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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Objected to:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statements filed by the Applicant listed below:
September 5, 2024
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claim is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Line .
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (), hereinafter “” in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A steering device configured to control a turning angle of each wheel in a vehicle having three or more wheels not being mechanically constrained to each other and including one or more front wheels and one or more rear wheels, the wheels being configured to be steered independently, See at least ¶¶; “A right front wheel steering mechanism 25FR, a left front wheel steering mechanism 25FL, a right rear wheel steering mechanism 25RR, and a left rear wheel steering mechanism 25RL (hereinafter collectively referred to as "steering mechanisms 25" as necessary) are provided on the vehicle body 12 so as to correspond to the respective wheels 14. The right-front-wheel steering mechanism 25FR, the left-front-wheel steering mechanism 25FL, the right-rear-wheel steering mechanism 25RR, and the left-rear-wheel steering mechanism 25RL respectively include a right-front-wheel steering motor 24FR, a left-front-wheel steering motor 24FL, a right-rear-wheel steering motor 24RR, and a left-rear-wheel steering motor (hereinafter collectively referred to as "steering motors 24" as necessary). 24RLWhen a drive signal is input, each of the turning motors 24 rotates by an angle corresponding to the drive signal.” the steering device comprising:
an operation determination unit configured to determine a vehicle operation mode based on a vehicle state, the vehicle operation mode including a forward turning mode in which the vehicle turns while moving forward, a non-forward turning mode in which the vehicle turns without moving forward See at least ¶¶
a coordinate determination unit configured to determine coordinates of a turning center of the vehicle based on the vehicle operation mode determined by the operation determination unit; See at least ¶¶
a turning angle calculator configured to calculate a turning angle command value for each wheel based on the coordinates of the turning center determined by the coordinate determination unit; See at least ¶¶and
steering actuators provided correspondingly to the respective wheels, the steering actuators steering the respective wheels in accordance with the turning angle command values calculated by the turning angle calculator. See at least ¶¶
fails to explicitly disclose:
a lateral movement mode in which the vehicle moves in a lateral direction intersecting with a longitudinal axis of the vehicle;
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to facilitate parallel parking and parking in tight spaces. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to facilitate parallel parking and parking in tight spaces. See at least ¶¶. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
the turning angle calculator calculates the turning angle of each wheel so that a turning direction of each wheel is perpendicular to a straight line connecting the turning center and the center of each wheel. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
an axis passing through a center of the front wheel and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is a front wheel axis, an axis passing through a center of the rear wheel and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is a rear wheel axis, and the coordinate determination unit is configured to determine coordinates of a turning center on an inside of a turn of the vehicle and on an outside of the vehicle between the front wheel axis and the rear wheel axis when the operation determination unit determines the forward turning mode. See at least : ¶¶; Figs 6, 11
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
the coordinate determination unit is configured to determine coordinates of a turning center within the vehicle when the operation determination unit determines the non-forward turning mode. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
the vehicle state input to the operation determination unit includes a vehicle speed and an actual turning angle of each wheel. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
the turning angle calculator is one of turning angle calculators, the turning angle calculator and a steering actuator of the steering actuators corresponding to each wheel are integrally provided, and the steering actuator operates in accordance with the turning angle command value calculated by the turning angle calculator for each wheel.
It has been held that the use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B)). Additionally, it has been held that the term "integral" is not limited to a fabrication of parts from a single piece of metal, but inclusive of other means for maintaining parts fixed together as a single unit. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Applicant has not disclosed that utilizing a turning angle calculator is one of turning angle calculators, the turning angle calculator and a steering actuator of the steering actuators corresponding to each wheel are integrally provided, and the steering actuator operates in accordance with the turning angle command value calculated by the turning angle calculator for each wheel does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. calculate turning angle for each wheel utilizing an integral calculator and actuator).
Since applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that utilizing an integral calculator and actuator for each wheel is significant in any way, 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 the system of the combination of references to utilize integrally provided turning angle calculators and steering actuators corresponding to each wheel, and operating the steering actuator operates in accordance with the turning angle command value calculated by the turning angle calculator for each wheel and produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of engineering choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B)).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
the turning angle calculator is a singular element and configured to calculate turning angle command values for all wheels, and the steering actuator of each wheel operates in accordance with the turning angle command value calculated by the turning angle calculator. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A steering device configured to control a turning angle of each wheel in a vehicle having three or more wheels not being mechanically constrained to each other and including one or more front wheels and one or more rear wheels, the wheels being configured to be steered independently, See at least ¶¶; “A right front wheel steering mechanism 25FR, a left front wheel steering mechanism 25FL, a right rear wheel steering mechanism 25RR, and a left rear wheel steering mechanism 25RL (hereinafter collectively referred to as "steering mechanisms 25" as necessary) are provided on the vehicle body 12 so as to correspond to the respective wheels 14. The right-front-wheel steering mechanism 25FR, the left-front-wheel steering mechanism 25FL, the right-rear-wheel steering mechanism 25RR, and the left-rear-wheel steering mechanism 25RL respectively include a right-front-wheel steering motor 24FR, a left-front-wheel steering motor 24FL, a right-rear-wheel steering motor 24RR, and a left-rear-wheel steering motor (hereinafter collectively referred to as "steering motors 24" as necessary). 24RLWhen a drive signal is input, each of the turning motors 24 rotates by an angle corresponding to the drive signal.”the steering device comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer program code, See at least ¶¶ wherein
the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the steering device to carry out:
determining a vehicle operation mode based on a vehicle state, the vehicle operation mode including a forward turning mode in which the vehicle turns while moving forward, a non-forward turning mode in which the vehicle turns without moving forward, See at least ¶¶
determining coordinates of a turning center of the vehicle based on the vehicle operation mode; See at least ¶¶ and
calculating a turning angle command value for each wheel based on the coordinates of the turning center. See at least ¶¶
fails to explicitly disclose:
a lateral movement mode in which the vehicle moves in a lateral direction intersecting with a longitudinal axis of the vehicle
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to facilitate parallel parking and parking in tight spaces. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to facilitate parallel parking and parking in tight spaces. See at least ¶¶. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above and further in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
the coordinate determination unit is configured to determine coordinates of a turning center with a center of gravity of the vehicle as an origin.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to reduce the road width required for swivel. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to reduce the road width required for swivel. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of Claim for purposes of evaluation under 35 USC § 101 as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
() “”
() “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Abstract Ideas:
With respect to Independent Claim , claim limitations ()-() recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitations ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper. Limitations ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
References Cited
R1: ()
R2: ()
R3: ()
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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 on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747