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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action filed 03/25/2026, Claims 1 and 2 were amended, Claim 14 was cancelled. Claims 1-13 and 15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC § 102a1 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103 over Jung (U.S. 2021/0155287A1) in view of Ho (KR20070107322A) as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (U.S. 2021/0155287A1) in view of Ho (KR20070107322A). Jung discloses “A control method of an in-wheel motor vehicle includes: determining, by a controller, a state of a steering load that is a load of a steering system; maintaining, by the controller, a front wheel brake in a released state, when the state of the steering load is in a high load state of a predetermined level or more; determining, by the controller, a tire angle of a front wheel according to a driver steering input based on driver steering input information in the released state of the front wheel brake; determining, by the controller, a required tire rotational angle of the front wheel by using the determined tire angle of the front wheel; and reducing, by the controller, the steering load by driving an in-wheel motor of the front wheel for a compensation by the determined required tire rotational angle of the front wheel.” (Abstract) and “an in-wheel system is introduced as a representative example of a motor driven system, and the in-wheel system is a system that has an in-wheel motor mounted in each wheel of a vehicle (vehicle wheel) so that each wheel of the vehicle may be driven and controlled independently by the in-wheel motor” (¶0004). Ho discloses “A device of adjusting king pin offset of an automobile is provided to improve driving stability of a driver by variably controlling a king pin off-set according to the driving condition. The lower end of a suspension shock absorber(100) is coupled to a knuckle(210) installed on an upper arm(200). A slide hole(211) passes through the knuckle of the upper arm. A bolt(300) is fastened to a nut, which is formed at the lower end of the suspension shock absorber, and is inserted through the slide hole. An electromagnet(400) causing the bolt inserted into the slide hole to move in one direction by magnetic force, is installed on the knuckle. The electromagnet installed on the knuckle is supplied with power through a current source(E) supplied with electric current, which is set to magnitude and direction suitable for a traveling state of the automobile by a central processing unit(D).” (Abstract)
Regarding Claim 1, Jung discloses: A computer system (Fig. 4), for steering of a vehicle (“vehicle”; Abstract) at standstill (¶0050; “When the driver steers, i.e., when the rotation of the steering wheel 5 is operated without depressing a brake pedal in a vehicle stopped state, as illustrated in FIG. 3”), wherein a steered wheel of the vehicle is configured to be individually driven (¶0004), the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to apply a torque to the steered wheel (Fig. 5, S16; ¶0097), wherein the torque is configured to cause a rotation of the steered wheel (¶0100; “As described above, it is possible to forcibly drive the in-wheel motor 23 of the front wheel for the compensation by the required tire rotational angle (θ) of the front wheel, and thus reduce the load of the steering system.”) that corresponds to a rolling distance of the steered wheel (Fig. 7, ¶0092, “wheel center movement distance (A)”), wherein the rolling distance depends on a change of steering angle (¶0090; Fig. 6; “α refers to the tire angle”) multiplied by a steering axis offset (Fig. 6, ¶0090; “K refers to the distance from the kingpin axis to the wheel center”)
Jung does not explicitly teach: the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: use an individually controllable suspension for the steered wheel to manipulate a steering axis offset, wherein the steering axis offset is defined as a lateral distance from a tire center plane to an intersection between steering axis and ground surface, and wherein raising the steered wheel moves the intersection between steering axis and ground surface outwards from the vehicle
Ho teaches: a computer system comprising processing circuitry (Fig. 6, CPU ‘D’) configured to: use an individually controllable suspension (Fig. 5-6; shock absorber 100, knuckle 210, upper arm 200, slide hole 211, bolt 300, electromagnet 400) for the steered wheel to manipulate a steering axis offset (Pages 7, “kingpin offset”), wherein the steering axis offset is defined as a lateral distance from a tire center plane to an intersection between steering axis and ground surface (Page 7, “kingpin offset”; “the kingpin offset is the distance between the kingpin axis of the vertical line passing through the center of the strut top mount (110) of the suspension shock absorber (100) and the center of the lower arm ball joint, as shown in FIG. 1, and the point where the kingpin axis touches the road surface and the point where the center line of the tire (T) touches the road surface.”),, and wherein raising the steered wheel moves the intersection between steering axis and ground surface outwards from the vehicle (Fig. 5-6, movement of the bolt 300 from one side of the slide hole to the other causes the steered wheel moving through an arc path since the upper point of the shock absorber is fixed. As a result the steered wheel will raise/lower relative to the fixed upper point of the shock absorber which represents the vehicle.) “so that a kingpin offset suitable for the vehicle’s operating state is implemented, thereby simultaneously improving the ride comfort of the passengers in the cabin and the control stability of the driver operating the vehicle.” (page 8) and that “the steering ability of the driver is improved by reducing steering force” (page 11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the in-wheel steering control system of Jung to incorporate the teachings of Ho to include the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: use an individually controllable suspension for the steered wheel to manipulate a steering axis offset, wherein the steering axis offset is defined as a lateral distance from a tire center plane to an intersection between steering axis and ground surface, and wherein raising the steered wheel moves the intersection between steering axis and ground surface outwards from the vehicle “so that a kingpin offset suitable for the vehicle’s operating state is implemented, thereby simultaneously improving the ride comfort of the passengers in the cabin and the control stability of the driver operating the vehicle.” (page 8) and that “the steering ability of the driver is improved by reducing steering force” (page 11).
Regarding Claim 2, Jung discloses A computer-implemented method (Fig. 5) for steering of a vehicle (“vehicle”; Abstract) at standstill (¶0050; “When the driver steers, i.e., when the rotation of the steering wheel 5 is operated without depressing a brake pedal in a vehicle stopped state, as illustrated in FIG. 3”), wherein a steered wheel of the vehicle is configured to be individually driven (¶0004), the method comprising: applying, by processing circuitry of a computer system (Fig. 4, controller 10) , a torque to the steered wheel (Fig. 5, S16; ¶0097), wherein the torque is configured to cause a rotation of the steered wheel (¶0100; “As described above, it is possible to forcibly drive the in-wheel motor 23 of the front wheel for the compensation by the required tire rotational angle (θ) of the front wheel, and thus reduce the load of the steering system.”) that corresponds to a rolling distance of the steered wheel (Fig. 7, ¶0092, “wheel center movement distance (A)”), wherein the rolling distance depends on a change of steering angle (¶0090; Fig. 6; “α refers to the tire angle”) multiplied by a steering axis offset (Fig. 6, ¶0090; “K refers to the distance from the kingpin axis to the wheel center”)
Jung does not explicitly disclose: the method comprising: using, by processing circuitry of a computer system, an individually controllable suspension for the steered wheel to manipulate a steering axis offset, wherein the steering axis offset is defined as a lateral distance from a tire center plane to an intersection between steering axis and ground surface, and wherein raising the steered wheel moves the intersection between steering axis and ground surface outwards from the vehicle
Ho teaches: (): using, by processing circuitry of a computer system Fig. 6, CPU ‘D’), an individually controllable suspension (Fig. 5-6; shock absorber 100, knuckle 210, upper arm 200, slide hole 211, bolt 300, electromagnet 400) for the steered wheel to manipulate a steering axis offset (Pages 7, “kingpin offset”), wherein the steering axis offset is defined as a lateral distance from a tire center plane to an intersection between steering axis and ground surface (Page 7, “kingpin offset”; “the kingpin offset is the distance between the kingpin axis of the vertical line passing through the center of the strut top mount (110) of the suspension shock absorber (100) and the center of the lower arm ball joint, as shown in FIG. 1, and the point where the kingpin axis touches the road surface and the point where the center line of the tire (T) touches the road surface.”),, and wherein raising the steered wheel moves the intersection between steering axis and ground surface outwards from the vehicle (Fig. 5-6, movement of the bolt 300 from one side of the slide hole to the other causes the steered wheel moving through an arc path since the upper point of the shock absorber is fixed. As a result the steered wheel will raise/lower relative to the fixed upper point of the shock absorber which represents the vehicle.) “so that a kingpin offset suitable for the vehicle’s operating state is implemented, thereby simultaneously improving the ride comfort of the passengers in the cabin and the control stability of the driver operating the vehicle.” (page 8) and that “the steering ability of the driver is improved by reducing steering force” (page 11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the in-wheel steering control system of Jung to incorporate the teachings of Ho to include using, by processing circuitry of a computer system, an individually controllable suspension for the steered wheel to manipulate a steering axis offset, wherein the steering axis offset is defined as a lateral distance from a tire center plane to an intersection between steering axis and ground surface, and wherein raising the steered wheel moves the intersection between steering axis and ground surface outwards from the vehicle “so that a kingpin offset suitable for the vehicle’s operating state is implemented, thereby simultaneously improving the ride comfort of the passengers in the cabin and the control stability of the driver operating the vehicle.” (page 8) and that “the steering ability of the driver is improved by reducing steering force” (page 11).
Regarding Claim 3, Jung further discloses wherein the rolling distance (A) of the steered wheel equals the change of steering angle (α refers to the tire angle) multiplied by the steering axis offset (“K refers to the distance from the kingpin axis to the wheel center; ¶0091; Equation 1)
Regarding Claim 4, Jung further discloses wherein the steering axis offset (K) is based on a change of suspension and/or on suspension kinematics (Fig. 1-2, 6; Kingpin axis tilt angle, suspension geometry, etc.)
Regarding Claim 5, Jung further discloses wherein the vehicle comprises first and second steered wheels (Fig. 2 showing first and second steered wheels) configured to be individually driven (“the in-wheel system is a system that has an in-wheel motor mounted in each wheel of a vehicle (vehicle wheel) so that each wheel of the vehicle may be driven and controlled independently by the in-wheel motor”; ¶0004), and wherein applying the torque to the steered wheel comprises applying a first torque to the first steered wheel and a second torque to the second steered wheel, wherein the first and second torques have opposite direction (Fig. 3, ¶0050; “as illustrated in FIG. 3, the outside vehicle wheel of the turning vehicle, i.e., the outer wheel rotates the tire 4 forwards, and the inner wheel that is the inside vehicle wheel rotates the tire backwards. [0051] In other words, comparing the tire position (wheel center) before and after the steering when the tire 4 rotates around the kingpin axis (A) during the steering, as illustrated in FIG. 3, the wheel center of the right (RH) tire 4 moves forwards around the kingpin axis during the left turn in which the vehicle turns to the left by the driver steering to the left, and the wheel center of the right (RH) tire 4 moves backwards around the kingpin axis during the right turn. [0052] The present disclosure uses this principle, and as the main feature, rotates the in-wheel motor in a direction in which the tire rotates (being a movement direction of the wheel center) during the steering of the in-wheel motor vehicle. Thus, the steering load may be reduced.” ¶0050-0053)
Regarding Claim 6, Jung further discloses wherein the individual drive for a steered wheel is implemented by a corresponding electric motor associated with the steered wheel (“the in-wheel system is a system that has an in-wheel motor mounted in each wheel of a vehicle (vehicle wheel) so that each wheel of the vehicle may be driven and controlled independently by the in-wheel motor”; ¶0004), and wherein applying the torque comprises controlling the electric motor to apply the torque (“The present disclosure uses this principle, and as the main feature, rotates the in-wheel motor in a direction in which the tire rotates (being a movement direction of the wheel center) during the steering of the in-wheel motor vehicle. Thus, the steering load may be reduced.” ¶0050-0053)
Regarding Claim 7, Jung further discloses further comprising, before applying the torque, reducing, by the processing circuitry, a braking force applied to the steered wheel (Fig. 5, S12; ¶0070 and ¶0073)
Regarding Claim 8, Jung further discloses further comprising increasing, by the processing circuitry, a braking force applied to non-steered wheels of the vehicle (¶0073; “ if it is in a state where the driver is depressing a brake pedal, the front wheel brake is forcibly released because the compensation control using a front wheel in-wheel motor 23 for the front wheel is performed to reduce the load of the steering system as described below. The rear wheel brake maintains the operating state without being released because the compensation control for the rear wheel is not performed” e.g. relative to the braking force applied to the front wheels (now forcibly released), the rear braking force is increased (i.e. maintained))
Regarding Claim 9, Jung further discloses further comprising determining, by the processing circuitry, whether a braking force of non-steered wheels of the vehicle fulfills a safety condition (¶0074; “the controller 10 may determine whether the driver operates the brake pedal from the signal of a Brake Pedal Sensor (BPS).”), and reducing the braking force applied to the steered wheel responsive to the safety condition being fulfilled (Fig. 5, S12, ¶0073 “if it is in a state where the driver is depressing a brake pedal, the front wheel brake is forcibly released because the compensation control using a front wheel in-wheel motor 23 for the front wheel is performed to reduce the load of the steering system as described below”)
Regarding Claim 10, Jung further discloses wherein the determination comprises determining whether a current braking force applied to non-steered wheels of the vehicle fulfills the safety condition (¶0074; “the controller 10 may determine whether the driver operates the brake pedal from the signal of a Brake Pedal Sensor (BPS).”), and/or determining whether a maximum braking force applicable to non-steered wheels of the vehicle fulfills the safety condition (¶0073; “if it is in a state where the driver is depressing a brake pedal, the front wheel brake is forcibly released because the compensation control using a front wheel in-wheel motor 23 for the front wheel is performed to reduce the load of the steering system as described below. The rear wheel brake maintains the operating state without being released because the compensation control for the rear wheel is not performed.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Jung further discloses A control system (Fig. 4) comprising one or more control units (Fig. 4, controller 10) configured to perform the method of claim 2 (Fig. 5; ¶0100 “As described above, it is possible to forcibly drive the in-wheel motor 23 of the front wheel for the compensation by the required tire rotational angle (θ) of the front wheel, and thus reduce the load of the steering system.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Jung further discloses A vehicle (Abstract “A control method of an in-wheel motor vehicle”) comprising the computer system of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Jung further discloses: The vehicle of claim 12, further comprising one or more steered wheels with individual drive (“the in-wheel system is a system that has an in-wheel motor mounted in each wheel of a vehicle (vehicle wheel) so that each wheel of the vehicle may be driven and controlled independently by the in-wheel motor”; ¶0004)
Regarding Claim 15, Jung further discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (¶0077; “The map or the table is setting data that is used by being input and stored in advance in the controller 10”; stored in advance implies a non-transitory computer readable storage medium) comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform (¶0038; “the controller or controllers described herein may include a processor programmed to perform the noted operation, function, operation, or the like”)the method (Fig. 5) of claim 2.
Conclusion
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oswald et al. (U.S. 4702843) discloses “The wheel member positioning control means is also responsive to the steering control of the vehicle 10 when the Normal primary operating mode and the Loaded secondary operating mode are selected. FIG. 5 illustrates loading of the wheel members 14 when the steering control directs the vehicle 10 along a straight forward path, wherein substantially equivalent loads are placed on all of the wheel members 14. Once a turn is directed by the steering control, the wheel member positioning means extends the piston rods 76 of the first and fourth suspension assemblies 20 on each side of the vehicle 10 to reduce the load supported by the end-most wheel members 14.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights