DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/965,401 filed on May 7, 2026 in which claims 2-11 were amended.
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
Claims 1-12 are pending, of which claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is object to because the claim limitation “wherein, the compensating for the insufficient cornering force the driving device to reduce a driving force or controlling the braking device to increase a braking force” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because this claim fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § § 1.121(c). Specifically, portions of the claim were removed entirely without applying the proper markup. If future responses fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. § § 1.121, those actions shall be deemed non-compliant.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 refer “normal” wheels. This shall be interpreted as a wheel that is not a “failed wheel” as detected in claims 1 or 7, respectively. If this is not Applicant’s intended interpretation, the examiner recommends replacing this term with claim language that better defines the intended interpretation.
Claim 3 includes the limitation “wherein, to compensate for the insufficient cornering force provided by the failed wheel,” a function is performed. The statement that the function is “to compensate for the insufficient cornering force provided by the failed wheel” is a statement of the intended use of the function. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 8 recites a method claim including the limitation “wherein the control method further comprises, in response to the speed of the vehicle being less than or equal to the threshold value, controlling the steering device by additionally steering a normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof or controlling the driving device to increase a driving force.” (Emphasis added). Because neither claim 8 nor parent claim 7 include a limitation requiring the speed of the vehicle to be less than or equal to a threshold value, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the control device to control the driving device, braking device, or steering device as claimed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional).
Claim Interpretation—35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” “step,” or a generic placeholder, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations are modified by functional language. Such claim limitations are: “steering device,” “driving device,” “braking device” and in claims 1-10.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “wherein, to compensate for the insufficient cornering force provided by the failed wheel, the processor is further configured to increase a driving force in the driving device of at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof that is installed in a different direction from a direction of the failed wheel” is awkward and confusing. (Emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “wherein the processor is further configured to control the driving device to reduce a driving force of the failed wheel or to reduce a driving force of at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof located in the same direction as a direction of the failed wheel, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force” is awkward and confusing. (Emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the processor is further configured to control the braking device to increase a braking force of the failed wheel or increase a braking force of at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof located in the same direction as a direction of the failed wheel, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force” is awkward and confusing. (Emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an operation of controlling the driving device to reduce a driving force of a normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof located in the same direction as a direction of the failed wheel” is awkward and confusing. (Emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, this claim includes the limitation “wherein the processor is further configured to control the driving device to reduce a driving force of the failed wheel or to reduce a driving force of at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof located in the same direction as a direction of the failed wheel, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force.” (Emphasis added). The “thereby” clause is subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations.
First, this clause may be interpreted as a statement of intended use of the control of the driving device. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, under this interpretation, the compensation for insufficient cornering force would not actually be required, so long as the claimed control occurred.
Second, this clause may be interpreted to affirmatively require that the insufficient cornering force is compensated for.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, this claim includes the limitation “wherein the processor is further configured to control the braking device to increase at least one braking force of the failed wheel or increase a braking force of a normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof located in the same direction as a direction of the failed wheel, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force.” (Emphasis added). The “thereby” clause is subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations.
First, this clause may be interpreted as a statement of intended use of the control of the driving device. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, under this interpretation, the compensation for insufficient cornering force would not actually be required, so long as the claimed control occurred.
Second, this clause may be interpreted to affirmatively require that the insufficient cornering force is compensated for.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, this claim includes the limitations “control the driving device to reduce a driving force; or control the braking device to increase a braking force, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force” and “wherein, in response to the speed of the vehicle being less than or equal to the threshold value, the processor is further configured to control the steering device to additionally steer at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof or control the driving device of the at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof to increase a driving force, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force.” (Emphasis added). The “thereby” clause is subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations.
First, this clause may be interpreted as a statement of intended use of the control of the driving device. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, under this interpretation, the compensation for insufficient cornering force would not actually be required, so long as the claimed control occurred.
Second, this clause may be interpreted to affirmatively require that the insufficient cornering force is compensated for.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, this claim includes the limitations:
determining a failure in a steering device, a driving device, and a braking device installed on each of a plurality of wheels;
determining a location of a failed wheel;
calculating an insufficient cornering force of the failed wheel in response to a failure occurring in any one steering device among the plurality of wheels; and
compensating for the insufficient cornering force by controlling at least one of the steering device, the driving device, and the braking device installed on each of the plurality of wheels. (Emphasis added).
Specifically, the first limitation of this claim appears to require all three of the steering device, driving device, and braking device of all wheels of the plurality of wheels to fail. However, the second and third limitations appear to state that only a single wheel has a failure, contradicting the first limitation. Further, the third limitation appears to state that only one of the steering device, driving device, or braking device has a failure, also contradicting the first limitation.
Therefore, because this claim includes multiple contradictions, the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the examiner shall interpreted this claim as commensurate in scope with independent claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-12, these claims depend from claim 7 and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al., US Publication 2023/0045749 (hereinafter Choi) in view of Hagiwara, US Publication 2022/0227354 (hereinafter Hagiwara).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a control apparatus of a four-wheel independent control vehicle, the control apparatus comprising “a plurality of wheels each installed with a steering device … and a braking device; and (Choi ¶¶ 41, 45-46, Fig. 1) where wheels 10a and 10c (i.e., a plurality of wheels) are shown on the vehicle 10, where wheel 10a is individually connected to electro-mechanical brake (EMB) 100 (i.e., a braking device) and steer-by-wire controller (SWB) 500 (i.e., a steering device) and wheel 10c is individually connected to a separate EMB 100 and rear-wheel steering controller (RWS) 400. Additionally, Choi discloses “a processor.” (Choi ¶ 93). Further, Choi discloses “wherein, in response to occurrence of a failure in any one steering device among the plurality of wheels, the processor is configured to: determine a location of a failed wheel” (Choi ¶¶ 45-46) where the RWS and SBW controllers report which controllers have failed. Moreover, Choi discloses “calculate an insufficient cornering force of the failed wheel” (Choi ¶¶ 79-87) by disclosing the process for which an understeer or oversteer event are determined, which is based on the cornering force as shown in the given formula. Thus, a determination of an understeer or oversteer event is a determination that there was insufficient cornering force. Finally, Choi discloses “compensate for the insufficient cornering force by controlling at least one of the steering device, the driving device, and the braking device installed on each of the plurality of wheels” (Choi ¶ 81) where the RWS and SBW controllers may determine corrective steering or braking measures to be implemented to compensate for the understeer or oversteer event.
Choi does not appear to explicitly disclose a plurality of wheels each installed with a steering device and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “a plurality of wheels each installed with a steering device a driving device, and a braking device.”
However, Hagiwara discloses a control apparatus of a four-wheel independent control vehicle, the control apparatus comprising “a plurality of wheels each installed with a … driving device, and a braking device” (Hagiwara ¶ 29, 127) where each of the four wheels include a separate motor configured to rotate the wheel (i.e., a driving device, Hagiwara ¶ 29) and a mechanical brake (i.e., a braking device, Hagiwara ¶ 127). Additionally, Hagiwara discloses “a processor.” (Hagiwara ¶ 55). Finally, Hagiwara discloses “wherein, in response to occurrence of a failure in any one steering device among the plurality of wheels, the processor is configured to: compensate for the understeer or oversteer event by controlling at least one of the steering device, the driving device, and the braking device installed on each of the plurality of wheels” (Hagiwara ¶¶ 37, 42, see also ¶ 91) by increasing the torque (i.e., a controlling the motor) to compensate for the understeer situation. (Hagiwara ¶ 37). Hagiwara continues by disclosing that the torque to all four wheels may be controlled. (Hagiwara ¶ 42).
Choi and Hagiwara are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of correction devices to mitigate understeer and oversteer of a vehicle.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Choi and Hagiwara before him or her to modify the wheels of Choi to further include the individual steering device of Hagiwara.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would provide an additional safety option upon the occurrence of an understeer or oversteer event, which provides redundancy in the case of the other safety method of Choi failed.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein the processor is further configured to compensate for the insufficient cornering force by additionally steering the steering device of at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof” (Choi ¶ 51) by controlling the steering of the vehicle in the event of a controller 300 failure.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein, to compensate for the insufficient cornering force provided by the failed wheel, the processor is further configured to increase a driving force in the driving device of at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof that is installed in a different direction from a direction of the failed wheel” (Hagiwara ¶¶ 37, 42, see also ¶ 91) by increasing the torque (i.e., a controlling the motor) to compensate for the understeer situation. (Hagiwara ¶ 37). Hagiwara continues by disclosing that the torque to all four wheels may be controlled, which would include the wheels without any failure. (Hagiwara ¶ 42).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein the processor is further configured to control the driving device to reduce a driving force of the failed wheel or to reduce a driving force of at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof located in the same direction as a direction of the failed wheel, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force” (Hagiwara ¶ 215) by decreasing the torque (i.e., a controlling the motor) of the right front wheel.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein the processor is further configured to control the braking device to increase a braking force of the failed wheel or increase a braking force of at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof located in the same direction as a direction of the failed wheel, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force” (Choi ¶ 44) by braking the vehicle when one of controllers 300 fails.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein, in response to a speed of the vehicle being greater than a threshold value, the processor is further configured to: control the driving device to reduce a driving force; or control the braking device to increase a braking force, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force” (Choi, ¶¶ 81, 83, 85) by comparing the front wheel speed to the rear wheel speed and when the front wheel speed is greater than the rear wheel speed, an understeer state is determined, which may result in control of the braking device to increase a braking force. Further, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein, in response to the speed of the vehicle being less than or equal to the threshold value, the processor is further configured to control the steering device to additionally steer at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof or control the driving device of the at least one normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof to increase a driving force, thereby compensating for the insufficient cornering force” (Choi ¶¶ 83, 86) by comparing the front wheel speed to the rear wheel speed and when the front wheel speed is less than the rear wheel speed, perform a steering control for the front wheels by continuing to steer the front wheels in the current manner.
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses a processor-implemented control method of a four-wheel independent control vehicle, the control method comprising “determining a failure in a steering device … and a braking device installed on each of a plurality of wheels.” (Choi ¶¶ 41, 45-46, Fig. 1) where wheels 10a and 10c (i.e., a plurality of wheels) are shown on the vehicle 10, where wheel 10a is individually connected to electro-mechanical brake (EMB) 100 (i.e., a braking device) and steer-by-wire controller (SWB) 500 (i.e., a steering device) and wheel 10c is individually connected to a separate EMB 100 and rear-wheel steering controller (RWS) 400. Additionally, Choi discloses “determining a location of a failed wheel” (Choi ¶¶ 45-46) where the RWS and SBW controllers report which controllers have failed. Further, Choi discloses “calculating an insufficient cornering force of the failed wheel in response to a failure occurring in any one steering device among the plurality of wheels” (Choi ¶¶ 79-87) by disclosing the process for which an understeer or oversteer event are determined, which is based on the cornering force as shown in the given formula. Thus, a determination of an understeer or oversteer event is a determination that there was insufficient cornering force. Finally, Choi discloses “compensating for the insufficient cornering force by controlling at least one of the steering device, the driving device, and the braking device installed on each of the plurality of wheels” (Choi ¶ 81) where the RWS and SBW controllers may determine corrective steering or braking measures to be implemented to compensate for the understeer or oversteer event.
Choi does not appear to explicitly disclose a plurality of wheels each installed with a steering device and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining a failure in a steering device, a driving device, and a braking device installed on each of a plurality of wheels.”
However, Hagiwara discloses a control method of a four-wheel independent control vehicle, the control method comprising “determining a failure in … a driving device, and a braking device installed on each of a plurality of wheels; (Hagiwara ¶ 29, 127) where each of the four wheels include a separate motor configured to rotate the wheel (i.e., a driving device, Hagiwara ¶ 29) and a mechanical brake (i.e., a braking device, Hagiwara ¶ 127). Additionally, Hagiwara discloses “compensating for the understeer or oversteer event by controlling at least one of the steering device, the driving device, and the braking device installed on each of the plurality of wheels” (Hagiwara ¶¶ 37, 42, see also ¶ 91) by increasing the torque (i.e., a controlling the motor) to compensate for the understeer situation. (Hagiwara ¶ 37). Hagiwara continues by disclosing that the torque to all four wheels may be controlled. (Hagiwara ¶ 42).
Choi and Hagiwara are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of correction devices to mitigate understeer and oversteer of a vehicle.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Choi and Hagiwara before him or her to modify the wheels of Choi to further include the individual steering device of Hagiwara.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would provide an additional safety option upon the occurrence of an understeer or oversteer event, which provides redundancy in the case of the other safety method of Choi failed.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein, the compensating for the insufficient cornering force the driving device to reduce a driving force or controlling the braking device to increase a braking force” (Choi, ¶ 81) by determining the adequacy of the steering (i.e., insufficient cornering force) and increasing the braking force. Further, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein, the control method further comprises, in response to the speed of the vehicle being less than or equal to the threshold value, controlling the steering device by additionally steering a normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof, or controlling the driving device to increase a driving force” (Choi ¶¶ 83, 86) by comparing the front wheel speed to the rear wheel speed and when the front wheel speed is less than the rear wheel speed, perform a steering control for the front wheels by continuing to steer the front wheels in the current manner.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein the compensating for the insufficient cornering force, comprises performing at least one of: an operation of controlling the steering device to additionally steer a normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof; and an operation of controlling the driving device to increase a driving force of the normal wheel installed in a different direction from a direction of the failed wheel” (Choi ¶ 51) by controlling the steering of all four wheels of the vehicle in the event of a controller 300 failure, meaning that a steering action is performed on those wheels without any failure in the steering device.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein the compensating for the insufficient cornering force comprises performing at least one of: an operation of controlling the driving device to reduce a driving force of the failed wheel; an operation of controlling the driving device to reduce a driving force of a normal wheel without any failure in the steering device thereof located in the same direction as a direction of the failed wheel; ” (Hagiwara ¶ 215) by decreasing the torque (i.e., a controlling the motor) of the right front wheel. Further, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein in the compensating, the processor is configured to perform at least one of: … an operation of controlling the braking device to increase a braking force of the failed wheel; an operation of controlling the braking device to increase a braking force of the normal wheel located in the same direction as the direction of the failed wheel; or any combination thereof” (Choi ¶ 44) by braking the vehicle when one of controllers 300 fails.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein, the compensating for the insufficient cornering force comprises controlling the vehicle to perform a cornering motion based on a corrected cornering force.” (Choi ¶ 87).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Choi and Hagiwara discloses “wherein the corrected cornering force takes into account the failed wheel” (Choi ¶ 44) by taking into account the failure when determining braking forces to apply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 7, 2026 with relation to the application of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is not germane to the interpretation presented (Remarks 7), because the prior office action clearly stated that no such interpretation was being applied. (Non-Final Act. 5).
Applicant’s arguments filed May 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 7) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 4-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant argues these rejections should be withdrawn because these claims have been “amended for clarity.” (Remarks 7). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that “[m]odifying Choi according to Hagiwara by providing a steering device, a driving device, and a braking device to each of the wheels will render Choi as being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (i.e., detection of failure in a wheel brake and compensating via remaining brakes and steering angle adjustments)” because “the Steer- by-Wire/SBW (front) and Rear-Wheel Steering/RWS (rear) electronic steering control of Choi will have to be unnecessarily be modified to provide independent steering, braking, and driving for each of the wheels, and in addition, Choi will have to be further modified to detect steering failure in each of the wheels and compensate for such failure, resulting in unreasonable complexity, cost, and reduced reliability.” (Remarks 9). The examiner disagrees.
First, Applicant overly narrows the intended purpose of Choi. Choi explicitly states that it’s intended purpose is “improving a braking performance during a failure of a brake-by-wire device.” (Choi ¶ 2).
Second, Applicant presents no evidence that such a modification would render Choi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as required by 37 C.F.R. § § 1.111(b). It is well-settled that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, because Applicant has presented no substantive argument, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights