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 .
Claims 1 – 12 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims contain the phrase “is designed for” which is considered indefinite because no positive recitation is made as to what entails the steps or structure necessary for a finished designed product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auden (US 2016/0362133).
Regarding Claim 1:
Auden teaches a method for dynamically adjusting a wheel steering angle of at least one vehicle wheel of a vehicle, which has (i) a steering system with at least one wheel steering angle controller configured to change the wheel steering angle of the at least one vehicle wheel and ii a vehicle sensor system configured to detect a driving situation, the method comprising: dynamically adjusting (via 32L, 32R) a toe (28,30) of the vehicle wheel (24L, 24R) to a current driving situation (Table 1, input via sensors 54 – 74, and see paragraph 0024) in order to adapt the wheel steering angle (via sensor 18, steering wheel 16, and steering system 14) by: determining an adjustment value dependent on the driving situation as a function of a target value for the toe of the vehicle wheel and a mechanical toe change of the vehicle wheel correlated with the current driving situation (via 40, see block 110, and paragraphs 0030 – 0032); and actuating the wheel steering angle controller for dynamically adjusting the toe of the vehicle wheel using the adjustment value such that the toe of the vehicle wheel is set to the target value (paragraphs 0033 – 0036, abstract, Table 1, paragraph 0003, and Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 2:
Auden teaches wherein the mechanical toe change results from a change in a vehicle height (via suspension, see element 68).
Regarding Claim 3:
Auden teaches wherein the determining of the adjustment value includes determining at least one of the target value and the mechanical toe change as a function of a steering input and as a function of at least one sensor variable of the vehicle sensor system (via 68, Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 4:
Auden teaches wherein the determining of the at least one of the target value and the mechanical toe change includes using a sensor model to determine the at least one of the target value and/or and the mechanical toe change (via sensors 54 – 74, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Auden teaches the vehicle sensor system includes at least one driving dynamics sensor (54 - 74), at least one suspension travel sensor (68).
Regarding Claim 8:
Auden teaches at least one processor (40) configured to execute operating instructions stored in at least one memory to perform the method according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Auden teaches the change in the vehicle height results from at least one of (i) a changing spring compression travel on the at least one vehicle wheel and (ii) an external force acting on the at least one vehicle wheel and/or the wheel steering angle controller (via 68).
Regarding Claim 11:
Auden teaches the vehicle sensor system includes the at least one suspension travel sensor (68), which is associated with a spring-damper unit of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 12:
Auden teaches the vehicle sensor system includes the at least one force sensor (54 – 74), which is associated with the wheel steering angle controller.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 6 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auden (US 2016/0362133) and in view of Toyoda et al. (US 2022/0041206).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood:
Auden is silent to the steering system is designed as a steer-by-wire steering system and the wheel steering angle controller is designed as a single-wheel controller.
However, Toyoda et al. teaches a similar toe wheel control in which the steering system is a steer-by-wire steering system (paragraph 0029) and the wheel steering angle controller is a single-wheel controller (80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the steer-by-system of Toyoda et al. in the vehicle of Auden in order to control each wheel independently.
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood:
Auden is silent to the steering system comprises at least one further wheel steering angle controller designed as a further single-wheel controller for changing a further wheel steering angle of at least one further vehicle wheel wherein and a separate adjustment value for each individual wheel is determined for each of the at least one vehicle wheels wheel and the at least one further vehicle wheel and set using the respective associated one of the wheel steering angle controller and the further wheel steering angle controller.
However, Toyoda et al. teaches the steering system comprises at least one further wheel steering angle controller designed as a further single-wheel controller for changing a further wheel steering angle of at least one further vehicle wheel wherein and a separate adjustment value for each individual wheel is determined for each of the at least one vehicle wheels wheel and the at least one further vehicle wheel and set using the respective associated one of the wheel steering angle controller and the further wheel steering angle controller (80, paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the steer-by-system of Toyoda et al. in the vehicle of Auden in order to control each wheel independently.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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 at 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 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
