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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 3 and 4 do not have proper text in flow chart boxes. 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, the 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
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohe (US Patent No. 4,645,025) in view of Braun et al (US Patent No. 4,607,028)
Regarding claim 1, Ohe teaches A control system for a vehicle, the control system comprising one or more controllers, the control system configured to:
receive a speed-dependent signal from a wheel speed sensor, the speed-dependent signal being dependent on a rate at which teeth of a toothed wheel move past the wheel speed sensor; and (column 4 line 1-15 vehicle speed signal with pulses the number of which corresponds to vehicle speed wave shaper 9a. 20 figure 13 read average speed. [US PG Pub No. 2005/0075827 evidentiary support that speed signal pulses are from wheel speed teeth sensor (paragraph 4 figure 2a-2b])
Ohe does not explicitly teach however Braun teaches in dependence on the speed-dependent signal, permitting rear wheel steering of the vehicle (figure 5a column 10 line 1-20 dead band. The purpose of dead band is to permit front wheel steer present amount before beginning rear wheel steer (in this case 5 degrees before rear wheel steer)… column 10 line 45-60 figure 5a dead band is high at low speeds which keeps rear wheel straight ahead in low speed maneuvers… line 60-65 vehicle speed divided in 3 ranges for dead band)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohe based on the teachings of Braun to teaches in dependence on the speed-dependent signal, permitting rear wheel steering of the vehicle. The motivation would be to increase maneuverability and reduce accidents (Braun column 10 line 45-60).
Regarding claim 2, Ohe teaches wherein the one or more controllers collectively comprise: at least one electronic processor having an electrical input for receiving the speed-dependent signal; and
at least one memory device electrically coupled to the at least one electronic processor (figure 13 and 1 and 9) and having instructions stored therein;
Ohe does not explicitly teach however Braun teaches
and wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions thereon so as to permit rear wheel steering of the vehicle in dependence on the speed-dependent signal. (column 8 line 30-35 curves stored on memory controller)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohe based on the teaching of Braun to teach wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions thereon so as to permit rear wheel steering of the vehicle in dependence on the speed-dependent signal. The motivation would be to simplify all wheel steering modes.
Regarding claim 3, Ohe teaches wherein the speed-dependent signal is a time-dependent waveform in which a respective feature is generated each time a tooth of the toothed wheel moves past the wheel speed sensor (200 figure 13 read average speed column 4 line 1-15 see claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ohe teaches wherein the controller is configured to permit rear wheel steering in dependence on a plurality of successive features within the speed-dependent signal occurring within a predetermined time interval (200 figure 13 read average speed. Examiner interprets that average is inherent in a time interval).
Regarding claim 5, Ohe does not explicitly teach however Braun teaches wherein the controller is configured to permit rear wheel steering in dependence on a second feature within the speed- dependent signal occurring within a predetermined time interval with respect to a first feature within the speed-dependent signal (examiner interprets 2nd feature to be medium speed and first feature to be low speed figure 5a)
Regarding claim 6, Ohe teaches wherein the respective features are peaks or troughs of a repeating waveform (see claim 1 a wave pule is a wave peak or trough of a repeated waveform see also [US PG Pub No. 2005/0075827 evidentiary support])
Regarding claim 7, Ohe teaches wherein the control system is configured to estimate a speed of a road wheel or the vehicle based on the speed-dependent signal, and (see claim 1)
Ohe does not explicitly teach however Braun teaches to permit rear wheel steering if the estimated speed is greater than a threshold value (figure 5a see claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohe based on the teachings of Braun to teach to permit rear wheel steering if the estimated speed is greater than a threshold value. The motivation would be to increase maneuverability and reduce accidents (Braun column 10 line 45-60).
Regarding claim 8, Ohe teaches wherein the estimation of speed is carried out using fewer than ten features of the speed-dependent signal, preferably fewer than five features of the speed-dependent signal, and still more preferably only two features of the speed-dependent signal (see claim 1 a wave pule is a wave peak or trough of a repeated waveform see also [US PG Pub No. 2005/0075827 evidentiary support]).
Regarding claim 9, Ohe does not teach however Braun teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate a vehicle or road wheel speed signal from the speed-dependent signal, and wherein, at least below a predetermined speed, a decision to permit the rear wheel steering of the vehicle is made in dependence on the speed-dependent signal and not the speed signal (figure 5a and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify wherein the controller is configured to generate a vehicle or road wheel speed signal from the speed-dependent signal, and wherein, at least below a predetermined speed, a decision to permit the rear wheel steering of the vehicle is made in dependence on the speed-dependent signal and not the speed signal. The motivation would be to increase maneuverability and reduce accidents (Braun column 10 line 45-60).
Regarding claim 10, Ohe does not explicitly teach however Braun teaches wherein the controller is configured to receive speed-dependent signals from a plurality of sensors, each sensor associated with a different road wheel of the vehicle, and wherein the controller permits rear wheel steering in dependence on the speed-dependent signals generated by each of the plurality of sensors (figure 5a and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohe based on the teachings of Braun to teach wherein the controller is configured to receive speed-dependent signals from a plurality of sensors, each sensor associated with a different road wheel of the vehicle, and wherein the controller permits rear wheel steering in dependence on the speed-dependent signals generated by each of the plurality of sensors. The motivation would be to increase maneuverability and reduce accidents (Braun column 10 line 45-60).
Regarding claim 11, Ohe teaches wherein the controller permits rear wheel steering only if the speed-dependent signals for all of the plurality of sensors are indicative of the respective road wheel being in motion (average speed claim 1)
Regarding claim 12, Ohe does not explicitly however Braun teaches wherein the controller is configured to permit rear wheel steering in dependence on the speed- dependent signal only in a subset of driving modes of the vehicle (column 6 line 10-30 different modes RWS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohe based on the teachings of Braun to teach wherein the controller is configured to permit rear wheel steering in dependence on the speed- dependent signal only in a subset of driving modes of the vehicle. The motivation would be to increase maneuverability and reduce accidents (Braun column 10 line 45-60).
Regarding claim 13, Ohe teaches A vehicle comprising a rear wheel steering system, one or more wheel speed sensors associated with at least the rear wheels of the vehicle, and a control system according to claim 1 (102 average wheel speed of 4 wheels 93a-93d figure 9a)
Regarding claim 14, Ohe does not explicitly teach however Braun teaches comprising a front wheel steering system, wherein the control system is configured to permit steering via the front wheel steering system mode while not permitting steering via the rear wheel steering system based on the speed-dependent signal (dead band see claim 1 column 10 line 1-20 figure 5a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohe based on the teachings of Braun to teach comprising a front wheel steering system, wherein the control system is configured to permit steering via the front wheel steering system mode while not permitting steering via the rear wheel steering system based on the speed-dependent signal. The motivation would be to increase maneuverability and reduce accidents (Braun column 10 line 45-60).
Regarding claim 15 and 16, see the rejection to claim 1 and 2 as the limitations are substantially similar
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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 (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747