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 .
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150083509 A1 to Borroni-Bird, Christopher et al. (“Borroni”) in view of US 20140354816 A1 to Inanobe, Yoshihiro et al. (“Yoshihiro”).
Regarding claim 1, Borroni teaches an apparatus for controlling an e-Corner vehicle, comprising:
an input module configured to receive a driving mode ([0023]: “The noted driver interface devices may include . . . a human-machine interface (HMI) screen 38 . . . which receives a driver’s preferred operating mode or other input commands.”);
an e-Corner module configured to independently control driving, steering, and braking for each of a plurality of wheels of the e-Corner vehicle (Abstract: “The master controller . . . independently controls each eModule . . . to establish a desired operating mode.”; [0034]: “ . . . the eModule 40 is configured to house all of the embedded controllers used for control of a particular corner of the vehicle 10, i.e., the propulsion controller 50P, the steering controllers 50S, and the brake controller 50B.”); and
a processor operatively coupled the input module and the e-Corner module, and configured to
receive the driving mode of the e-Corner vehicle;
drive the e-Corner module by adjusting a driving direction, a plurality of steering rod wheels, a variable gear ratio (VGR) and braking force ([0051]: “Therefore, propulsion and braking of the trailing vehicles via the eModules 40 (see FIG. 3) may be selectively enabled and disabled by the master controller 50 of vehicle 10A depending on the mode . . . .”; [0042]: “Use of the modular, independently-controlled eModule 40 of FIGS. 4 and 5 enables different steering or drive modes, including two-wheel, four-wheel, diamond, and omni-directional steering modes, as well as a park mode.” Steering the wheels broadly reads on “adjusting . . . steering rod wheels.” Furthermore, changing from two-wheel steering mode to four-wheel steering mode broadly reads on “adjusting” the gear ratio of unsteered wheels in two-wheel drive mode from a gear ratio of 0 to some other gear ratio when they become steerable in four-wheel mode. Finally, a person having ordinary skill in the art (APHOSITA) would have understood that controlling steering and propulsion/braking would have adjusted driving direction.).
Borroni does not appear to expressly teach the apparatus comprises:
a camera module configured to capture a plurality of images in front, rear, left and right directions of the e-Corner vehicle;
an output module configured to output the plurality of images captured by the camera module; and
a processor operatively coupled to the camera and the output module, and configured to:
output the plurality of images captured by the camera module to the output module according to a traveling direction of the e-Corner vehicle.
However, Inanobe teaches an apparatus for controlling vehicle wheel drive modules comprising:
a camera module configured to capture a plurality of images in front, rear, left and right directions of the e-Corner vehicle (FIG. 2: Display controller 30 broadly reads on a camera module because it receives image data from front, rear, left, and right cameras 8(B, R, L, F).);
an output module configured to output the plurality of images captured by the camera module ([0040], FIG. 2: “The display section 15 is adapted to display view images acquired by the four cameras 8F, 8L, 8R, and 8B . . . .”); and
a processor operatively coupled to the camera and the output module (FIG. 2: Image selection section 36 broadly reads on the processor.), and configured to:
output the plurality of images capture by the camera module to the output module according to a traveling direction of the e-Corner vehicle (FIGS. 5-8, [0073]: “In addition, a best image is selected to display on the display section 15 in response to the direction of the dump truck 1 to be travelled, by operating shift lever and steering handle which are necessary to travel the dump truck 1 . . . .”).
It would have been obvious to APHOSITA before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the omnidirectionally traveling vehicle of Borroni with the system that receives and selects images to display from cameras disposed on all sides of a vehicle based on the its traveling direction of Inanobe. Doing so would have improved vehicle operation safety as suggested by Inanobe [0007].
Claim 6 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 1, applied to a method. The Examiner notes that Borroni teaches driving the eModule braking, steering, gear ratio, and braking force as discussed in Claim 1 based on an HMI selection of driving mode from the input module (see [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, APHOSITA would have understood the above combination of Borroni and Inanobe further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the driving mode comprises any one of a forward mode, a reverse mode, a left crab mode, and a right crab mode (Borroni [0043]: “This enables a “crab mode” driving maneuver wherein the vehicle 10 can move at an angle with respect to its longitudinal axis, including at right angles.”).
Claim 7 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 2, applied to a method.
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150083509 A1 to Borroni-Bird, Christopher et al. (“Borroni”) in view of US 20140354816 A1 to Inanobe, Yoshihiro et al. (“Yoshihiro”), further in view of US 20240174237 A1 to Hanchett, Mark et al. (“Hanchett”).
Regarding claim 3, APHOSITA would have understood the above combination of Borroni and Inanobe teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as detailed above.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to adjust the VGR of the plurality of steering rod wheels according to the traveling direction so that a turning radius of the e-Corner vehicle matches a turning radius of the e-Corner vehicle in forward movement.
However, Hanchett teaches wherein the processor is configured to adjust the VGR of the plurality of steering rod wheels according to the traveling direction so that a turning radius of the e-Corner vehicle matches a turning radius of the e-Corner vehicle in forward movement ([0048]: “Further, because the rear tires 322 are the leading tires in FIGS. 3H-3J and 3K, the turning radius of the vehicle is similar to the turning radius of the vehicle of FIGS. 3A-3C.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the independent wheel steering system comprising various wheel drive and steering modes taught by the above combination of Borroni and Inanobe with the independent wheel steering system that adjusts which wheels are being steered so the vehicle will have a similar turning radius in reverse as in forward of Hanchett. Doing so would have made driving in reverse “simple and intuitive” as taught in Hanchett [0050].
Claim 8 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 3, applied to a method.
Regarding claim 4, APHOSITA would have understood the above combination of Borroni and Inanobe further teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as detailed above.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to set a plurality of wheels positioned at a front portion of the e-Corner vehicle in the traveling direction as the plurality of steering rod wheels.
However, Hanchett teaches wherein the processor is configured to set a plurality of wheels positioned at a front portion of the e-Corner vehicle in the traveling direction as the plurality of steering rod wheels (Hanchett FIGS 3A-3C, 3H-3K: The depicted modes set the front wheels with respect to traveling directions as the steering wheels, broadly interpreted as the steering rod wheels.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the independent wheel steering system comprising various wheel drive and steering modes taught by the above combination of Borroni and Inanobe with the independent wheel steering system that can change modes such that the wheels in the front portion in the traveling direction are the steerable wheels taught by Hanchett. Doing so would have made driving in reverse “simple and intuitive” as taught in Hanchett [0050].
Claim 9 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 4, applied to a method.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150083509 A1 to Borroni-Bird, Christopher et al. (“Borroni”) in view of US 20140354816 A1 to Inanobe, Yoshihiro et al. (“Yoshihiro”), further in view of US 20160332610 A1 to Wolff, Jeffrey et al. (“Wolff”).
Regarding claim 5, APHOSITA would have understood the above combination of Borroni and Inanobe teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as detailed above.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to apply a weight to the braking force of a plurality of wheels positioned at a rear portion of the e-Corner vehicle in the traveling direction.
However, Wolff teaches wherein the processor is configured to apply a weight to the braking force of a plurality of wheels positioned at a rear portion of the e-Corner vehicle in the traveling direction ([0038]: “ . . . the control system 16 is configured for independent friction braking of the first and second sets of wheels 12, 14, e.g., rear and front wheels. Thus, for example, the drive system control unit 116 may be configured, in at least one mode of operation, to control the friction brake system 122 to sequentially apply plural different first braking pressures to the first set of wheels (e.g., the first friction brake unit 120 is directly or indirectly controlled to apply the first braking pressures to the first set of wheels), and concurrent with the first braking pressures, respectively apply plural second braking pressures to the second set of wheels (e.g., the second friction brake unit 118 is directly or indirectly controlled to apply the second braking pressure to the second set of wheels) . . ..”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that controls wheel braking, driving, and steering of the above combination of Borroni and Inanobe with the system that applies a weight to rear wheel braking of a vehicle of Wolff. Doing so would have improved the maintenance convenience of the vehicle by more evenly wearing the brakes as suggested by [0005] and [0006] of Wolff.
Claim 10 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 5, applied to a method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holler, Lukas et al.. US 20240278773 A1. VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR CARRYING OUT A PARKING MANEUVER.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights