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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the first clause of claim 1, the words “of wheels of a vehicle” should be rewritten as “of each wheel of a vehicle”.
In the second clause of claim 1, the words “on the wheels of the vehicle” should be rewritten as “on each of the wheels of the vehicle”.
In claim 2, the words “the plurality of local controllers receive a measurement value from a wheel speed sensor connected thereto and derive wheel speed data based on the received measurement value” should be rewritten as “the plurality of local controllers receive measurement values from the plurality of wheel speed sensors connected thereto and derive wheel speed data based on the received measurement value”.
In claim 3, the words “wherein the plurality of local controllers include” should be rewritten as “wherein each of the plurality of local controllers includes”.
In claim 3, the words “controlling driving of the wheels of the vehicle” should be rewritten as “controlling driving of each of the wheels of the vehicle”.
In claim 3, the words “controlling braking of the wheels of the vehicle” should be rewritten as “controlling braking of each of the wheels of the vehicle”.
In claim 4, the words “configured to transmit and receive the data; and” should be rewritten as “configured to transmit and receive the wheel speed data; and”.
In claim 5, the words “wherein the plurality of local controllers transmit the wheel speed data” should be rewritten as “wherein each of the plurality of local controllers transmits the wheel speed data”.
In claim 5, the words “and configured to transmit and receive the data” should be rewritten as “and configured to transmit and receive the wheel speed data”.
In claim 9, the words “connected between the plurality of local controllers” should be rewritten as “connected between each of the plurality of local controllers”.
In claim 9, the words “a measurement value of the wheel speed sensor to the central controller” should be rewritten as “a measurement value of a wheel speed sensor of the plurality of wheel speed sensors to the central controller”.
The foregoing changes are required to correct clerical and/or grammatical errors and/or antecedent basis issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
(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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 9 recites the vehicle wheel control system of claim 4, further comprising a Wheel Speed Out (WSO) line connected between the plurality of local controllers and the central controller and [sic] transmitting a measurement value of the wheel speed sensor to the central controller. It is unclear what is doing the transmitting in the foregoing clause. It appears that the device (that performs the transmitting) was inadvertently omitted from the foregoing claimed language. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites vehicle wheel control system of claim 9, wherein the central controller derives vehicle speed data and wheel slip rate data based on the measurement value of the wheel speed sensor transmitted through the WSO line when data transmission using at least one of the first local bus line and the second local bus line fails, and [sic] performs emergency braking control based on the vehicle speed data and the wheel slip rate data. It is unclear what is doing the performing in the foregoing clause. It appears that the device (that performs the emergency braking control) was inadvertently omitted from the foregoing claimed language. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and any claim objections are addressed. Claims 5-10 and 14-18, which depend on claim 4 and claim 13 respectively, would be allowable by way of dependency, after each of claims 4 and 13 are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and any claim objections are addressed.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR-20230147984-A) in view of Brok et al. (DE 102021108523) (English translations attached).
Regarding claim 1, vehicle wheel control system comprising: a plurality of wheel speed sensors configured to measure a speed of wheels of a vehicle; (see Jeong at the Abstract, for example, which discloses that according to one embodiment of the present disclosure, the provided brake apparatus for the vehicle comprises: a plurality of wheel speed sensors which sense wheel information of each wheel; also see Jeong at Fig 1 element 11 which depicts wheel speed sensor (WSS).)
a plurality of local controllers installed on the wheels of the vehicle and controlling the wheels of the vehicle; (see Jeong at the Abstract, for example, which discloses a plurality of wheel controlling units disposed on each wheel; see Ho at page 3 in conjunction with Fig. 1 element 12 which discloses a wheel control unit (WCU). Examiner maps wheel controlling units to plurality of local controllers.)
a central controller connected to the plurality of local controllers; (see Jeong at the Abstract which discloses a center controlling unit which receives the wheel speed information for each wheel from the plurality of wheel controlling units; see Jeong, at Figs. 1-2 at elements 13, 23, which illustratively depicts center control unit communicatively coupled to wheel control units (WCUs).)
Jeong discloses [and a dual] local bus line connected between the plurality of local controllers and the central controller and configured to transmit and receive data (see Jeong at page 3 in conjunction with Fig. 4 which discloses a communication unit 14 that uses a CAN (Controller Area Network) and that the communication unit 14 can be used to transmit and receive signals between the wheel control unit 12 and the central control unit 13 as well as parts that require communication within the vehicle. Examiner maps communication unit to local bus line.).
Jeong does not expressly disclose and a dual [bus line] which in a related art Brok teaches (see Brok at page 3 which discloses that the control devices can be connected via redundant bus lines to the information network, which also has a double version of the bus system and that finally, the control units can be networked with one another via a double bus line. Examiner maps double bus line to dual bus line.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include a dual bus line, as taught by Brok.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide a redundant signal transmission such as redundant bus lines, as suggested by Brok at page 3.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Jeong teaches the vehicle wheel control system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of wheel speed sensors are each connected to a local controller installed on the same wheel among the plurality of local controllers, and the plurality of local controllers receive a measurement value from a wheel speed sensor connected thereto and derive wheel speed data based on the received measurement value (see at least Jeong at the Abstract which discloses a plurality of wheel speed sensors which sense wheel information of each wheel; a plurality of wheel controlling units disposed on the each wheel, receiving the wheel information of the each wheel from each wheel speed sensor; calculating a first wheel speed of the each wheel using the wheel information, and generating wheel speed information. Examiner maps first wheel speed of each wheel to the measurement value. Examiner maps wheel speed information to the wheel speed data.)
Independent claim 11 recites a wheel controller of a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the vehicle wheel control system of claims 1 and 2. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the wheel controller of claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claims 1 and 2 above. Further, see Jeong at the Abstract which discloses a communication unit which transmits and receives the wheel speed information between the wheel controlling unit and the center controlling unit. Examiner maps communication unit to the wheel sensor communication unit. See Jeong at the Abstract which discloses a wire unit which transmits wheel pulse information including the wheel information for each wheel from the plurality of wheel controlling units to the center controlling unit. Examiner maps wire unit to signal processing unit.
Independent claim 19 recites a wheel controller of a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the vehicle wheel control system of claims 1 and 2. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the wheel controller of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claims 1 and 2 above. Furthermore, see Jeong at page 3 which discloses that four wheel control units 12 are disposed on each of the four wheels of a vehicle, and four wheel speed sensors 11 may be connected to each of the four wheel control units 12. Also, see Brok at page 4 which discloses the use of an electromechanical brake and an electric motor.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR-20230147984-A) in view of Brok et al. (DE 102021108523) and further in view of Miki et al. (WO 2006070842A1) (English translations attached).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Jeong does not expressly teach the vehicle wheel control system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of local controllers include, a wheel drive control unit controlling driving of the wheels of the vehicle; and a wheel braking control unit controlling braking of the wheels of the vehicle which in a related art Miki teaches (see Miki at the Abstract in conjunction with Fig. 1 which discloses a wheel control device 10 for controlling the wheels 16 (left and right) and comprises actuators 50 (left and right); see Miki at [0013] which discloses that the controller includes a braking control unit that controls the actuator to brake the vehicle, and the braking control unit calculates an absolute value of the slip angle when it is necessary to brake the vehicle; see Miki at [0049] which discloses that the wheel control device according to claim 14 controls the slip angle of the steered wheel in a vehicle having front and rear, left and right steered wheels and a power source and that an actuator device that operates so that the slip angles of the left and right wheels change, and when the steered wheels are driven by the power source, the left and right wheels of the steered wheels. Examiner maps wheel control device to local controller. Examiner maps wheel drive control unit to one of the actuators. Examiner maps braking control unit to the wheel braking control unit.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include wherein the plurality of local controllers include, a wheel drive control unit controlling driving of the wheels of the vehicle; and a wheel braking control unit controlling braking of the wheels of the vehicle, as taught by Miki.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to suppress a decrease in vehicle stability caused by a slip ratio of the drive wheel from deviating from an appropriate range, as suggested by Miki at [0003].
Claim 12 recites a wheel controller of a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the vehicle wheel control system of claim 3. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 3 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the wheel controller of claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights