DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 August 2025 has been entered.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, and 13-14 are pending in this application.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8-9, and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 7 are amended.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, and 13-14 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachiri et al. (US Publication 2023/0271644 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US Publication 2021/0362777 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tachiri teaches a torque data robusting device comprising: a sensor unit for sensing a speed of a host vehicle, a steering angle and a steering torque for a steering wheel (Tachiri: Para. 33, 37, 40; torque sensor detects a driver's steering input; steering angle sensor detects a steering angle inputted from the steering; vehicle speed sensor); and ………. , a compensation torque to assist an user's steering based on the steering angle and the speed of the host vehicle (Tachiri: Para. 26, 66, 68; reaction force actuator imparts reaction force against a driver's steering operation of a steering; return control unit of the reaction force control device; return control unit calculates a return command value exerted in a direction in which the steering is returned to the neutral position based on a steering angle equivalent value, a steering angle velocity equivalent value, and a vehicle speed), determine whether the user's steering is a normal steering or a return steering according to the steering angle and a steering angular velocity (Tachiri: Para. 82; determining turning and returning: a first method is determination from the signs of a steering angle and a steering angle velocity), and control to adjust the compensation torque according to the normal steering or the return steering (Tachiri: Para. 82; switching device selects either a limit value ωt_lim_F for turning or a limit value ωt_lim_R for returning according to a signal from the turning/returning determination unit), wherein the controller is configured to: control the compensation torque such that a compensation torque for steering a direction of vehicle wheels of the host vehicle, generated when the user's steering is the return steering, is smaller than a compensation torque for steering the direction of the host vehicle, generated when the user's steering is the normal steering (Tachiri: Para. 81, 83; when the steering is turned by a driver, the absolute value of a detection value of the torque sensor is larger than the absolute value of a reaction force torque; when the steering is returned by the reaction force actuator, meanwhile, the absolute value of a detection value of the torque sensor is smaller than the absolute value of a reaction force torque), if a sign of the steering angle is identical to a sign of the steering angular velocity, determines that the users steering is the normal steering (Tachiri: Para. 34; turning angle of the tire; angular velocity is defined with the same sign as an angle), and if the sign of the steering angle is different from the sign of the steering angular velocity, determine that the user's steering is the return steering (Tachiri: Para. 34, 82; determining turning and returning: a first method is determination from the signs of a steering angle and a steering angle velocity; turning angle of the tire; angular velocity is defined with the same sign as an angle).
Tachiri doesn’t explicitly teach a controller configured to, generate, if a steering torque value is not received from the sensor unit.
However Zhao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a controller configured to, generate, if a steering torque value is not received from the sensor unit (Zhao: Para. 20; electronic controller stops receiving a signal from the torsion bar torque sensor, the electronic controller determines that the torsion bar torque sensor has failed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turning and returning reaction force torque taught in Tachiri (Tachiri: Para. 83) with the turning and returning steering torque taught in Zhao (Zhao: Para. 5) with a reasonable expectation of success because calculating and generating a command for a steering output torque when the torsion bar torque sensor has failed as taught by Zhao (Zhao: Para. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Tachiri teaches the torque data robusting device of claim 1, wherein the controller controls to generate a larger compensation torque as the steering angle increases in a preset steering angle section (Tachiri: Para. 76; when the absolute value of a turning angle is larger than some value, turning with an angular velocity higher than the limit value).
Regarding claim 7, Tachiri teaches a torque data robusting method comprising: sensing, by a sensor unit, a speed of a host vehicle, a steering angle and a steering torque for a steering wheel (Tachiri: Para. 33, 37, 40; torque sensor detects a driver's steering input; steering angle sensor detects a steering angle inputted from the steering; vehicle speed sensor); ………….. , a compensation torque to assist an user's steering based on the steering angle and the speed of the host vehicle (Tachiri: Para. 26, 66, 68; reaction force actuator imparts reaction force against a driver's steering operation of a steering; return control unit of the reaction force control device; return control unit calculates a return command value exerted in a direction in which the steering is returned to the neutral position based on a steering angle equivalent value, a steering angle velocity equivalent value, and a vehicle speed); determining whether the user's steering is a normal steering or a return steering according to the steering angle and a steering angular velocity (Tachiri: Para. 82; determining turning and returning: A first method is determination from the signs of a steering angle and a steering angle velocity); and controlling to adjust the compensation torque according to the normal steering or the return steering (Tachiri: Para. 82; switching device selects either a limit value ωt_lim_F for turning or a limit value ωt_lim_R for returning according to a signal from the turning/returning determination unit), wherein the controlling to adjust the compensation torque comprises controlling the compensation torque such that a compensation torque for steering a direction of vehicle wheels of the host vehicle, generated when the user's steering is the return steering, is smaller than a compensation torque for steering the direction of the host vehicle, generated when the user's steering is the normal steering (Tachiri: Para. 83; when the steering is turned by a driver, the absolute value of a detection value of the torque sensor is larger than the absolute value of a reaction force torque; when the steering is returned by the reaction force actuator, meanwhile, the absolute value of a detection value of the torque sensor is smaller than the absolute value of a reaction force torque), and wherein the determining of whether the user's steering is the normal steering or the return steering comprises (Tachiri: Para. 82; determining turning and returning: A first method is determination from the signs of a steering angle and a steering angle velocity): if a sign of the steering angle is identical to a sign of the steering angular velocity, determining that the user’s steering is the normal steering (Tachiri: Para. 34; turning angle of the tire; angular velocity is defined with the same sign as an angle), and if the sign of the steering angle is different from the sign of the steering angular velocity, determining that the user’s steering is the return steering (Tachiri: Para. 34, 82; determining turning and returning: a first method is determination from the signs of a steering angle and a steering angle velocity; turning angle of the tire; angular velocity is defined with the same sign as an angle).
Tachiri doesn’t explicitly teach generating, if a steering torque value is not received from the sensor unit.
However Zhao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generating, if a steering torque value is not received from the sensor unit (Zhao: Para. 20; electronic controller stops receiving a signal from the torsion bar torque sensor, the electronic controller determines that the torsion bar torque sensor has failed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turning and returning reaction force torque taught in Tachiri (Tachiri: Para. 83) with the turning and returning steering torque taught in Zhao (Zhao: Para. 5) with a reasonable expectation of success because calculating and generating a command for a steering output torque when the torsion bar torque sensor has failed as taught by Zhao (Zhao: Para. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Tachiri teaches the torque data robusting method of claim 7, wherein controlling to adjust the compensation torque comprises controlling to generate a larger compensation torque as the steering angle increases in a preset steering angle section (Tachiri: Para. 76; when the absolute value of a turning angle is larger than some value, turning with an angular velocity higher than the limit value).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachiri et al. (US Publication 2023/0271644 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US Publication 2021/0362777 A1) and in further view of Aoki (US Publication 2018/0065660 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tachiri and Zhao don’t explicitly teach wherein the controller controls an output of the compensation torque to be changed in a ramp method for a predetermined time if it is determined that the user's steering is changed from the normal steering to the return steering, or from the return steering to the normal steering.
However Aoki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller controls an output of the compensation torque to be changed in a ramp method for a predetermined time if it is determined that the user's steering is changed from the normal steering to the return steering, or from the return steering to the normal steering (Aoki: Para. 57; during the turn period in which the driver is turning the steering wheel, an absolute value of the steering angle increases; when the driver starts to return the steering wheel to the neutral position, the steering angle hardly changes; during this first transition period, when the return control is actively performed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turning and returning reaction force torque taught in Tachiri (Tachiri: Para. 83) with the turning and returning steering torque taught in Zhao (Zhao: Para. 5) and with a return control that is gradually started taught in Aoki (Aoki: Para. 57) with a reasonable expectation of success because the return control is gradually started during the first transition period from turning to returning period as taught by Aoki (Aoki: Para. 57).
Regarding claim 10, Tachiri and Zhao don’t explicitly teach wherein controlling to adjust the compensation torque comprises controlling an output of the compensation torque to be changed in a ramp method for a predetermined time if it is determined that the user's steering is changed from the normal steering to the return steering, or from the return steering to the normal steering.
However Aoki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein controlling to adjust the compensation torque comprises controlling an output of the compensation torque to be changed in a ramp method for a predetermined time if it is determined that the user's steering is changed from the normal steering to the return steering, or from the return steering to the normal steering (Aoki: Para. 57; during the turn period in which the driver is turning the steering wheel, an absolute value of the steering angle increases; when the driver starts to return the steering wheel to the neutral position, the steering angle hardly changes; during this first transition period, when the return control is actively performed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turning and returning reaction force torque taught in Tachiri (Tachiri: Para. 83) with the turning and returning steering torque taught in Zhao (Zhao: Para. 5) and with a return control that is gradually started taught in Aoki (Aoki: Para. 57) with a reasonable expectation of success because the return control is gradually started during the first transition period from turning to returning period as taught by Aoki (Aoki: Para. 57).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachiri et al. (US Publication 2023/0271644 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US Publication 2021/0362777 A1) and in further view of Endo et al. (US Publication 2016/0001814 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Tachiri and Zhao don’t explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to control a motor to change the compensation torque output by the motor more slowly than change in the user's steering (Endo: Para. 105-106, Fig. 8; the steering assist torque for suppressing the abrupt return speed of the steering wheel can be generated at an early point, thereby being capable of returning the steering wheel slowly).
However Endo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to control a motor to change the compensation torque output by the motor more slowly than change in the user's steering (Endo: Para. 105-106, Fig. 8; the steering assist torque for suppressing the abrupt return speed of the steering wheel can be generated at an early point, thereby being capable of returning the steering wheel slowly).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turning and returning reaction force torque taught in Tachiri (Tachiri: Para. 83) with the turning and returning steering torque taught in Zhao (Zhao: Para. 5) and with the steering assist torque taught in Endo (Endo: Para. 105-106) with a reasonable expectation of success because the steering assist torque for suppressing the abrupt return seed of the steering wheel creating a slowly returning steering wheel taught by Endo (Endo: Para. 105-106).
Regarding claim 14, Tachiri and Zhao don’t explicitly teach wherein the controlling to adjust the compensation torque comprises controlling a motor to change the compensation torque output by the motor more slowly than change in the user's steering (Endo: Para. 105-106, Fig. 8; the steering assist torque for suppressing the abrupt return speed of the steering wheel can be generated at an early point, thereby being capable of returning the steering wheel slowly).
However Endo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controlling to adjust the compensation torque comprises controlling a motor to change the compensation torque output by the motor more slowly than change in the user's steering (Endo: Para. 105-106, Fig. 8; the steering assist torque for suppressing the abrupt return speed of the steering wheel can be generated at an early point, thereby being capable of returning the steering wheel slowly).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turning and returning reaction force torque taught in Tachiri (Tachiri: Para. 83) with the turning and returning steering torque taught in Zhao (Zhao: Para. 5) and with the steering assist torque taught in Endo (Endo: Para. 105-106) with a reasonable expectation of success because the steering assist torque for suppressing the abrupt return seed of the steering wheel creating a slowly returning steering wheel taught by Endo (Endo: Para. 105-106).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 August 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Zhang and Tachiri do not disclose that "if a sign of the steering angle is identical to a sign of the steering angular velocity, determines that the user's steering is the normal steering, and if the sign of the steering angle is different from the sign of the steering angular velocity, determine that the user's steering is the return steering" as recited in claim 1.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Tachiri teaches when a driver turns the steering wheel the turning angle has the same sign as the angular velocity (Tachiri: Para. 34). Tachiri teaches a turning/returning determination unit. The prior art states one of the possible methods of determining turning and returning as the signs of the steering angle and the steering angle velocity. The three options of this determination are well known to the field of turning and returning determination (Tachiri: Para. 82). Since Tachiri defines turning as the steering angle and the steering angular velocity having the same signs, then returning the signs would be different (Tachiri: Para. 34, 82).
The applicant next argues that Zhao and Tachiri fail to disclose “the controller is configured to control the compensation torque such that a compensation torque for steering a direction of the host vehicle, generated when the user’s steering is return steering, is smaller than a compensation torque for steering the direction of the host vehicle, generated when the user’s steering is normal steering.”
In response to the applicant’s argument above, this argument was raised in the appeal brief filed on 4/7/2025 and responded to in the examiner’s answer to the appeal brief from 6/10/2025 on pages 3-4. Tachiri’s reaction force applied to the steering column (Tachiri: Para. 37). As defined above Tachiri teaches three known ways to determining the driver’s turning and returning of the steering wheel (Tachiri: Para. 34, 82). Tachiri teaches a smaller absolute value of the reaction torque when the steering wheel is returning to neutral than the reaction force torque applied when the steering wheel is turning away from neutral (Tachiri: Para. 81, 83). The prior arts do teach the argued limitation.
Applicant next argues that claim 7 is similarly amended to claim 1 and the arguments would similarly apply.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the examiner addressed claim 1 argument above and that response would similarly apply to claim 7.
Applicant next argues that claims 2-5 and 8-11 would be allowable at least based on their dependencies.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, claims 1 and 7 are rejected. Claims 2-5 and 8-11 would be rejected at least based on their dependencies.
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Tachiri’s steering system in view of Zhao’s steering system reads on applicant’s torque data robusting device. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663