DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to the amended claims filed on 12/28/2025.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 are currently pending.
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
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) 1-5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Katoh (US 2017/0057498).
As to claim 1 Katoh discloses a method for operating a vehicle with a defect (what is a defect? It has no effect on the claim limitations as it is not even defined. The defect of the actuator could be as simple as a paint defect of the wheel actuator.) of a first single wheel steering actuator (This limitation needs to be further defined if it is intended to be system with individual wheel steering each wheel with its own steering actuator the claim limitations need to define such. Broadly interpreted it can be a common steering system with single wheels on each side as such the current art meets the limitation of a steering system for a system with single wheels on each side that has an malfunction.), comprising:
determining, with a control device of the vehicle (figure 1), an avoidance direction (figure 2) for a steering intervention to avoid a collision (figure 4 #S17) as a function of a speed (figure 4 #S18) of the vehicle and a first side of the vehicle on which a wheel associated with the first single wheel steering actuator is located (seen in figure 2 to avoid a collision with the obstacle the vehicle has a avoidance trajectory associated with steering the single front wheel actuator): and
automatically controlling a second single wheel steering actuator (figure 1 #S17) associated with a wheel on a second side opposite the first side based upon the determined avoidance direction (shown in figure 3).
As to claim 2 Katoh discloses the method according to Claim 1 in which the avoidance direction is further determined as a function of a distance to a collision object (paragraph 0037).
As to claim 3 Katoh discloses the method according to Claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the speed of the vehicle is less than a threshold value (figure 4 #S18), wherein determining the avoidance direction for the steering intervention comprises:
determining the avoidance direction to be away from the first side in response to the determining that the speed of the vehicle is less than the threshold value (figure 2).
As to claim 4 Katoh discloses the method according to Claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the speed of the vehicle is greater than a threshold value (paragraph 0099), wherein determining the avoidance direction for the steering intervention comprises:
determining the avoidance direction to be toward the first side of the defect in response to the determining that the speed of the vehicle is greater than the threshold value (paragraph 0100).
As to claim 5 Katoh discloses the method according to Claim 1, in which the steering intervention is classified as unsuitable if a needed avoidance space in the determined avoidance direction is occupied (paragraph 0079 due to speed there is unsuitable avoidance space).
As to claim 6 Katoh discloses the method according to Claim 1, in which an intervention distance for a braking intervention to avoid the collision is set as a function of the speed, an available avoidance space and the first side of the defect. (paragraph 0074)
As to claim 9 Katoh discloses a computer program product which is configured to direct a processor to execute, when executed by the control device, implement and/or control the method according to one of Claim 1 when said computer program product is executed (figure 1 and paragraph 0035).
As to claim 10 Katoh discloses a machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program product according to Claim 9 is stored (figure 1 and paragraph 0035).
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katoh (US 2017/0057498) in further view of Newman et al. (US 2019/0315345).
As to claim 7 Katoh discloses the method according to Claim 6. However is silent to the intervention distance is increased when the available avoidance space is occupied.
Discloses in paragraph 0043 adding distance when the rear avoidance space is not available. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the system of Newman to add intervention distance to the system of Katoh as both art designed for collision avoidance and Newman discloses in paragraph 0006 that it can be integrated with hazard avoidance systems.
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 SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 est.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747