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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/22/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because "US-2019164363" as cited in the IDS appears to be incorrectly cited as no document with this document number exists. Examiner believes this is a typographical error and should be "US-20190164363". Examiner recommends submitting a new IDS with the corrected document number for consideration. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 9/3 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because "US-2012/095649 A1" as cited in the IDS appears to be incorrectly cited as no document with this document number exists. Examiner believes this is a typographical error and should be " US-2012/0095649 A1". Examiner recommends submitting a new IDS with the corrected document number for consideration. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 500b-2. Examiner understands that this may be caused by a typographical error in Figure 5B wherein “400b-2” should read “500b-2”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 500c-2. Examiner understands that this may be caused a typographical error in paragraph 00134 line 1 wherein “400c-2” should read “500c-2”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1 amended paragraph below the title “CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS” should be numbered and all other paragraphs should be renumbered accordingly to maintain consistency within the application and prevent confusion.
Line 1 of paragraph 0075, 0086, 0098, and 00119 read “The method may be preformed” which appears to be a typographical error and should read “The method may be performed” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 1 reads “The method of claim 1, comprising” which appears to be a continuity error since the method has already been detailed to comprise steps as detailed in claim 1 and thus should read “The method of claim 1, further comprising” to maintain continuity between claims.
Claims 3, 7, 11, 17, and 20 lines 2-3, 2-3, 2-3, 1-2, and 1-2 respectively read “determining… comprising” which appears to be a conjugation error and should read “determining… comprises” to improve clarity.
Claim 6 lines 3-4 read “which a thrust angle of the front WCAs and a thrust angle of the rear WCAs being aligned” which appears to be a conjugation error and should read “which a thrust angle of the front WCAs and a thrust angle of the rear WCAs are aligned” to improve clarity.
Claim 9 line 7 reads “by torque sensors” but torque sensors already have antecedent basis to claim 7 and thus should read “by the torque sensors” to improve continuity within the application.
Claim 11 lines 15 and 21 read “when the vehicle platform being steered” which appears to be a conjugation error and should read “when the vehicle platform is steered” or “when the vehicle platform is being steered” to improve clarity.
Claim 11 lines 13-15 and lines 19-21 recite identical limitations. Examiner presumes that the applicant may have intended line 21 to read “second direction” instead of “first direction”. An interview on 9/3/2025 with Attorney Brenda Flockhart-Shanks indicated that this should indeed read “second direction”. For the purpose of examination, “first direction” will be replace with “second direction”.
Claim 11 line 24 reads “steering angles of the wheels of the front WCAs and the wheels of the rear WCAs” which already has antecedent basis to claim 1 and should read “the steering angles of the wheels of the front WCAs and the wheels of the rear WCAs” to improve clarity.
Claim 12 lines 2-3 read “steering angles of the front WCAs and the rear WCAs” which already has antecedent basis to claim 1 and should read “steering angles of the front WCAs and the rear WCAs” to improve clarity.
Claim 12 lines 3-4 read “when the front WCAs and the rear WCAs being toe controlled” which appears to be a conjugation error and should read “when the front WCAs and the rear WCAs are toe controlled” or “when the front WCAs and the rear WCAs are being toe controlled” to improve clarity.
Claim 20 line 14 reads “first steering angles” which already has antecedent basis to claim 15 and should read “the first steering angles” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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 sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1 and 15, the “computing device” in the limitation “Determining, by a computing device, steering angles” invokes 112(f) as “computing device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the determination of steering angles.
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.
A review of the specification (paragraph 00137) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“Computing device 600 may include a controller or processor 605 that may be, for example, a central processing unit processor (CPU), a chip or any suitable computing or computational device, an operating system 615, a memory 620, a storage 630, input devices 635 and output devices 640.” (Emphasis added)
Input and output devices do not have sufficient structure. A further review of the specification (paragraph 00140) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“Input devices 635 may be or may include a mouse, a keyboard, a touch screen or pad or any suitable input device. It will be recognized that any suitable number of input devices may be operatively connected to computing device 600 as shown by block 635. Output devices 640 may include one or more displays, speakers and/or any other suitable output devices. It will be recognized that any suitable number of output devices may be operatively connected to computing device 600 as shown by block 640. Any applicable input/output (I/O) devices may be connected to computing device 600, for example, a wired or wireless network interface card (NIC), a modem, printer or facsimile machine, a universal serial bus (USB) device or external hard drive may be included in input devices 635 and/or output devices 640.” (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, a computing device with be interpreted to comprise a controller or processor; operating system; a memory; a storage; a mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, NIC, modem, printer, fax, USB, or hard drive; and a display, speaker, NIC, modem, printer, fax, USB, or hard drive.
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.
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 9-10 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 9 recites the limitation "the second WCAs" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “second WCAs” will be interpreted as the front WCAs.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 9 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 does not further limit claim 1 which it depends upon. Instead, claim 2 claims any protocol may be performed which does not sufficiently place any metes or bounds upon the claimed invention and fundamentally claims every single way to control vehicle steering. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Examiner recommends cancelation of this claim as the specification does not appear to provide further insights of the protocol, and any additional detail would add new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funke et al. US 11136021 B1 (hereinafter Funke) in view of Larson et al. US 20040210362 A1 (hereinafter Larson).
Regarding claim 1, a method of automatically aligning wheel corner assemblies (WCAs) (Figure 1 106 wheels) of a vehicle platform (Figure 1 118 chassis) having front WCAs (Figure 3A 106A and 106B front wheels), rear WCAs (Figure 3A 106C and 106D rear wheels), and steering actuators coupled to the front WCAs (column 35 lines 34-40 "the steering assembly 126 A may include a steering actuator coupled to one or more of the first 35 tire 108A or the second tire 108B") and rear WCAs (column 22 lines 53-58 discloses a second steering assembly coupled to one or more of the rear two tires), wherein each of the front WCAs and each of the rear WCAs comprises a wheel (Figure 3A 106A-106D wheels), the method comprising:
measuring, by sensors of at least one of the front WCAs, the rear WCAs, the vehicle platform, or any combination thereof, a set of parameters (column 4 lines 14-20 disclose obtaining sensor data regarding lateral force acting on a vehicle; column 10 lines 27-33 discloses obtaining data from further vehicle sensors; column 15 lines 1-5 discloses obtaining sensor data regarding lateral force on a front tire; column 18 lines 4-35 provide a comprehensive list of sensors utilized including sensors related to all tires);
determining; by a computing device comprising a controller or processor (Figure 2 124 wheel controller; column 17 lines 4-22 discloses a processor to perform the method), memory (column 17 lines 23-49 disclose a memory with instructions stored upon to perform the method), storage (column 36 lines 11-16 detail additional storage that data can be transferred to), input device, and output device (column 17 line 50 to column 18 line 3 details an input/output interface which can have support for, for example, a USB); steering angles for the wheels of the front WCAs and the wheels of the rear WCAs to drive the vehicle platform in at least one of a zero yaw rate or a zero thrust angle based on the measured set of parameters (column 32 lines 1-14 detail an example of detecting direction of travel with sensors, determining there is misalignment, and adjusting wheel alignment when vehicle has tires misaligned with longitudinal access, i.e. having a non-zero thrust angle, of the vehicle as shown in Figure 10A; Figure 10B shows the corrected result; column 32 line 62 to column 33 line 2 details controlling the steering angles of both front and rear tires; such a correction requires a determination step for determining corrected steering values); and
controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators of the front WCAs and the steering actuators of the rear WCAs based on the determined steering angles to drive the vehicle platform in at least one of the zero yaw rate or the zero thrust angle (column 32 lines 1 to column 33 line 2, Figures 10A-10B).
Funke does not explicitly teach that the control device further comprises an operating system.
Larson teaches that the control device further comprises an operating system (Figure 1 discloses a wheel alignment computer 12 with an operating system 13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Funke to incorporate the teachings of Larson such that the computing device of Funke can include an operating system. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve usability and efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Funke reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Funke further teaches controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs of the vehicle platform to steer their respective wheels according to a predefined protocol (Abstract discloses various steering control protocols that can be performed).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Funke reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Funke discloses controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators to simultaneously steer the wheels of the front WCAs in the same direction (Figure 10A shows an example of driving the front wheels in the same direction).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Funke reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Funk further teaches determining, by the computing device, steering angles of at least one of the wheels of the front WCAs or the wheels of the rear WCAs for which a thrust angle of the front WCAs and a thrust angle of the rear WCAs being aligned with respect to each other (Figures 10A and 10B shows an example of controlling wheels to have an aligned thrust angle; such control would require a determination step); and
controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs based on the determined steering angles to align the thrust angle of the front WCAs and the thrust angle of the rear WCAs (Figures 10A and 10B).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funke as modified by Larson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kageyama et al. US 2015291210 A1 (hereinafter Kageyama).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Funke reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Funke does not teach disabling, by the computing device, a zero yaw rate control sub-functionality of a toe control functionality of the vehicle platform.
Kageyama teaches disabling, by the computing device, a zero yaw rate control sub-functionality of a toe control functionality of the vehicle platform (paragraph 0215 discloses that if an operator counter steers beyond a certain point, a yaw angle control will be stopped from determining a correction value).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Funke to incorporate the teachings of Kageyama such that a yaw rate control can be cancelled according to the teachings of Kageyama. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent from operator initiated counter-steering from being affected and allow operator to reliably perform counter-steering as disclosed in Kageyama (paragraphs 0215 and 0258).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funke as modified by Larson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang et al. US 20180201270 A1 (hereinafter Kang), Matsuno et al. US 20080221770 A1 (hereinafter Matsuno), and Falkenstein et al. US 20090321166 A1 (Falkenstein).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Funke reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Funke further teaches controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with the front WCAs and the rear WCAs to steer their respective wheels in a first direction by a first steering angle value (Figures 3A to 11B shows that both tire sets are capable of being steered in a plurality of directions, some examples like Figure 5B showing both tire sets steering in the same direction);
controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with the front WCAs and the rear WCAs to steer their respective wheels in a second direction by a second steering angle value (Figures 3A to 11B shows that both tire sets are capable of being steered in a plurality of directions, some examples like Figure 5B showing both tire sets steering in the same direction);
measuring, by an accelerometer sensor, a set of acceleration values of the vehicle platform (column 22 lines 63 to column 23 line 1 discloses obtaining acceleration measurements from an accelerometer to indicate a lateral force); and
determining, by the computing device, steering angles of the wheels of the front WCAs and the wheels of the rear WCAs to drive the vehicle platform in the zero thrust angle based on the measured set of acceleration values (column 32 lines 1-14 detail an example of detecting direction of travel with sensors, determining there is misalignment, and adjusting wheel alignment when vehicle has tires misaligned with longitudinal access, i.e. having a non-zero thrust angle, of the vehicle as shown in Figure 10A; Figure 10B shows the corrected result; column 32 lines 62 to column 33 line 2 details controlling the steering angles of both from and rear tires; such a correction requires a determination step for determining corrected steering values).
Funke does not explicitly teach controlling, by the computing device, drivetrain motors associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs to accelerate the vehicle platform to a predefined speed.
Kang teaches controlling, by the computing device, drivetrain motors associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs to accelerate the vehicle platform to a predefined speed (paragraph 0051 discloses accelerating a vehicle to a speed target).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Funke to incorporate the teachings of Kang such that a vehicle can be operated to accelerate to a target speed according to the teachings of Kang. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is a mere routine vehicle operation that can be utilized with a reasonable expectation of success to safely traverse an environment.
Funke does not teach controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with the front WCAs and the rear WCAs to steer the wheels of the front WCAs and the rear WCAs to drive the vehicle platform in the zero yaw rate.
Matsuno teaches controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with the front WCAs and the rear WCAs to steer the wheels of the front WCAs and the rear WCAs to drive the vehicle platform in the zero yaw rate (paragraph 0056 discloses controlling the front or rear steering to cancel out a yaw moment).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Funke to incorporate the teachings of Matsuno such that the yaw control of Matsuno can be incorporated into the vehicle of Funke. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to realize maximum traction and high steering stability as disclosed in Matsuno (paragraph 0056).
Funke does not teach controlling, by the computing device, the drivetrain motors associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs to subsequently accelerate and decelerate the vehicle platform when the vehicle platform being steered in the first direction, and controlling, by the computing device, the drivetrain motors associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs to subsequently accelerate and decelerate the vehicle platform when the vehicle platform being steered in the second direction.
Falkenstein teaches controlling, by the computing device, the drivetrain motors associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs to subsequently accelerate and decelerate the vehicle platform when the vehicle platform being steered in the first direction and controlling, by the computing device, the drivetrain motors associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs to subsequently accelerate and decelerate the vehicle platform when the vehicle platform being steered in the second direction (paragraph 0011 discloses routine acceleration and subsequent deceleration).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Funke to incorporate the teachings of Falkenstein such that a vehicle can be operated to accelerate and subsequently decelerate, regardless of steering direction, according to the teachings of Falkenstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is a mere routine vehicle operation that can be utilized with a reasonable expectation of success to safely traverse traffic scenarios where rapid or constant speed change is needed.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Funke reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above. Funke further teaches that the measured acceleration values comprise lateral acceleration values (column 23 line 64 to column 24 line 8 discloses that a lateral force detected by an accelerometer in column 22 lines 63 to column 23 line 1 is due to lateral acceleration indicating that lateral acceleration values were measured).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funke as modified by Larson, Kang, Matsuno, and Falkenstein as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Choi et al. US 20230045749 A1 (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Funke reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above.
Funke does not teach measuring, by steering angle sensors, steering angles of the front WCAs and the rear WCAs when the vehicle platform is at the predefined speed and when the front WCAs and the rear WCAs being toe controlled by the computing device;
determining, by the computing device, mean steering angles values based on the measured steering angle values; and
determining, by the computing device, the first steering angle value and the second steering angle value based on the mean steering angles values.
Choi teaches measuring, by steering angle sensors, steering angles of the front WCAs and the rear WCAs when the vehicle platform is at the predefined speed and when the front WCAs and the rear WCAs being toe controlled by the computing device (paragraph 0010 discloses making a determination based on obtained front and rear wheel angles indicating a step of obtaining the data was required; paragraph 0055 discloses a steering angle sensor indicating wheel angles are obtained with this sensor);
determining, by the computing device, mean steering angles values based on the measured steering angle values (paragraph 0014 discloses determining an average value of steering angles of left and right wheels); and
determining, by the computing device, the first steering angle value and the second steering angle value based on the mean steering angles values (paragraph 0014 discloses using an average value of steering angles of left and right wheels to define a normal steering angle; paragraph 0022 discloses that front wheels are controlled according to the defined normal steering angle; Abstract discloses that front and rear wheels may be controlled to the same steering angle or antiphase angle indicating that, in the control step of paragraph 0022, the front and rear steering angles, i.e. first and second steering angles, may be the same or antiphase).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Funke to incorporate the teachings of Choi such that the average steering angle determination and setting of steering angles to said average value according to Choi can be added to the vehicle of Funke. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for ideal and symmetrical control that improves stability and comfort of the drive.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funke in view of Larson and Matsuno.
Regarding claim 1, Funke teaches a method of automatically aligning wheel corner assemblies (WCAs) (Figure 1 106 wheels) of a vehicle platform (Figure 1 118 chassis) having front WCAs (Figure 3A 106A and 106B front wheels), rear WCAs (Figure 3A 106C and 106D rear wheels), and steering actuators coupled to the front WCAs (column 35 lines 34-40 "the steering assembly 126 A may include a steering actuator coupled to one or more of the first 35 tire 108A or the second tire 108B" ) and rear WCAs (column 22 lines 53-58 discloses a second steering assembly coupled to one or more of the rear two tires), wherein each of the front WCAs and each of the rear WCAs comprises a wheel (Figure 3A 106A-106D wheels), the method comprising:
determining; by a computing device comprising a controller or processor (Figure 2 124 wheel controller; column 17 lines 4-22 discloses a processor to perform the method), memory (column 17 lines 23-49 disclose a memory with instructions stored upon to perform the method), storage (column 36 lines 11-16 detail additional storage that data can be transferred to), input device, and output device (column 17 line 50 to column 18 line 3 details an input/output interface which can have support for, for example, a USB); first steering angles of the wheels of the rear WCAs to steer the rear WCAs to rotate in planes that are parallel with respect to each other (Figure 6B shows an example of controlling left and right wheels to be controlled symmetrically to its mate; this type of control would require a determination step to determine steering angles for the two wheels);
determining, by the computing device, a thrust angle of the rear WCAs based on the determined first steering angles (Figure 10A shows a determined steering direction of each rear wheel 304C-304D compared to a neutral steering direction 306 which examiner considers equivalent to a thrust angle in this embodiment since each wheel is individually powered and steered);
determining, by the computing device, second steering angles of the wheels of the front WCAs to steer the wheels of the front WCAs to rotate in planes that are parallel with respect to each other (Figure 6B shows an example of controlling left and right wheels to be controlled symmetrically to its mate; this type of control would require a determination step to determine steering angles for the two wheels);
determining, by the computing device, a thrust angle of the front WCAs based on the determined second steering angles (Figure 10A shows a determined steering direction of each front wheel 304A-304B compared to a neutral steering direction 306 which examiner considers equivalent to a thrust angle in this embodiment since each wheel is individually powered and steered);
controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs to steer their respective wheels to align the thrust angle of the front WCAs and the thrust angle of the rear WCAs with respect to each other (Figure 10A and 10B show an example of controlling wheels to have an aligned thrust angle);
determining, by the computing device, third steering angles of the wheels of the front WCAs and the wheels of the rear WCAs to drive the vehicle platform in a zero thrust angle (column 32 lines 1-14 detail an example of detecting direction of travel with sensors, determining there is misalignment, and adjusting wheel alignment when vehicle has tires misaligned with longitudinal access, i.e. having a non-zero thrust angle, of the vehicle as shown in Figure 10A; Figure 10B shows the corrected result; column 32 line 62 to column 33 line 2 detail controlling the steering angles of both front and rear tires; such a correction requires a determination step for determining corrected steering values); and
controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs based on the determined third steering angles to drive the vehicle platform in the zero thrust angle (column 32 line 1 to column 33 line 2 and Figures 10A-10B).
Funke does not explicitly teach that the control device further comprises an operating system.
Larson teaches that the control device further comprises an operating system (Figure 1 discloses a wheel alignment computer 12 with an operating system 13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Funke to incorporate the teachings of Larson such that the computing device of Funke can include an operating system. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve usability and efficiency of the device.
Funke does not teach controlling, by a computing device, the steering actuators associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs of the vehicle platform to steer their respective wheels to drive the vehicle platform in a zero yaw rate.
Matsuno teaches controlling, by a computing device, the steering actuators associated with at least one of the front WCAs or the rear WCAs of the vehicle platform to steer their respective wheels to drive the vehicle platform in a zero yaw rate (paragraph 0056 discloses controlling the front or rear steering to cancel out a yaw moment).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Funke to incorporate the teachings of Matsuno such that the yaw control of Matsuno can be incorporated into the vehicle of Funke. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to realize maximum traction and high steering stability as disclosed in Matsuno (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Funke reference teaches all of claim 15 as detailed above.
Funke does not teach determining steering angles of at least one of the wheels of the front WCAs or the wheels of the rear WCAs to drive the vehicle platform in the zero yaw rate.
Matsuno further teaches determining steering angles of at least one of the wheels of the front WCAs or the wheels of the rear WCAs to drive the vehicle platform in the zero yaw rate (paragraph 0056 discloses controlling the front or rear steering to cancel out a yaw moment; such a controlling step would require a determination step).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Funke to incorporate the further teachings of Matsuno such that the yaw control of Matsuno can be incorporated into the vehicle of Funke. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to realize maximum traction and high steering stability as disclosed in Matsuno (paragraph 0056).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-10, and 16-21 contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 3, 7-8, and 16-21 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.
Claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection detailed above and if further rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitation “determining, by the computing device, steering angles of the wheels of the front WCAs for which the wheels of the rear WCAs rotate at the same rotational speed with respect to each other based on the measured rotational speeds; and controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with the front WCAs based on the determined steering angles to drive the vehicle platform in the zero yaw rate” present in claims 3 and 17-18 appears to be novel and nonobvious. Matsuno teaches controlling, by the computing device, the steering actuators associated with the front WCAs to drive the vehicle platform in the zero yaw rate (paragraph 0056) as detailed above, however, it is not specific enough to detail that the steering angles used to control the vehicle in a zero yaw rate control are determined to ensure that the front and rear WCAs rotate at the same rotation speed. Because of this, Matsuno is broader than the claimed invention and cannot be properly applied to teach the specific species required by the invention. Hence, the claims contain allowable subject matter.
The limitation “determining, by the computing device, first steering angles for the wheels of the rear WCAs that cause the drivetrain motors to apply minimal torque values of the measured first torque values; determining, by the computing device, a thrust angle of the rear WCAs based on the determined first steering angles” in claims 7-10 and 20-21 appears to be novel and nonobvious. Funke teaches determining thrust angles for rear WCAs (Figure 10A), however, it is not so specific to specify that this is based on steering angles determined to apply a minimal torque to the rear WCAs. Because of this, Funke is broader than the claimed invention and cannot be properly applied to teach the specific species required by the invention. Hence, the claims contain allowable subject matter.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jammoussi et al. US 20200049499 A1 discloses determining a mean of steering angles after crossing a specific speed threshold.
Lee et al. US 20220315104 A1 teaches controlling wheels according to specific steering ranges.
Racine et al. US 8825303 B1 discloses a system that adjusts the steering angle of front and rear wheels to correct misalignment.
Shimada et al. US 20180224274 A1 discloses aligning wheels to eliminate a thrust angle.
“Thrust Angle” by Andrew Markel discloses determining a rear thrust angle based on steering angles of the rear wheels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 4:30 pm PST Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669