DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Inventorship
2. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites the element “generator” in line 6 which is not specifically described in the specification. Note: Application discloses “the turning controller 50 has a command value generator 55”. It is the Examiner’s position that “the generator” is totally difference from “a command value generator”; therefore, the generator is not described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009090850 A [hereinafter ‘850 Patent] in view of JP 6-47388 B2 [hereinafter ‘388 Patent].
Regarding claim 1, notes Figure 1, ‘850 Patent teaches a turning controller [Figure 1] configured to control turning of each wheel in a vehicle equipped with turning actuators [steering motors (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d)] that independently steer three or more wheels that are not mechanically coupled to each other [para. 0033 teaches a four-wheel independent steering vehicle and includes a left front wheel WFL, a right front wheel WRF, a left rear wheel WRL, and a right rear wheel WRR] and a steering command device for automated driving or a steering mechanism [steering wheel (40)] of a steer-by-wire system [Figure 1 illustrates a steer-by-wire system], which is mechanically separated from the turning actuators (12a-12d), the turning controller [Figure 1] comprising: a generator [as far as understood, ECU (50) would be understanding as a generator] configured to generate a final steering command value [target turning angle] based on a steering angle signal output [steering angle (θh)] from the steering mechanism (40) [para. 0052] or a steering command value output [steering torque (Th)] from the steering command device [steering torque sensor (24)]; a calculator [ECU (50)] configured to calculate a turning angle command value (δFL*, δFR*, δRL*, δRR*) for each wheel [para. 0052]; and controllers [motor drive circuits (13a-13d)] provided in correspondence with the turning actuators (12a-12d), each of the controllers (13a-13d) being configured to control a driving current supplied to a turning actuator of the turning actuators so that the turning angle output by the turning actuator follows the turning angle command value (δFL*, δFR*, δRL*, δRR*) [para. 0052], wherein the calculator (50) is configured to calculate the turning angle command value (δFL*, δFR*, δRL*, δRR*) for each wheel based on the final steering command value [target turning angle] and vehicle speed para. 0053 teaches the characteristics of the target steered angle SL* may be changed in accordance with the vehicle speed].
‘850 Patent fails to specifically disclose the higher the vehicle speed, the more the turning angle is reduced with respect to the final steering command value.
Notes Figures 1 and 6-8, ‘388 Patent teaches the turning control device for turning, independently of each other, four wheels (2, 2, 3, 3), wherein the rotational center O of the vehicle is changed according to the vehicle speed V; because the rearward movement amount X of the rotational center O is defined such that X = AV and the rotation radius r is defined such that r = r0(α) + AV, the rotation radius increases as the vehicle speed V increases; that is, turning can be considered to be increasingly suppressed as the vehicle speed V increases [see corresponding explanations that related to Figures 1 and 6-8.
Since the prior art references are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by ‘388 Patent would have been recognized in the pertinent art of ‘850 Patent.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the turning controller of ‘850 Patent to be including the condition of the higher the vehicle speed, the more the turning angle is reduced with respect to the final steering command value as taught by ‘388 Patent for the purpose of improving the automated driving operation of the vehicle to maintain stable turning travel.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, the modified ‘850 Patent further teaches a setting unit [control unit (4)] configured to set a turning center of vehicle turning based on the final steering command value and the vehicle speed [‘388 Patent teaches the turning center O of the vehicle is set on the basis of the steering wheel angle (α) and the vehicle speed], wherein the setting unit (4) is configured to, as the calculator, calculate the turning angle command value for each wheel so that a turning direction of each wheel is orthogonal to a straight line connecting the turning center and a center of the wheel [‘388 Patent further teaches the Ackermann cutting angle (β) of the wheels are calculated so the turning direction of each wheel is orthogonal to a straight line that connects the turning center O and the center of each wheel].
Regarding claim 6, see discussion and motivation in claim 1.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘850 Patent in view of ‘388 Patent, and further in view of JP2003095123 A [hereinafter ‘123 Patent].
Regarding claim 5, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, the modified ‘850 Patent further teaches the steering angle signal, the steering command value, and the final steering command value are zero when the vehicle is moving straight ahead and take a positive value or a negative value depending on a steering direction relative to a neutral position [discussion in claim 1].
However, the modified ‘850 Patent specifically fail to disclose the calculator is configured to calculate the turning angle command value for each wheel to maintain the vehicle in a straight-line state in response to an absolute value of the final steering command value being less than a steering lower limit threshold value.
‘123 Patent teaches disclose the control device (120) is configured to calculate the turning angle command value for each wheel to maintain the vehicle in a straight-line state in response to an absolute value of the final steering command value being less than a steering lower limit threshold value [para. 0003 and 0029].
Since the prior art references are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by the modified ‘388 Patent would have been recognized in the pertinent art of ‘123.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have improved the turning controlling system of the modified ‘850 Patent to be including the steering automated control system as taught by ‘123 Patent for the purpose of improving the automated driving operation of the vehicle to maintain stable turning travel such that the traveling stability when the vehicle is traveling straight.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), First Paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art references do not disclose a setting axis is orthogonal to a vehicle longitudinal axis, a setting distance is between the vehicle longitudinal axis and the turning center, and the setting unit is configured to: control the setting distance and set the turning center on the setting axis; and determine the setting distance using a three-dimensional map which defines relationships between the final steering command value and the setting distance for respective vehicle speeds; and
Regarding claim 4, the prior art references do not disclose each of setting axes is orthogonal to a vehicle longitudinal axis, a setting distance is between the vehicle longitudinal axis and the turning center, and the setting unit is configured to: control the setting distance and set the turning center on one of the setting axes; change among the setting axes for setting the turning center in accordance with vehicle speeds; and determine the setting distance on the changed setting axis using a three-dimensional map which defines relationships between the final steering command value and the setting distance for respective vehicle.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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, 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
September 24, 2026
/JHH/
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
