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, 3-7, 10-15, and 17-19 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 17-19 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-7, 10-15, and 17-19 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “external world perception portion” in claims 1 and 17-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “external world perception portion” uses a generic placeholder “portion” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
External world perception portion: [0010] “an external world perception apparatus that acquires, for example, road information ahead of the vehicle by using, for example, both a camera, a radar, or a GPS (Global Positioning System) and map information.” Thus, the external world perception portion is interpreted as one or more of a camera, a radar, GPS, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP 3557907 B2, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 12/12/2023) in view of Horiguchi (JP 2007-38766 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 9/18/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Takashi discloses a steering control apparatus comprising:
(Takashi – Fig. 1, [0010] – power steering apparatus)
a controller configured to control an actuator that is mounted on a vehicle and that controls steering in the vehicle,
(Takashi – Fig. 1, [0011-0012] – vehicle includes control means 100 for controlling the power steering mechanism 10 comprising DC motor 11)
wherein the controller acquires a reference target torque,
(Takashi – Fig. 1, [0016-0017] – calculation means 107 of control means 100 determines a basic assist steering torque T0)
the reference target torque being a torque regarding the steering that is required to avoid an obstacle present ahead of the vehicle,
(Takashi – Fig. 1, [0020-0024, 0029] – the required auxiliary steering torque T is calculated by the equation T = K1 x K2 x T0, where K1 is set to 1 when the collision tolerable time tc is large and K2 is set to 1 when the steering angular velocity ω is 0, therefore the auxiliary steering torque T required to avoid the collision in this situation is the basic assist steering torque T0)
which is acquired by an external world perception portion,
(Takashi – Fig. 1, [0011, 0015] – the vehicle speed sensor 2 and the front object detection sensor 3 are used to determine the margin time tc to collide with the obstacle)
increases a torque correction value for correcting the reference target torque as a risk of a collision with the obstacle based on a relative distance between the obstacle and the vehicle and a speed of the vehicle increases,
(Takashi – Figs. 1-2, [0019-0024, 0029, 0031] – control gain setting means 109 increases gain K1 in accordance with the degree of decrease in the time to collision tc, time tc is calculated based on the speed of the vehicle and the distance d to the obstacle in front of the vehicle, and K1 is set based on the collision tolerable time tc)
gradually increases the torque correction value from a minimum value, wherein the torque correction value is determined based on the collision risk,
(Takashi – Figs. 1-2, [0019-0024, 0029, 0031] – control gain setting means 109 increases gain K1 in accordance with the degree of decrease in the time to collision tc, time tc is calculated based on the speed of the vehicle and the distance d to the obstacle in front of the vehicle, and K1 is set based on the collision tolerable time tc)
determines a target torque based on the reference target torque and the torque correction value,
(Takashi – [0020-0024, 0029] - the required auxiliary steering torque T is calculated by the equation T = K1 x K2 x T0)
outputs a torque instruction for achieving the determined target torque to the actuator and therewith control steering in the vehicle.
(Takashi – Fig. 1, [0016, 0029, 0031] – motor driving means 111 of control means 100 supplies current to the DC motor 11 corresponding to the auxiliary steering torque T)
Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose gradually increases the torque correction value from a minimum value after a timing at which a braking force is applied to the vehicle.
Horiguchi, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: gradually increases the torque correction value from a minimum value after a timing at which a braking force is applied to the vehicle.
(Horiguchi – see at least Fig. 2, [0012, 0014-0015] – the additional assist amount is zero when the brake operation amount is zero and increases as the brake operation amount increases… the larger the brake operation amount, the larger the increase in the additional assist Gain relative to the brake operation amount)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Horiguchi into the invention of Takashi with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing steering burden, improving steering performance, and improving steering feel, such as when avoiding obstacles (Horiguchi – [0049, 0085]).
Regarding claims 17-18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 17-18 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 17-18 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Takashi discloses wherein the controller determines the reference target torque based on the speed of the vehicle and a target steering angle required to avoid the obstacle present ahead of the vehicle (Takashi – Fig. 1, [0005, 0018, 0024-0037] – the magnitude of the basis assist steering torque T0 is set in accordance with the steering torque Td and the vehicle speed V… the steering torque Td applied by the driver required to avoid the obstacle, i.e., steering torque Td applied by the driver required to avoid the obstacle is impacted/effected by the driver’s steering angle required to avoid the obstacle).
Claims 3-4, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi in view of Horiguchi and further in view of Atsushi (JP 2007-302050 A, the translation provided on 3/25/2022 with the Information Disclosure State is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a load of a front wheel of the vehicle due to braking of the vehicle.
Atsushi, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a load of a front wheel of the vehicle due to braking of the vehicle.
(Atsushi – [0009, 0020, 0025] – increase steering torque when a load of a vehicle moves to a front wheel by vehicle acceleration/deceleration, load sensor 40 detects load of a front wheel, a gain corresponding to the load signal L is calculated and multiplied by the steering torque signal T, i.e., deceleration due to braking)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Atsushi into the invention of Takashi for the purpose of optimizing steering compensation and steering feeling (Atsushi – [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a weight of the vehicle.
Atsushi, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a weight of the vehicle.
(Atsushi – [0020, 0025, 0035] – increase steering torque due to a load of the vehicle, load sensor 40 load variation due to the number of passengers and amount of fuel, a gain corresponding to the load signal L is calculated and multiplied by the steering torque signal T)
The motivation to combine Takashi and Atsushi is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a weight of the vehicle.
Atsushi, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a weight of the vehicle.
(Atsushi – [0020, 0025, 0035] – increase steering torque due to a load of the vehicle, load sensor 40 load variation due to the number of passengers and amount of fuel, a gain corresponding to the load signal L is calculated and multiplied by the steering torque signal T, i.e., deceleration due to braking)
The motivation to combine Takashi and Atsushi is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a load of a front wheel of the vehicle due to braking of the vehicle.
Atsushi, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a load of a front wheel of the vehicle due to braking of the vehicle.
(Atsushi – [0009, 0020, 0025] – increase steering torque when a load of a vehicle moves to a front wheel by vehicle acceleration/deceleration, load sensor 40 detects load of a front wheel, a gain corresponding to the load signal L is calculated and multiplied by the steering torque signal T, i.e., deceleration due to braking)
The motivation to combine Takashi and Atsushi is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the controller increases the torque correction value as the change in the load increases.
Atsushi, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the controller increases the torque correction value as the change in the load increases.
(Atsushi – [0025] – the steering assist command value I becomes larger as the steering torque signal T becomes larger and the load signal L becomes larger)
The motivation to combine Takashi and Atsushi is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a weight of the vehicle.
Atsushi, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a change in a weight of the vehicle.
(Atsushi – [0020, 0025, 0035] – increase steering torque due to a load of the vehicle, load sensor 40 load variation due to the number of passengers and amount of fuel, a gain corresponding to the load signal L is calculated and multiplied by the steering torque signal T)
The motivation to combine Takashi and Atsushi is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the controller increases the torque correction value as the change in the weight of the vehicle increases.
Atsushi, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the controller increases the torque correction value as the change in the weight of the vehicle increases.
(Atsushi – [0025] – the steering assist command value I becomes larger as the steering torque signal T becomes larger and the load signal L becomes larger)
The motivation to combine Takashi and Atsushi is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi in view of Horiguchi and further in view of Masami (JP 2003-205849 A1, the translation provided on 3/25/2022 with the Information Disclosure State is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 7, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a frictional coefficient of a road surface on which the vehicle runs.
Masami, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a frictional coefficient of a road surface on which the vehicle runs.
(Masami – [0022] – the magnitude of the road surface friction coefficient is detected and provided to the correction unit 212 to correct motor target current to provide the appropriate steering assist force)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Masami into the invention of Takashi for the purpose of correcting the steering assistance based on the state of the road, since it is harder to turn the wheel when the road is dry and the wheel will more easily change direction when the road is wet or frozen (Masami – [0003-0005]).
Regarding claim 14, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a frictional coefficient of a road surface on which the vehicle runs.
Masami, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein specifications regarding running of the vehicle include a frictional coefficient of a road surface on which the vehicle runs.
(Masami – [0022] – the magnitude of the road surface friction coefficient is detected and provided to the correction unit 212 to correct motor target current to provide the appropriate steering assist force)
The motivation to combine Takashi and Masami is the same as in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the controller increases the torque correction value as the frictional coefficient increases.
Masami, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the controller increases the torque correction value as the frictional coefficient increases.
(Masami – [0022] – when the road surface friction coefficient is small the target current value is corrected to be small, and when the friction coefficient is large the target current value is corrected to be large, thus providing the necessary steering assist force)
The motivation to combine Takashi and Masami is the same as in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi in view of Horiguchi, Atsushi, and further in view of Masami.
Regarding claim 5, Takashi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the specifications regarding the running of the vehicle include a frictional coefficient of a road surface on which the vehicle runs.
Masami, who is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the specifications regarding the running of the vehicle include a frictional coefficient of a road surface on which the vehicle runs.
(Masami – [0022] – the magnitude of the road surface friction coefficient is detected and provided to the correction unit 212 to correct motor target current to provide the appropriate steering assist force)
The motivation to combine Takashi and Masami is the same as in the rejection of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13 filed 1/20/2026, with respect to previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Horiguchi does not cure the deficiencies of Takashi with respect to the limitation “gradually increases the torque correction value from a minimum value after a timing at which a braking force is applied to the vehicle, wherein the torque correction value is determined based on the collision risk” because Horiguchi does not teach that the torque correction value is determined based on a collision risk. Instead Horiguchi determines the torque correction values using other parameters. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner does not rely upon Horiguchi alone to teach these limitations, and instead relies upon the combination of Takashi and Horiguchi. Takashi is relied upon for “gradually increases a torque correction value from a minimum value, wherein the torque correction value is determined based on the collision risk” while Horiguchi is relied upon for “gradually increases the torque correction value from a minimum value after a timing at which a braking force is applied to the vehicle”.
Specifically, the examiner is relying upon Horiguchi to demonstrate the obviousness of performing the gradual increase in torque correction from a minimum value after a timing at which a braking force is applied to the vehicle. There are several reasons why this would have been obvious. There are a limited number of options for which the application of torque correction relates to the timing of the braking in the event of a risk of a collision:
Steering torque correction is applied but no braking is applied
Braking is applied, but no steering torque correction is applied
Braking is applied before steering torque correction begins to increase
Braking is applied at exactly the same time as steering torque correction begins to increase
Braking is applied after steering torque begins to increase
Therefore, the first reason why this modification would have been obvious is because it would have been obvious to try, as it is merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. When collision risk is high, it is known in the art that braking and steering can both be applied to help safely avoid collision when braking or steering alone cannot safely avoid the collision. Therefore when both braking and steering are applied it is a question of whether the braking is applied before, after, or at the same time as the steering torque correction increase. One of ordinary skill would recognize that it would be safer to slow the vehicle by braking prior to applying steering torque correction because it would reduce the jerkiness of the vehicle and provide a safer maneuver to avoid the collision. The second reason why this would have been obvious is because the prior art (Horiguchi) provides motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill to make this modification. Horiguchi suggests in at least paragraphs [0049, 0085] that doing so will reduce steering burden, improve steering performance, and improve steering feel, such as when avoiding obstacles. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the combination of Takashi and Horiguchi render the limitation as a whole obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669