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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 02/06/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 14 have been amended; claim 15 has been added; no claims have been canceled or withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to the drawings have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to Figs. 4, 8, and 9.
The previous objections to claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 14 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn, in light of Applicant’s arguments on page 11 of the remarks.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 of the remarks filed 02/05/2026 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 JP 2018-095071 A to Miyanishi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the examiner agrees that Miyanishi does not fully teach the amendments to claims 1 and 8 filed 02/05/2026. Therefore, in view of the amendments to the claims, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn.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 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0361531 to Strecker et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0361531 to Strecker et al. (hereinafter: “Strecker”).
With respect to claim 1, Strecker teaches a steering control device (apparent from at least Fig. 1), comprising: one or more processors (9) configured to: receive a steering angle and a steering torque of a steering wheel [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0026 & 0029-0032, the control unit 9 is structured to perform functions to receive each of a current steering wheel angle (e.g., “steering angle”) of a steering wheel 3 of a steering handle 2 and an operating torque (e.g., “steering torque”) exerted by a driver on the steering handle 2]; 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 ¶ 0026 & 0029-0032, the control unit 9 is structured to perform functions to calculate a total damping torque torCatchUp (e.g., “braking torque”) based on the current steering wheel angle of the steering wheel 3 of the steering handle 2, the operating torque exerted by the driver on the steering handle 2, and a damping torque (e.g., “reaction torque”) specified as a function of the current steering wheel angle of the steering wheel 3 of the steering handle 2]; and output a command current to allow a reaction force motor to output the calculated braking torque [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0025-0032, the control unit 9 is structured to perform functions to output a control command, via a signaling connection, to a hand torque adjuster (e.g., “reaction force motor”) to output the calculated total damping torque torCatchUp].
With respect to claim 7, Strecker 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 depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0025-0032).
With respect to claim 8, Strecker 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 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 14, Strecker 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).
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.
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 2, 3, 9, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strecker in view of JP 02-175465 A to Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter: “Yamamoto”).
With respect to claim 2, Strecker modified supra teaches the steering control device of claim 1; however, Strecker appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the reaction torque is generated as a nut, which is moved in a 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.
Yamamoto teaches a steering control device in which a reaction torque is generated as a nut (24), which is moved in a direction of a rotation axis along a rotation direction of a steering wheel (1) in conjunction with rotation of the steering wheel, receives an external force by elastic members (32 & 33) positioned in a moving path of the nut, and as a reaction force motor (7) is driven and controlled (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2).
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 Strecker with the teachings of Yamamoto, if even necessary, such that the reaction torque is generated as a nut, which is moved in a 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 because Strecker discloses returning the steering wheel to a neutral position (as discussed by at least ¶ 0032 of Strecker) without disclosing exactly how the returning of the steering wheel to the neutral position is achieved, 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 Strecker would enable Strecker 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 Strecker 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).
With respect to claim 3, Strecker 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 9, Strecker modified supra teaches the steering control method of claim 8, wherein the reaction torque is generated as a nut, which is moved in a 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 claims 2 and 8).
With respect to claim 10, Strecker 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 15, Strecker teaches the steering control device of claim 1; however, Strecker 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; first and second dampers, 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 elastic members comprising 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.
Yamamoto teaches a steering control device (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2) comprising: a nut (24) configured to be movable along a rotation axis in response to rotation of the steering wheel (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2); first and second dampers (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 elastic members (32, 33) comprising 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 Strecker with the teachings of Yamamoto to further include a nut configured to be movable along a rotation axis in response to rotation of the steering wheel; first and second dampers, 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 elastic members comprising 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 because Strecker discloses returning the steering wheel to a neutral position (as discussed by at least ¶ 0032 of Strecker) without disclosing exactly how the returning of the steering wheel to the neutral position is achieved, 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 Strecker would enable Strecker 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 Strecker 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).
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strecker in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,984,042 to Nishimoto et al. (hereinafter: “Nishimoto”).
With respect to claim 4, Strecker modified supra teaches the steering control device of claim 1; however, Strecker 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 Strecker 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, Strecker 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. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0028-0032); however, Strecker 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 Strecker 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, Strecker 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, Strecker 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, Strecker 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, Strecker 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
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