steering actuator capacity threshold (step 78 YES), modifying, by the processor device, a condition of the vehicle (envelope and velocity steps 80-81) relevant for the target steering angle displacement (note US Pre Grant publications seems to interchangeably use p and rho in figures and specification, examiner believes path curvature should be rho, consistent with originally filed specification of Wang and issued patent specification. Also note Wang fig 5 is most likely typo steps 77 and 79 both stating “p” as both an envelope and path curvature)
wherein modifying the condition of the vehicle relevant for the target steering angle displacement comprises at least one of (Markush) reducing the vertical load imparted on the steered wheel by operating a wheel suspension system associated with the steered wheel (optional), and reducing the target steering angle displacement rate (selection of envelope step 80 includes fig 4 modified steering rates)(at least all figs and paras).
In Re 3,4,8 Wang teaches:
3. The method according to claim 2, further comprising: - operating, by the processor device, the steering actuator (envelope step 80 moves actuator and fig 6) to affect the target steering angle displacement.
4. The method according to claim 2, wherein the condition of the vehicle relevant for the target steering angle displacement is modified so that the steering actuator capacity threshold is not exceeded (path 90 of fig 6 using available actuator power and not exceeding threshold para 43) when the steering actuator affects the target steering angle displacement.
8. The method according to claim 2, wherein the steering actuator capacity threshold relates to a power threshold (para 19 diminished power) for the steering actuator and/or (optional) a current threshold (Imax) for the steering actuator.
In Re 13,14,18, claims 13,14,18 rejected over in re 3,4,8 as taught by Wang as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al US 2018/0056986 in view of Ali et al US 2024/0001728.
In Re 11, Wang teaches, wherein the vehicle has a normal condition (para 16 “normal mode”) relevant for the target steering angle displacement, the method further comprising: - after the condition of the vehicle relevant for the target steering angle displacement has been modified (steps 80-81).
Wang does not teach however Ali teaches remodifying (resetting para 158), by the processor device, the condition of the vehicle to the normal condition (reset) when a current speed of the vehicle exceeds a vehicle speed threshold (vehicle speed exceeds a predetermined threshold). Ali further teaches an exit condition to reset control para 158. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Ali’s exit condition including vehicle speed above a threshold to Wang’s vehicle control to remodify steering to normal.
Claim(s) 7,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al US 2018/0056986 in view of Ohyama et al US 5,015,009.
In Re 7,17, Wang does not teach however Ohyama teaches comprises reducing the vertical load imparted on the steered wheel by operating a wheel suspension system associated with the steered wheel (abstract). Ohyama further teaches improved steering/turning with vertical load reduction (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Ohyama’s active suspension reducing vertical wheel load to Wang’s vehicle control to improve steering/turning.
Wang as modified by Ohyama further teaches - determining, by the processor device, whether or not the steering actuator capacity threshold is still exceeded (Wang step 78) when the vertical load imparted on the steered wheel is reduced (Ohyama abstract), and; - in response to determining that the steering actuator capacity threshold is still exceeded (Wang step 78 yes), modifying the condition of the vehicle relevant for the target steering angle displacement by reducing the target steering angle displacement rate (envelope step 80 includes fig 4 steering rates selection)(note Wang as modified by Ohyama includes mitigating actions of envelope, velocity, and reducing vertical load to achieve path transition with fail function system of fig 6).
Claim(s) 9-10,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al US 2018/0056986 in view of Goto US 5,561,603.
In Re 9,19 Wang does not teach however Goto teaches the steered wheel (fig 4 22) is an auxiliary steered wheel of the vehicle (abstract). Goto further teaches better steering feel with rear steering wheels cols 1-2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to replace Wang’s rear wheels with Goto’s rear steering wheels to have better steering feel.
In Re 10,20, Wang in view of Goto, Goto further teaches the auxiliary steered wheel is associated with and located forward (optional) and/or rearwards of a rear drive axle of the vehicle (optional) or associated with and located rearwards of a front axle of the vehicle (Goto fig 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg 8, filed 6/4/26, with respect to Drawing objection and 35 USC 112b rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection and claim 17 35 USC 112b rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments with respect to 35 USC 102 and 103 claim rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues pg 9 Ohyama taught features with respect to independent claims 1,2,12 however, the features relied upon for Ohyama’s teachings are claimed as optional and not required in claims 1,2,12 and the arguments are therefore moot.
Applicant further argues pgs 9-10 that Wang does not teach reducing the target steering angle displacement rate and Wang merely reduces vehicle velocity. However examiner finds Wang’s fig 4 and specification paras 25-34 certainly teach selection of steering rate envelopes. Fig 4 clearly shows multiple steering rate curves items 62-70 with rates between 0.00-0.150 m/s with each selected vehicle speed having multiple selectable reduced steering rates. Applicant argues that Wang merely reduces velocity, however examiner finds when velocity or speed reduced, e.g. 80-60 kph, at 60 kph multiple steering rate envelopes exist as plotted on the y axis.
Applicant further argues bottom pg 9 that Ohyama’s vertical force reduction is merely for “cornering”. However, examiner finds cornering is akin or synonymous with turning. Examiner finds, the combination of Wang and Ohyama teaches the claimed features.
Applicant’s remaining arguments depend on above refuted arguments and are therefore moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights