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 Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 06/04/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15 have been amended; no claims have been added, canceled, or withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are now pending and under consideration.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-9 of the remarks filed 06/04/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections of independent claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0361531 to Strecker et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the examiner agrees that Strecker does not fully teach the most recent amendments to claims 1 and 8. Therefore, in view of the amendments to the claims, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the amended claims, a new ground of rejection of claims 1 and 8 is now made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-095071 A to Miyanishi in view of JP 02-175465 A to Yamamoto et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, as amended, now refers to “the direction of a rotation axis along a rotation direction of the steering wheel” in lines 2-3. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1, as amended, now introduces “a rotation axis” in line 10. First, it is unclear whether the “rotation axis” introduced in line 2 of claim 2 is intended to be the same as or different from the “rotation axis” previously introduced in line 10 of claim 1. Next, neither claim previously introduces “a direction,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the direction” in line 2 of claim 2. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 2, as amended, also introduces “elastic members” in line 4; however, claim 1 now previously introduces “an elastic member” in line 10, and it is unclear whether the “elastic member” introduced in line 10 of claim 1 is intended to be included by, or additional to, the elastic members later introduced in line 4 of claim 2. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is dependent from claim 2, such that claim 3 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 2 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 2 is rejected.
Claim 9, as amended, introduces “elastic members” in line 4; however, claim 9 is dependent from claim 8, and claim 8, as amended, now previously introduces “an elastic member” in line 11, and it is unclear whether the “elastic member” introduced in line 11 of claim 8 is intended to be included by, or additional to, the elastic members later introduced in line 4 of claim 9. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is dependent from claim 9, such that claim 10 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 9 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 9 is rejected.
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 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.
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 1-3, 7-10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-095071 A to Miyanishi (hereinafter: “Miyanishi”) in view of JP 02-175465 A to Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter: “Yamamoto”).
With respect to claim 1, Miyanishi teaches a steering control device (apparent from at least Fig. 1), comprising: one or more processors (12) configured to: receive a steering angle and a steering torque of a steering wheel (7) [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0017-0020 & 0023-0025, the electronic control unit (ECU) 12 is structured to perform functions to receive each of a steering angle θ of the steering wheel 7 and a steering torque T of the steering wheel 7]; calculate a braking torque based on the steering angle of the steering wheel, the steering torque of the steering wheel, and a reaction torque corresponding to the steering angle of the steering wheel [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0020-0034, the ECU 12 is structured to perform functions to calculate a damping torque (e.g., “braking torque”) based on the steering angle θ, the steering torque T, and a predetermined value (e.g., “reaction torque”) for damping torque increase correction that corresponds to the steering angle θ being larger than a preset steering angle judgment value θ0, the steering torque T being less than a set steering torque judgment value T0, and a judgment that hands of a driver are off the steering wheel 7]; and output a command current to allow a reaction force motor (9) to output the calculated braking torque (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0018-0020, 0022, 0026 & 0029-0033, the ECU 12 is structured to perform functions to control driving of the electric motor 9 to output the calculated damping torque), wherein the steering device further comprises a steering mechanism for applying restoring force to return the steering wheel to a neutral position when the steering wheel is released (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0026 & 0029-0033), and wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the braking torque such that the braking torque generated by the reaction force motor moves the steering mechanism to a neutral position of the steering mechanism corresponding to the neutral position of the steering wheel to reduce overshooting or undershooting caused by the restoring force (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0018-0020, 0022, 0026 & 0029-0033; because overshooting and undershooting are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
Miyanishi appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the steering control device further comprises a nut configured to be movable along a rotation axis in response to rotation of the steering wheel, and an elastic member disposed between the nut and a damper configured to limit a movable range of the nut. Therefore, Miyanishi also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the one or more processors are configured to calculate the braking torque such that the braking torque generated by the reaction force motor moves the nut to a neutral position of the nut corresponding to the neutral position of the steering wheel to reduce overshooting or undershooting caused by the elastic member.
Yamamoto teaches an analogous steering control device in which a reaction torque is generated as a nut (24), which is movable in a direction of a rotation axis along a rotation direction of a steering wheel (1) in response to rotation of the steering wheel, receives an external force by elastic members (32 & 33) positioned in a moving path of the nut, and disposed between the nut and a damper configured to limit a movable range of the nut, and as a reaction force motor (7) is driven and controlled (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2), wherein the elastic members are positioned on two opposite ends of the rotation axis along which the nut is moved and applies a tensile force or compressive force to the nut in a neutral direction of the nut (apparent from at least Fig. 2), and wherein the damper comprises a first damper and a second damper (as pointed out and labeled on the marked-up copy of Fig. 2 of Yamamoto provided directly below), wherein the nut is movably positioned between the first and second dampers such that a movable range of the nut is limited by the first and second dampers (apparent from at least Fig. 2); and wherein the elastic members comprise a first elastic member (e.g., 32) disposed between the first damper and the nut (apparent from at least Fig. 2) and a second elastic member (e.g., 33) disposed between the second damper and the nut (apparent from at least Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
1258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the steering control device of Miyanishi with the teachings of Yamamoto, if even necessary, to further include a nut configured to be movable along a rotation axis in response to rotation of the steering wheel, and an elastic member disposed between the nut and a damper configured to limit a movable range of the nut because Miyanishi discloses returning the steering wheel to a neutral position via a restoring force without disclosing exactly how the restoring force of the returning of the steering wheel to the neutral position is provided, and Yamamoto further teaches that inclusion of external forces by a pair of opposed compression springs acting on a nut beneficially produces a restoring force to return a steering wheel to a neutral position, such that inclusion of elements taught by Yamamoto by the system of Miyanishi would enable Miyanishi to achieve the returning the steering wheel to the neutral position by a restoring force when the steering wheel is released via a particular means, and nothing about the system of Miyanishi would prevent or prohibit such a modification. Therefore, such a modification, if even necessary, would also amount to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_A). Thus, it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the steering control device of Miyanishi with the teachings of Yamamoto, if even necessary, such that the one or more processors are configured to calculate the braking torque such that the braking torque generated by the reaction force motor moves the nut to a neutral position of the nut corresponding to the neutral position of the steering wheel to reduce overshooting or undershooting caused by the elastic member, by virtue of the one or more processors of Miyanishi already being configured to calculate the braking torque such that the braking torque generated by the reaction force motor moves the steering mechanism to a neutral position of the steering mechanism corresponding to the neutral position of the steering wheel to reduce overshooting or undershooting caused by the restoring force.
With respect to claim 2, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control device of claim 1, wherein the reaction torque is generated as the nut, which is moved in the direction of a rotation axis along a rotation direction of the steering wheel in conjunction with rotation of the steering wheel, receives an external force by elastic members positioned in a moving path of the nut (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 3, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control device of claim 2, wherein the elastic members are positioned on two opposite ends of the rotation axis along which the nut is moved and applies a tensile force or compressive force to the nut in a neutral direction of the nut (apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Yamamoto).
With respect to claim 7, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the steering wheel is steered based on the steering angle and the steering torque and generate the braking torque based on the determination of whether the steering wheel is steered (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, and apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Miyanishi).
With respect to claim 8, Miyanishi modified supra teaches a steering control method, comprising: receiving a steering angle and a steering torque of a steering wheel; calculating a braking torque based on the steering angle of the steering wheel, the steering torque of the steering wheel, and a reaction torque corresponding to the steering angle of the steering wheel; and outputting a command current to allow a reaction force motor to generate the calculated braking torque, wherein: a nut is configured to be movable along a rotation axis in response to rotation of the steering wheel, an elastic member is disposed between the nut and a damper configured to limit a movable range of the nut, and the calculating of the braking torque comprises calculating the braking torque such that the braking torque generated by the reaction force motor moves the nut to a neutral position of the nut corresponding to the neutral position of the steering wheel to reduce overshooting or undershooting caused by the elastic member (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 9, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control method of claim 8, wherein the reaction torque is generated as the nut, which is moved in a direction of the rotation axis along a rotation direction of the steering wheel in conjunction with rotation of the steering wheel, receives an external force by elastic members positioned in a moving path of the nut (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 2 and 8).
With respect to claim 10, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control method of claim 9, wherein the elastic members are positioned on two opposite ends of the rotation axis along which the nut is moved and applies a tensile force or compressive force to the nut in a neutral direction of the nut (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 3 and 9).
With respect to claim 14, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control method of claim 8, wherein the wherein the outputting of the current command comprises determining whether the steering wheel is steered based on the steering angle and the steering torque and generating the braking torque based on the determination of whether the steering wheel is steered (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 7 and 8).
With respect to claim 15, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control device of claim 1, wherein the damper comprises a first damper and a second damper, wherein the nut is movably positioned between the first and second dampers such that a movable range of the nut is limited by the first and second dampers; and wherein the elastic members comprise a first elastic member disposed between the first damper and the nut and a second elastic member disposed between the second damper and the nut (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyanishi in view of Yamamoto, and in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,984,042 to Nishimoto et al. (hereinafter: “Nishimoto”).
With respect to claim 4, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control device of claim 1; however, Miyanishi appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether one or more field effect transistors (FETs) are connected to each phase of the reaction force motor.
Nishimoto teaches an analogous steering control device in which FETs (e.g., Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4) are connected to each phase of a reaction force motor (M) [apparent from at least Fig. 2 in view of at least Col. 1, lines 5-30, Col. 1, line 58 – Col. 2, line 49, Col. 4, lines 25-62, Col. 5, lines 14-26 & Col. 6, lines 35 – Col. 7, line 4 (especially Col. 4, lines 25-30, Col. 5, lines 14-26 & Col. 6, lines 35-51)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the steering control device of Miyanishi with the teachings of Nishimoto, if even necessary, such that one or more FETs are connected to each phase of the reaction force motor because Nishimoto further teaches that connection of one or more FETs to each phase of the reaction force motor beneficially enables pulse width modulation (PWM) control of the motor to assist steering force via the control of the motor, including to beneficially adjust a magnitude of motor braking via a corresponding adjustment in a duty factor in the PWM control of the motor, such as based on a velocity of a host vehicle, to avoid overshooting a neutral position when returning the steering wheel to the neutral position.
With respect to claim 5, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a velocity of a host vehicle, and set a magnitude of the reaction force motor based on the velocity of the host vehicle (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019 & 0024-0033); however, Miyanishi appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the one or more processors are configured to set a duty ratio of the reaction force motor based on the velocity of the vehicle.
Nishimoto teaches an analogous steering control device in which FETs (e.g., Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4) are connected to each phase of a reaction force motor (M) (apparent from at least Fig. 2 in view of at least Col. 1, lines 5-30, Col. 1, line 58 – Col. 2, line 49, Col. 4, lines 25-62, Col. 5, lines 14-26 & Col. 6, lines 35 – Col. 7, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the steering control device of Miyanishi with the teachings of Nishimoto, if even necessary, such that one or more processors are configured to set a duty ratio of the reaction force motor based on the velocity of the vehicle because Nishimoto further teaches that connection of one or more FETs to each phase of the reaction force motor beneficially enables pulse width modulation (PWM) control of the motor to assist steering force via the control of the motor, including to beneficially adjust a magnitude of motor braking via a corresponding adjustment in a duty factor in the PWM control of the motor, such as based on a velocity of a host vehicle (e.g., increasing the duty ratio of the reaction force motor as the velocity of the host vehicle increasing), to avoid overshooting a neutral position when returning the steering wheel to the neutral position.
With respect to claim 6, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control device of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to increase the duty ratio of the reaction force motor as the velocity of the host vehicle increases (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 5).
With respect to claim 11, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control method of claim 8, wherein one or more field effect transistors (FETs) are connected to each phase of the reaction force motor (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 4 and 8).
With respect to claim 12, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control method of claim 8, further comprising receiving a velocity of a host vehicle, wherein the outputting of the current command comprises setting a duty ratio of the reaction force motor based on the velocity of the host vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 5 and 8).
With respect to claim 13, Miyanishi modified supra teaches the steering control method of claim 12, wherein the wherein the outputting of the current command comprises increasing the duty ratio of the reaction force motor as the velocity of the host vehicle increases (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 6 and 12).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights