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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holler (US2024/0278773 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Holler teaches an apparatus for controlling a four-wheel independent steering vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor module (Paragraphs 27, 28, it would be known there is a sensor module to detect parameters); and
a processor configured to perform parking through selective control of a front-wheel drive module and a rear-wheel drive module in consideration of at least one of an angle between the four-wheel independent steering vehicle and a parking surface, a position and shape of the parking surface, or a direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle entering the parking surface (Paragraphs 27, 28), based on information detected through the sensor module, upon parking using a CRAB mode of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle (Figs. 2, 5, Paragraphs 29, 32, the teachings would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 2, Holler teaches the apparatus, wherein the processor checks whether the parking surface is available for parking in a lateral direction or a longitudinal direction based on the information detected through the sensor module (Paragraphs 27, 28).
Regarding to Claim 3, Holler teaches the apparatus, wherein the processor checks whether a longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle is parallel to a longitudinal direction of the parking surface or a long side of a rectangle that marks the parking surface, when the parking surface is available for parking in the lateral direction (Fig. 5, Paragraph 32, based on the teachings, it would be known the vehicle would park once the vehicle is parallel to the parking spot, so it would be obvious there is a mechanism to detect whether the vehicle is parallel to the parking spot).
Regarding to Claim 7, Holler teaches the apparatus, wherein, when the parking surface is available for parking in the longitudinal direction, the processor checks whether an angle of a longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle with respect to a reference direction is identical to an angle of a longitudinal direction of the parking surface or an angle of a long side of a rectangle that marks the parking surface with respect to the reference direction (Paragraphs 27, 28).
Regarding to Claim 10, Holler teaches a method of controlling a four-wheel independent steering vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting, by a processor, an angle between a longitudinal direction of a parking surface and a longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle through a sensor module upon parking using a CRAB mode of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle (Paragraphs 27, 28 teach angle detection, Figs. 2, 5, Paragraphs 29, 32, the teachings would reflect the limitations regarding to CRAB mode under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
performing, by the processor, the parking through selective control of a front-wheel drive module and a rear-wheel drive module, based on information detected through the sensor module, in consideration of at least one of the angle between the four-wheel independent steering vehicle and the parking surface, a position and shape of the parking surface, or a direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle entering the parking surface (Paragraphs 27, 28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holler (US2024/0278773 A1) in view of Tachiiri (US2024/0286602 A1).
Regarding to Claim 4, Holler fails to explicitly disclose, but Tachiiri teaches an apparatus, wherein, when the longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle is not parallel to the long side of the parking surface, the processor controls a drive module that drives a wheel that is further from the long side of the parking surface, among the front-wheel drive module and the rear-wheel drive module, according to a specified setting, to control the four-wheel independent steering vehicle to approach the parking surface so that the longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle becomes parallel to the long side of the parking surface [Tachiiri teaches a vehicle system would operate a pivot turn to become parallel to a side of the parking area (Tachiiri, Figs. 6-8, Paragraphs 46-49, Paragraphs 50-53 is the operation, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to allow the vehicle to park in a narrow space (Tachiiri, Paragraph 26).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holler to incorporate the teachings of Tachiiri to control a vehicle parking in a specific way in order to allow the vehicle to park in a narrow space (Tachiiri, Paragraph 26).
Regarding to Claim 6, Holler in view of Tachiiri teaches the modified apparatus, wherein the processor simultaneously controls the front-wheel drive module and the rear-wheel drive module in the CRAB mode, when the longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle is parallel to the long side of the parking surface, to move the four-wheel independent steering vehicle in the lateral direction to park the vehicle onto the parking surface (Holler, Figs. 2, 5, Paragraphs 29-32, and applying the teachings of Tachiiri, Paragraphs 46-53 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 8, Holler fails to explicitly disclose, but Tachirri teaches an apparatus, when the angle of the longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle with respect to the reference direction is not identical to the angle of the long side of the parking surface or the angle of the long side of the rectangle that marks the parking surface with respect to the reference direction, the processor controls the front-wheel drive module and the rear-wheel drive module in opposite directions to each other to rotate the four-wheel independent steering vehicle such that the angle of the long side of the parking surface and the angle of the longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle with respect to the reference direction are identical [Tachiiri teaches a vehicle system would operate a pivot turn to become parallel to a side of the parking area (Tachiiri, Figs. 6-8, Paragraphs 46-49, Paragraphs 50-53 is the operation, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to allow the vehicle to park in a narrow space (Tachiiri, Paragraph 26).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holler to incorporate the teachings of Tachiiri to control a vehicle parking in a specific way in order to allow the vehicle to park in a narrow space (Tachiiri, Paragraph 26).
Regarding to Claim 9, Holler in view of Tachiiri teaches the modified apparatus, wherein, when the angle of the longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle with respect to the reference direction becomes identical to the angle of the long side of the parking surface or the angle of the long side of the rectangle that marks the parking surface with respect to the reference direction, the processor simultaneously controls the front-wheel drive module and the rear-wheel drive module in the CRAB mode to move the four-wheel independent steering vehicle in the lateral direction within a range in which the four-wheel independent steering vehicle is able to enter the parking surface, and then to move the four-wheel independent steering vehicle in the longitudinal direction onto the parking surface to park the four-wheel independent steering vehicle (Holler, Figs. 2, 5, Paragraphs 29-32, and applying the teachings of Tachiiri, Paragraphs 46-53 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holler (US2024/0278773 A1) in view of Inagaki (US2015/0100193 A1).
Regarding to Claim 5, Holler fails to explicitly disclose, but Inagaki teaches an apparatus, wherein, when the longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle is not parallel to the long side of the parking surface, the processor controls a drive module that drives a wheel that is closer to the long side of the parking surface, among the front-wheel drive module and the rear-wheel drive module, according to a specified setting, to control the four-wheel independent steering vehicle to move away from the parking surface so that the longitudinal direction of the four-wheel independent steering vehicle becomes parallel to the long side of the parking surface [Inagaki teaches a parking operation (Inagaki, Figs. 5, 6, Paragraphs 41-48, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to reduce the discomfort during the operation (Inagaki, Paragraph 41).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holler to incorporate the teachings of Inagaki to control a vehicle parking in a specific way in order to reduce the discomfort during the operation (Inagaki, Paragraph 41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747