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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 16-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada [GB 2173460] in view of Sakayori [WO 2020/158021].
Regarding claim 1: Hamada shows the vehicle comprising:
a front end and a rear end being disposed on opposite ends of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, (see fig 1) the longitudinal axis being aligned with forward and rearward directions of travel of the vehicle;
a front wheel (7) disposed closer to the front end of the vehicle than to the rear end of the vehicle;
a rear wheel (12) disposed closer to the rear end of the vehicle than to the front end of the vehicle;
a first steering mechanism (3) operatively coupled to the front wheel to change a turn angle of the front wheel; and
Hamada does not explicitly disclose a vehicle with a parallel parking system and a second steering mechanism operatively coupled to the rear wheel to change a turn angle of the rear wheel independently of the front wheel, wherein the second steering mechanism operates independently of the first steering mechanism such that the front wheel is turned independently of the rear wheel. However Sakayori shows disclose a vehicle with a parallel parking system (1a, “… In a parking pattern such as parallel parking or reverse parking, the vehicle 10 often repeats forward and reverse, and the shift lever enters "R" (Reverse, reverse) at least once…).
and a second steering mechanism operatively coupled to the rear wheel to change a turn angle of the rear wheel independently of the front wheel, wherein the second steering mechanism operates independently of the first steering mechanism such that the front wheel is turned independently of the rear wheel (“… During low speed traveling, the front and rear wheels can be independently steered in opposite phases, and the minimum turning radius can be made smaller….”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the vehicle with parallel parking system to assist the user to parallel park and reduce the odd vehicle damage during parking. Also it would have been obvious to have made the front steering and rear wheel steering independent to achieve and low turning angle and have more control of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2: Hamada shows wherein the second steering mechanism (8) comprises a power source (13) configured to drive turning of the rear wheel.
Regarding claim 3: Hamada shows wherein the power source (13) is at least one of an electric motor (13) and a hydraulic motor.
Regarding claim 4: Hamada shows wherein the second steering mechanism comprises a rack and pinion steering mechanism (see abstract).
Regarding claim 5: Hamada shows wherein the second steering mechanism (8) comprises a plate steering mechanism.
Regarding claim 6: Hamada shows further comprising a steering controller in the vehicle for manually controlling the second steering mechanism.
Regarding claim 7: Hamada shows wherein the controller comprises a manual selector that can be adjusted by a driver of the vehicle to control turning of the rear wheel.
Regarding claim 8: Hamada shows wherein the controller (16) comprises an automated control system comprising a sensor (15) for sensing positions of the vehicle relative to surrounding objects and at least one computer processor operatively coupled to the sensor to receive data therefrom (“… stored in the memory (b) or, in other words, the selection information selected by the selection switch 18 is given to the conversion process ...”), wherein the at least one computer processor is configured to run a program (“…the various processes conducted in the computer 19 are executed by a certain program (software) stored for instance in a storage area of the computer 19…”) to automatically control steering of the rear wheel based at least partly on data from the sensor (“… the accuracy of the control is assured, by comparing the displacement detected at (15) with the theoretical value derived from front wheel displacement and vehicle speed, and sending from (16) a control signal based on the difference, which controls motor (13) driving the rack-and-pinion system…”).
Regarding claim 10: Hamada shows wherein the vehicle comprises two rear wheels (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 11: Hamada shows wherein the vehicle comprises two front wheels (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 16: Hamada shows a vehicle having a front wheel (7) disposed closer to a front end of the vehicle than to a rear end of the vehicle, a rear wheel (12) disposed closer to the rear end of the vehicle than to the front end of the vehicle, the front end and the rear end being disposed on opposite ends of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle that is aligned with forward and rearward directions of travel of the vehicle, a first steering mechanism (3) being operatively coupled to the front wheel to change a turn angle of the front wheel, and a second steering mechanism (8) operatively coupled to the rear wheel to change a turn angle of the rear wheel independently of the front wheel,
Hamada does not explicitly disclose a method of parallel parking wherein the second steering mechanism operates independently of the first steering mechanism such that the front wheel is turned independently of the rear wheel, the method comprising:the method comprising: moving the front end of the vehicle forward into a parking space at a diagonal angle to a longitudinal axis of the parking space to guide the front end of the vehicle diagonally toward a front end of the parking space at an angle;
before reaching the front end of the parking space, turning the rear wheel with the second steering mechanism; and with the rear wheel turned, continuing to move the front end of the vehicle toward the front end of the parking space and thereby moving the rear end of the vehicle laterally into a rear end of the parking space until the longitudinal axis of the vehicle is substantially parallel with the longitudinal axis of the parking space. However Sakayori shows a method of parallel parking (“…In a parking pattern such as parallel parking or reverse parking, the vehicle 10 often repeats forward and reverse, and the shift lever enters "R" (Reverse, reverse) at least once…”) and a second steering mechanism operatively coupled to the rear wheel to change a turn angle of the rear wheel independently of the front wheel, wherein the second steering mechanism operates independently of the first steering mechanism such that the front wheel is turned independently of the rear wheel (“… During low speed traveling, the front and rear wheels can be independently steered in opposite phases, and the minimum turning radius can be made smaller….”).
the method comprising: moving the front end of the vehicle forward into a parking space at a diagonal angle to a longitudinal axis of the parking space to guide the front end of the vehicle diagonally toward a front end of the parking space at an angle (“…A steering control method for a vehicle, comprising: controlling a rear wheel steering angle by a rear wheel steering system based on a front wheel steering angle by a driver's operation…”);
before reaching the front end of the parking space, turning the rear wheel (7) with the second steering mechanism (6) ; and with the rear wheel (7) turned, continuing to move the front end of the vehicle toward the front end of the parking space and thereby moving the rear end of the vehicle laterally into a rear end of the parking space until the longitudinal axis of the vehicle is substantially parallel with the longitudinal axis of the parking space.
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have made the front steering and rear wheel steering independent to achieve and low turning angle and have more control of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the vehicle with parallel parking system with the method steps specified to easily perform parallel parking, it is common for the driver to follow a step of before reaching the front end of the parking space, turning the rear wheel to the adjust the position of the back portion of the vehicle to align it with the parallel parking spot.
Regarding claim 17: Hamada shows wherein the step of turning the rear wheel comprises engaging a power source (13) operatively coupled with the second steering mechanism to operate the second steering mechanism independently of the first steering mechanism.
Regarding claim 18: Hamada shows wherein the second steering mechanism comprises a rack and pinion steering mechanism.
Regarding claim 19: Hamada shows wherein the second steering mechanism (8) comprises a plate steering mechanism.
Regarding claim 20: Hamada shows, wherein the vehicle is a passenger vehicle.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada [GB 2173460] in view of Sakayori [WO 2020/158021] in further view of Chen [CN 107054452]
Regarding claim 9: Hamada does not show wherein the program comprises an artificial intelligence engine. However, Chen teachers wherein the program comprises an artificial intelligence engine (“…the unmanned vehicle collecting visual perception, artificial intelligence and programming control subject technology to a whole…”)
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the vehicle with artificial intelligence to efficiently operate the vehicle and make smarter operation decisions.
Claims 12, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada [GB 2173460] in view of Sakayori [WO 2020/158021] in further view of Ohmura [US Pat # 4,953,650].
Regarding claims 12 and 13: Hamada does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle comprises a primary power source for causing rotation of at least one of the front wheel and the rear wheel, wherein the primary power source comprises at least one of an internal combustion engine, an electric motor, and a hybrid thereof. However Ohmura shows wherein the vehicle comprises a primary power source for causing rotation of at least one of the front wheel and the rear wheel, wherein the primary power source comprises at least one of an internal combustion engine, an electric motor, and a hybrid thereof (“…a brake switch 39 for producing ON signal when a brake pedal is operated for braking effect of the vehicle, an engine switch 40 for producing ON signal when engine is under operation, and a signal from a L terminal 41 of an alternator so as to detect an abnormality thereof….”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the vehicle in Hamada reference with primary power source to power and provide mobility to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14: Hamada shows, wherein the vehicle is a passenger vehicle.
Regarding claim 15: Hamada does not explicitly show a lock mechanism that locks the rear wheel parallel with the longitudinal axis (see abstract, lines 4-7), wherein the lock mechanism can be selectively unlocked to allow turning of the rear wheel and selectively locked to prevent turning of the rear wheel. However Ohmura shows a lock mechanism that locks the rear wheel parallel with the longitudinal axis (see abstract, lines 4-7), wherein the lock mechanism can be selectively unlocked to allow turning of the rear wheel and selectively locked to prevent turning of the rear wheel (“…lock means for preventing the rear wheel steering mechanism from any steering movement when the target steering angle of the rear wheels is substantially constant, release means for releasing the lock means to allow the steering movement of the rear wheel steering mechanism..”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the steering system with lock mechanism to control the turning radius and adjust and the control which wheels to turn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The added new limitation “…wherein the second steering mechanism operates independently of the first steering mechanism such that the front wheel is turned independently of the rear wheel...” is taught by Sakayori [WO 2020/158021], Sakayori teaches wherein the second
steering mechanism operates independently of the first steering mechanism such that
the front wheel is turned independently of the rear wheel (see translation “… During low speed traveling, the front and rear wheels can be independently steered in opposite phases, and the minimum turning radius can be made smaller….”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, US Pat # 12,583,514 shows front and the rear steering are independent and a second steering mechanism operatively coupled to the rear wheel to change a turn angle of the rear wheel independently of the front wheel (see fig 2).
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 ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights