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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 12/30/2025. Claims 1-20 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
“…the cited combination fails to teach or suggest the claim language reciting "comparing the measured amount of torque to stored torque data representing a minimum amount of steering wheel torque needed to complete the autonomous driving maneuver at the first time," "setting the preferred rate of rotation based on the greater of the measured amount of torque or stored amount of torque," and "adjusting the rate of rotation at a second time during a second iteration of the autonomous driving maneuver to the preferred rate of rotation."”
Applicant’s argument A. has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn.
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.
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 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (US 2019/0009794 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2007/0250234 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Toyoda teaches “A system for altering the rate of rotation of a steering wheel during an autonomous driving mode, comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 1 “Processor(s) 110”); a memory having computer readable instructions stored thereon (Fig. 2 and Par. [0027] teaches a memory 210 that stores modules 220 and 230 which are computer-readable instructions that can be executed by the processor 110), which when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the processors to: measure a torque applied to the steering wheel by a driver during an autonomous driving maneuver at a first time; measure a position of the steering wheel; measure the rate of rotation, wherein the position and rate of rotation are measured at the first time when the torque was applied to the steering wheel (Par. [0031] teaches the controls module 220 receives electronic signals as the manual inputs produced when the driver operates a steering wheel of the vehicle 100; Par. [0038] teaches the sensor system 120 collects data that characterizes the manual inputs provided by the driver (i.e., a torque applied to the steering wheel and the corresponding steering wheel position and rate of rotation); Par. [0071] teaches the vehicle 100 is an autonomous vehicle that operates in an autonomous mode); determine a preferred [control value] based in the measured amount of torque applied to the steering wheel, the position, and the rate of rotation at the first time (Fig. 3 and Par. [0032] teach generating collaborative controls for steering the vehicle 100 based on the difference between the received manual inputs and received autonomous inputs); and adjust the [control value] at a second time during a second iteration of the autonomous driving maneuver to the preferred [control value] (Fig. 3 and Par. [0054] teaches the controls module 220 controls the vehicle 100 according to the collaborative controls; Par. [0035] teaches the controls module 220 uses the log data to subsequently (i.e., during a second iteration) learn driver preferences, refine the autonomous inputs, and so on).” However, Toyoda does not explicitly teach determining a “rate of rotation” based on the measured torque.
From the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches measuring “a torque applied to the steering wheel by a driver”, “the steering wheel position”, and “the rate of rotation” (Par. [0062] teaches receiving a rotation number value from a rotation number detecting section and a torque sensor value from a torque detecting section; Par. [0100] teaches the rotation number value includes angle of the steering wheel (steering wheel position) and steering angle speed (rate of rotation)) and the relationship between a “rate of rotation” of a steering wheel to a measured torque applied to the steering wheel (Fig. 6, Par. [0020], and Par. [0084] teach sensitivity identifying map that relates a torque sensor value to a corresponding rotation number value, which can be a steering angle speed (rate of rotation) value (Par. [0100])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Toyoda to incorporate the teachings of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success to have the system taught by Toyoda measure an applied steering wheel torque, a steering wheel position, and a rate of rotation of the steering wheel as taught by Ito, and to determine and substitute a preferred rate of rotation, determined according to the relationship of rate of rotation with measured steering torque taught by Ito, as the generated collaborative control value taught by Toyoda
The motivation for doing so would be to learn driver preferences (Toyoda, Par. [0035]) and to accurately recognize the operation feeling felt by the user (Ito, Par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above, and further teaches further causing the processors to “capture a first set of steering wheel position data before the torque is applied to the steering wheel; capture a first set of steering wheel rate of rotation data before the torque is applied to the steering wheel (Toyoda; Fig. 3 teaches receiving autonomous control inputs (i.e., steering wheel position and steering wheel rate of rotation) before receiving manual inputs (i.e., before the driver applies the torque to the steering wheel)); capture a second set of steering wheel position data after the torque is applied to the steering wheel; capture a second set of steering wheel rate of rotation data after the torque is applied to the steering wheel (Toyoda; Fig. 3 teaches receiving manual control inputs (i.e., steering wheel position and steering wheel rate of rotation when the driver applies the torque to the steering wheel) after receiving autonomous inputs); and compare the first set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to the second set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to determine the preferred steering wheel rate of rotation (Toyoda, Fig. 3 teaches determining the difference between the inputs and arbitrating the difference to produce collaborative controls (preferred steering wheel rate of rotation) which are then used to control the vehicle).”
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, and further teaches “wherein comparing the first set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to the second set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to determine the preferred steering wheel rate of rotation further comprises determining whether the rate of rotation of the steering wheel should be decreased or increased (Toyoda, Fig. 3 teaches determining the difference between the inputs and arbitrating the difference to produce collaborative controls (i.e., determining whether to increase or decrease) which are then used to control the vehicle).”
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above, and further teaches “wherein adjusting the steering wheel rate of rotation during the autonomous driving mode from the measured rate of rotation to the preferred steering wheel rate of rotation comprises slowing down the rate of rotation of the steering wheel (Toyoda, Fig. 3, Par. [0033], and Par. [0040] teaches generating collaborative controls and feedback for adjusting the collaborative controls, where the collaborative controls are generated by blending the manual and autonomous inputs (implying the control (steering wheel rate of rotation) is adjusted by either slowing down or speeding up the control (rate of rotation of the steering wheel))).”
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above, and further teaches “wherein the autonomous driving mode comprises a semi-autonomous driving mode (Toyoda, Par. [0070] teaches a semi-autonomous operational mode).”
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (US 2019/0009794 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2007/0250234 A1) and further in view of Milton (US 2020/0017117 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 15, however the combination of Toyoda and Ito does not explicitly teach further causing the processors to “generate a driver profile, for each driver of the vehicle, which comprises the preferred rate of rotation for each driver.”
From the same field of endeavor of adjusting vehicle operations, Milton teaches further causing the processors to “generate a driver profile, for each driver of the vehicle, which comprises the preferred rate of rotation for each driver (Par. [0021] teaches creating vehicle and operator profiles based on sensor data which is used to infer various attributes vehicles or vehicle operators, and the profiles can be used to determine vehicle adjustment values; Par. [0030] teaches storing computation results in a vehicle or operator profile, which can be any records representing dynamic and static information about a vehicle or operator, respectively; Par. [0039] teaches generating and updating a vehicle or operator profile that includes vehicle or operator data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Toyoda and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Milton with a reasonable expectation of success to have the processors taught by the combination of Toyoda and Ito generate a driver profile comprising the preferred rate of rotation as taught by Milton.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow for individualized vehicle steering adjustments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record are:
Toyoda et al. (US 2019/0009794 A1) teaches systems and methods to provide collaborative controls for a vehicle, which includes, in response to receiving manual inputs and autonomous inputs for controlling the vehicle, determining a different between the manual inputs and autonomous inputs, blending the manual inputs and the autonomous inputs together into the collaborative controls as a function of at least the difference and feedback parameters to control the vehicle to proceed along a route, and generating feedback according to at least the difference to adapt how the vehicle is controlled
Ito et al. (US 2007/0250234 A1) teaches a steering assist system including a steering feeling setting unit that sets an adjustment value of the steering feeling based on the command input from the user, and a sensitivity identifying unit that identifies the steering feeling based on the operating condition parameters and then outputs a sensitivity index, using a sensitivity identifying map which is a two-dimensional map with a torque sensor value and rotation number value on the axes
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, none of the available prior art, alone or in combination, teaches setting a preferred rate of rotation “based on the greater of the measured amount of torque or stored amount of torque.” Therefore, claims 1 and 8 are allowed.
Claims 2-7 and claims 9-14 are allowed based on allowed base claim 1 and claim 8, respectively, for the same rationale as recited above.
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 KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm M-Th.
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, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights