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 § 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 2, 5-6 and 11-16 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.
In re claims 2 and 11, claim 2 recites “determine the steering angle error based on lane information obtained by an image sensor of the sensor module operatively connected to the processor in a situation that the lane information of the vehicle corresponds to a straight state” in lines 7-10. Claim 11 recites “determine the steering angle error based on lane information obtained by an image sensor of the sensor module operatively connected to the processor in response that the lane information of the vehicle corresponds to a straight state” in lines 7-10. Here, the recitation of “the sensor module operatively connected to the processor in a situation that the lane information of the vehicle corresponds to a straight state” within the limitation is problematic because it suggests that the sensor module is operatively connected to the vehicle only when the vehicle is in a situation where it is traveling in a straight line and that when the vehicle is not in a situation where it is traveling in a straight line, that the sensor module is not operatively connected.
In re claims 5 and 12, claim 5 recites “determine that the wheel alignment is abnormal in response that the steering angle error falls outside the reference steering angle error range” in lines 4-6. Claim 12 recites “determine that the wheel alignment is abnormal in response that the steering angle error falls outside the reference steering angle error range” in lines 5-7. Claim 5 depends upon claim 1, which recites “wheel alignment is abnormal based on at least one of the steering angle error and the rack force error”. In the case that it is determined that the wheel alignment is abnormal based on the rack force error (from claim 1), it is unclear in the claim how it is determined that the wheel alignment is abnormal in response that the steering angle error falls outside the reference steering angle error range, as required by claim 5. Mutatis mutandis Claim 12.
In re claims 6 and 13, claim 6 recites “determine that the wheel alignment is abnormal in response that the rack force error falls outside the reference rack force error range” in lines 4-6. Claim 13 similarly recites “determine that the wheel alignment is abnormal in response that the rack force error falls outside the reference rack force error range” in lines 5-7. Claim 6 depends upon claim 1, which recites “wheel alignment is abnormal based on at least one of the steering angle error and the rack force error”. In the case that it is determined that the wheel alignment is abnormal based on the steering angle error (from claim 1), it is unclear in the claim how it is then determined that the wheel alignment is abnormal in response that the rack force error falls outside the reference rack force error range, as required by claim 6. Mutatis mutandis Claim 13.
In re claim 14, claim 14 recites “the wheel alignment is determined to be abnormal due to at least one of the steering angle error and the rack force error, after the determining of whether the wheel alignment is abnormal” in lines 4-7. Here, the recitation of “after the determining of whether the wheel alignment is abnormal” is problematic because it is unclear in the claim how the recitation would further limit the claim, since the preceding recitation in the claim requires that the wheel alignment is determined to be abnormal due to at least one of the steering angle error and the rack force error. Claims 15-16 are further rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
Claims 2, 5-6 and 11-14 are rejected
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7-10 allowed.
Claims 2, 5-6 and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-16 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.
Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record fails to show or reasonably teach in combination an apparatus for detecting abnormal wheel alignment having the recited elements, as required by claim 1, including
determine a rack force error including
a difference between
a first rack force estimated based on information that has been fed back by a motor driven power steering system (MDPS) module of the vehicle and
a second rack force estimated based on information including
a yaw rate and
a lateral acceleration obtained by the sensor module, and
determine whether wheel alignment is abnormal based on at least one of
the steering angle error and
the rack force error;
or a method for detecting abnormal wheel alignment having the recited elements, as required by claim 10, including
determining a rack force error including
a difference between
a first rack force estimated based on
information that has been fed back by a motor driven power steering system (MDPS) module of a vehicle and
a second rack force estimated based on
a yaw rate and
a lateral acceleration included in the sensing information; and
determining, by the processor, whether wheel alignment is abnormal based on at least one of
the steering angle error and
the rack force error.
The prior art of Tong et al. (U.S. 20190325290) is the closest prior art of record and teaches a method and apparatus that detect wheel misalignment are provided. The method includes predicting a self-aligning torque parameter based on a regression model determined from a dataset including one or more from among a steering wheel angle parameter, a speed parameter, a torsion bar torque parameter, a lateral acceleration parameter, and a power steering torque parameter, comparing a measured self-aligning torque parameter and the predicted self-aligning torque parameter, and outputting a wheel alignment condition indicating whether the wheel alignment is proper if the self-aligning torque parameter and the predicted self-aligning torque parameter are within a predetermined value based on the comparing (abstract).
Tong further teaches that the controller 101 of the apparatus that detects a wheel alignment condition 100 may be configured to comparing the measured self-aligning torque parameter and the predicted self-aligning torque parameter by transmitting the measured self-aligning torque parameter to a server configured to analyze the measured self-aligning torque parameter and receiving the wheel alignment condition indicating whether the measured self-aligning torque parameter and the predicted self-aligning torque parameter are within the predetermined value based from the server ([0052]).
Tong also teaches in ([0055]) that in operation S230, a wheel alignment condition indicating whether the wheel alignment is proper is output if the self-aligning torque parameter and the predicted self-aligning torque parameter are within a predetermined value based on the comparing. The predetermined value may correspond to a correctly calibrated wheel alignment and the outputting the wheel alignment condition may output a value corresponding to at least one from among a negative camber condition of wheels, a positive camber condition of wheels, a cross-camber condition of wheels, a toe-in condition of wheels, a toe-out condition of wheels, a cross-toe condition of wheels, a total-toe condition of wheels and a cross caster condition of wheels.
However, the prior art of Tong et al. fails to further teach the limitation of determining a rack force error including a difference between a first rack force estimated based on information that has been fed back by a motor driven power steering system (MDPS) module of a vehicle and a second rack force estimated based on a yaw rate and a lateral acceleration included in the sensing information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights