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 . Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters. 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u)(2). Additionally, view numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.” See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u)(1). Furthermore, FIG. 3 is objected to because the lead lines are not sufficiently sharp and clear to distinguish the various parts of the illustration (see, e.g., “308a”). See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l).
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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, 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.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbach (U.S. Pat. No. 8,996,224, hereinafter “Herbach”) in view of Skaaksrud et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,331,790, hereinafter “Skaaksrud”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Herbach discloses a vehicle configured to operate in an autonomous driving mode (Abstract), the vehicle comprising: a driving system configured to control driving of the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode (col. 29, ll. 21-24), a plurality of wheels each configured for independent actuation by the driving system relative to one or more other ones of the plurality of wheels (col. 27, ll. 47-53), and a control system (1606) operatively connected to the driving system (col. 29, ll. 19-20), the control system (1606) having one or more computer processors (col. 1, line 65 - col. 2, line 2). Herbach does not disclose the claimed (i) identifying and adjustments, as recited in Claim 1.
However, Skaaksrud discloses a processor configured to: identify selected ones of the plurality of wheels to independently actuate in order to address an operating condition, and cause actuation of the selected ones of the plurality of wheels independently of one another to control one or more adjustments of the selected ones of the plurality of wheels when operating in the autonomous driving mode to address the operating condition (col. 74, l. 51 - col. 75, l. 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Skaaksrud with those of Herbach to provide increased maneuverability and safety during autonomous operation.
Regarding Claim 2, Herbach discloses that the one or more adjustments include a turning angle adjustment (e.g., when a wheel 1616 of vehicle 1600 rotates differently with respect to other wheels 1616; col. 28, ll. 51-53).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach in view of Yanez (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0282970 A1).
The combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed angle. However, Yanez discloses [that the] one or more adjustments (i) include a toe angle adjustment (FIGS. 7 and 8; ¶ [0027]), as recited in Claim 3, and (ii) enable the vehicle to achieve a selected turning radius (FIGS. 7 and 8; ¶ [0061]), as recited in Claim 5.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yanez with those of Skaaksrud and Herbach to reduce tire slippage, reduce tire wear, and optimize driving performance (¶ [0005]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach in view of Zetterstrom et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,386,553 B2, hereinafter “Zetterstrom”).
The combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed adjustment. However, Zetterstrom discloses one or more adjustments [that] include a camber angle adjustment (col. 2, ll. 49-55).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zetterstrom with those of Skaaksrud and Herbach to provide a computer-based control unit having software functions for dynamic adjustment of wheel alignment (col. 2, ll. 49-53).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach in view of Sakuma (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0201188 A1, hereinafter “Sakuma”).
The combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed buffer. However, Sakuma discloses one or more adjustments enable the vehicle to maintain a distance buffer relative to another vehicle (¶ [0105]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sakuma with those of Skaaksrud and Herbach to ensure a safe braking distance between a front vehicle.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skaaksrud, Herbach, and Sakuma, in view of Switkes (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0324763 A1, hereinafter “Switkes”).
The combination of Skaaksrud, Herbach, and Sakuma, discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed selection. However, Switkes discloses (i) a distance buffer selected based on a size of (i) the vehicle ¶ [0031]; a size of the rear vehicle), and (ii) the other vehicle (¶ [0031]; the front or leading vehicle). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Switkes with those of Skaaksrud, Herbach, and Sakuma, to provide driving assistance suitable for a driving characteristic of a driver during deceleration and stop of a vehicle (¶ [0007]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach in view of Nowak (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0132142 A1, hereinafter “Nowak”).
The combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed selection. However, Nowak discloses that the (i) operating condition includes an uneven road surface, and actuation of the selected ones of the plurality of wheels is performed to smooth out a ride of the vehicle over the uneven road surface (“gravel road”; ¶ [0023]), as recited in Claim 9, (ii) the operating condition includes an object along or adjacent to a roadway, and actuation of the selected ones of the plurality of wheels is performed to avoid the object (snow, gravel; ¶ [0023]), as recited in Claim 10, and (iii) object is a static object along or adjacent to the roadway, as recited in Claim 11.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nowak with those of Skaaksrud and Herbach to increase driver safety and object avoidance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skaaksrud, Herbach, and Nowak, in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0132142 A1, hereinafter “Hu”).
The combination of Skaaksrud, Herbach, and Nowak, discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed selection. However, Hu discloses that the static object is a signage (“traffic sign”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hu with those of Skaaksrud, Herbach, and Nowak, to increase driver safety utilizing dynamic speed limiting dependent on vehicle location.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skaaksrud, Herbach, and Nowak, in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0132142 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
The combination of Skaaksrud, Herbach, and Nowak, discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed adjustments. However, Lee discloses that the one or more adjustments provide both a selected turning radius and at least a minimum distance from the object in an adjacent lane (FIG. 10; col. 15, ll. 28-47).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with those of Skaaksrud, Herbach, and Nowak, to provide increased safety between an adjacent vehicle during vehicle turning operations.
Claim 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach in view of Rust et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0334790 A1, hereinafter “Rust”).
The combination of Skaaksrud and Herbach discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed system. However, Rust discloses (i) a perception system including a set of sensors configured to detect objects in an environment surrounding the vehicle, the set of sensors being positioned along the vehicle to create a 360°, overlapping and at least partly redundant field of view ¶ [0089]), as recited in Claim 14, and (ii) one or more computer processors are configured to receive sensor data from the perception system and determine the operating condition based upon the received sensor data (¶ [0090]), as recited in Claim 15.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rust with those of Skaaksrud and Herbach to provide optical feedback to a device user.
Claim 16 includes language similar to that of Claim 15 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Nowak discloses that that (i) detected condition is a road condition (¶ [0023]), as recited in Claim 17, and (ii) one or more computer processors are configured to receive sensor data from a perception system of the vehicle and determine the road condition based upon the received sensor data (¶ [0023]), as recited in Claim 18.
Claim 19 and 20 include language similar to that of Claim 15 and Claim 2, respectively, and are rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm.
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, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights