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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed on January 27th, 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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:
“a logic device configured to receive” in at least claim 1
“a first logic device … configured to determine” in at least claim 6
“a second logic device … configured to measure” in at least claim 6
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.
The published specification provides corresponding structure for a logic device, a first logic device, and a second logic device, in paragraph 30.
The published specification provides corresponding structure for an autopilot drive release device in paragraph 40.
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.
`
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Zheng (US 20200361494 A1) (“Zheng”).
With respect to claim 1, Dolgov teaches a system comprising:
a logic device configured to receive torque sensor data from a torque sensor unit (TSU) coupled to a steering mechanism for a mobile structure, the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSU, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism and the logic device being configured to disengage an autopilot drive for the mobile structure (See at least Dolgov FIG. 4A “404-412” FIG. 4B and Paragraph 110 “At block 406, the computing device may determine the state of the vehicle, including parameters relating to the speed, environment, levels of the systems of vehicle, etc. while operating in autonomous mode. As discussed in FIG. 3, the computing device may determine multiple parameters relating to the transition of the vehicle from autonomous mode to manual mode.” | Paragraph 84 “Further, the computing device may be configured to differentiate steering torque applied by the driver from any mechanical-feedback torque that may be caused from the road through the use of different levels of thresholds. For example, the computing device may be configured to determine the difference between the mechanical-feedback torque resulting from the vehicle hitting a bump during a turn and the application of force on the steering wheel by the driver.”), wherein the logic device is configured to:
determine a force applied to one or more components of the steering mechanism for the mobile structure based, at least in part, on the torque sensor data provided by the TSU (See at least Dolgov FIG. 4A “410” and 4B “403a” and Paragraph 94 “At block 403 a shown in FIG. 4B, the computing device may be configured to determine if the steering system of the vehicle received any input through manual force to the steering wheel. As discussed in FIG. 3, a computing device may be configured to detect indications from any force that the driver may apply to the steering system. In other examples, the computing device may be configured to check for other indications prior to determining if force has been applied to the steering wheel. Likewise, the computing device may be configured to check multiple systems simultaneously in real-time to determine if the driver has indicated a desire for a transition of control of the vehicle from autonomous mode to manual mode.”); and
disengage the autopilot drive for the mobile structure based, at least in part, on the determined applied force, wherein the autopilot drive is disengaged to allow manual manipulation of the steering mechanism for the mobile structure (See at least Dolgov FIG. 4A “412” and Paragraph 113 “At block 412, the computing device may provide the instructions to perform the transition of control of the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode of operation as discussed in FIG. 3.”).
Dolgov fails to explicitly disclose receiving torque sensor data from a plurality of torque sensing units coupled to respective different parts of a steering mechanism for a mobile structure, the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSUs, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism at the respective different parts of the steering mechanism and receive a heading, wind direction, and/or cross track error associated with the autopilot drive for the mobile structure.
Stark teaches receive a heading, wind direction, and/or cross track error associated with the autopilot drive for the mobile structure (See at least Stark Paragraph 64 “If there is a mismatch, the computing device 110 may detect a failure. Once detected, the computing device 110 may send a signal to the control computing devices of the planner system 102. This signal may also identify if there is “too much” acceleration or change in acceleration or “not enough” acceleration or change in acceleration. Similarly, the signal may identify if there is “too much” change in the vehicle's orientation or “not enough” change in the vehicle's orientation. More particularly, the signal may identify errors in one or more of acceleration, speed, position (both longitudinally and laterally), yaw (direction in which the vehicle is pointing), etc”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov to include receive a heading, wind direction, and/or cross track error associated with the autopilot drive for the mobile structure, as taught by Stark as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe traversal of the vehicle (Stark Paragraph 23 “ Accordingly, identifying and addressing such errors immediately is a critical function for these vehicles. To identify such errors, information from the acceleration system can be compared to instructions generated by one or more control computing devices of the vehicle's planner system to determine if an error is present and respond accordingly.”).
Dolgov in view of Stark fail to explicitly disclose receiving torque sensor data from a plurality of torque sensing units coupled to respective different parts of a steering mechanism for a mobile structure, the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSUs, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism at the respective different parts of the steering mechanism.
Zheng teaches receiving torque sensor data from a plurality of torque sensing units coupled to respective different parts of a steering mechanism for a mobile structure, the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSUs, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism at the respective different parts of the steering mechanism (See at least Zheng FIG. 2 and Paragraph 30 “Referring to FIG. 2, the sensor(s) may be located in the steering column steer drive 204 and/or the steering gear steer drive 208. The sensors may also provide to the steering control module information related to steering wheel speed, steering wheel torque, a commanded steering position or torque (e.g., from the autonomous control unit), and actual or current steering wheel position. The steering column steer drive 204 and/or the steering gear steer drive 208 can measure an amount of torque and/or the direction of torque applied to the steering system operated in an autonomous mode and/or applied to the steering wheel in a driver-controlled mode where the driver controls the steering wheel of the vehicle. When a driver decides to take control of the steering wheel, the driver may turn the steering wheel or refuse to let the steering wheel move to indicate that he or she wants to disengage autonomous mode operation and transition to a driver-controlled mode.” | Paragraph 32 “In some embodiments, the steering control module 165 may determine that a driver wants to operate the vehicle in a driver-controlled mode by determining that torque values measured by the sensor(s) are greater than or equal to a threshold value, where the torque values indicate that a torque applied by the driver is in a same direction, and where the torque values are obtained or measured over a period of time greater than or equal to a pre-determined amount of time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark to include receiving torque sensor data from a plurality of torque sensing units coupled to respective different parts of a steering mechanism for a mobile structure, the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSUs, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism at the respective different parts of the steering mechanism, as taught by Zheng as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate torque data is received before disengaging autopilot control (Zheng Paragraph 4 “This patent document describes systems and methods for transitioning control of a steering wheel of a vehicle operating in an autonomous mode to a driver-controlled mode where a driver can control the steering wheel of the vehicle.”).
With respect to claim 3, and similarly claim 13, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng teach an autopilot drive release device configured to receive the torque sensor data and/or corresponding sensor signals provided by the plurality of TSUs and disengage the autopilot drive from the one or more components of the steering mechanism for the mobile structure and/or the mobile structure, wherein the autopilot drive release device is calibrated for the mobile structure based, at least in part, on one or more load profiles generated through use of the autopilot drive with the mobile structure (See at least Dolgov Paragraph 84 “In some example implementations of method 300, a computing device may be configured to switch between autonomous mode and manual more than once. Further, the computing device may be configured to differentiate steering torque applied by the driver from any mechanical-feedback torque that may be caused from the road through the use of different levels of thresholds. For example, the computing device may be configured to determine the difference between the mechanical-feedback torque resulting from the vehicle hitting a bump during a turn and the application of force on the steering wheel by the driver. In order to determine the difference, the computing device may require a high threshold any indication received from a manual turning the steering wheel. Further, the computing device may be configured to eliminate over-steering through an adaptive strategy in the instructions for the handoff of control. For example, a computing device may use an adaptive strategy to smoothly ramp down the vehicle torque to zero in order to let the driver adapt.” | Paragraph 94 “At block 403 a shown in FIG. 4B, the computing device may be configured to determine if the steering system of the vehicle received any input through manual force to the steering wheel. As discussed in FIG. 3, a computing device may be configured to detect indications from any force that the driver may apply to the steering system. In other examples, the computing device may be configured to check for other indications prior to determining if force has been applied to the steering wheel. Likewise, the computing device may be configured to check multiple systems simultaneously in real-time to determine if the driver has indicated a desire for a transition of control of the vehicle from autonomous mode to manual mode.” | Paragraph 102 “FIG. 4C further expands upon block 404 of FIG. 4A, showing example thresholds the computing device may use to determine if the detected indication is a true request from the driver for a transition of control from autonomous mode to manual mode. Within FIG. 4C, blocks 405 a-405 d represent example threshold tests that a computing device may utilize in order to determine whether to proceed in method 300 to transition control of the vehicle or to recognize that the detected indication may have resulted from error. A computing device may be configured to perform each threshold tests regardless of the type of indication detected or may focus upon a threshold test based on the indication. Similarly, the computing device may be configured to determine a combination of levels relative to expected thresholds amounts that may be changed according to driving conditions, by the computing device, or manually by the driver. The thresholds may vary or may be predefined and multiple thresholds may be applied.”).
With respect to claim 11, Dolgov a method comprising:
determining a force applied to one or more components of a steering mechanism for the mobile structure based, at least in part, on torque sensor data provided by a torque sensor unit (TSU) the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSU, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism (See at least Dolgov FIG. 4A “404-412” FIG. 4B and Paragraph 110 “At block 406, the computing device may determine the state of the vehicle, including parameters relating to the speed, environment, levels of the systems of vehicle, etc. while operating in autonomous mode. As discussed in FIG. 3, the computing device may determine multiple parameters relating to the transition of the vehicle from autonomous mode to manual mode.” | Paragraph 84 “Further, the computing device may be configured to differentiate steering torque applied by the driver from any mechanical-feedback torque that may be caused from the road through the use of different levels of thresholds. For example, the computing device may be configured to determine the difference between the mechanical-feedback torque resulting from the vehicle hitting a bump during a turn and the application of force on the steering wheel by the driver.”); and
disengaging the autopilot drive for the mobile structure based, at least in part, on the determined applied force, wherein the autopilot drive is disengaged to allow manual manipulation of the steering mechanism for the mobile structure (See at least Dolgov FIG. 4A “412” and Paragraph 113 “At block 412, the computing device may provide the instructions to perform the transition of control of the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode of operation as discussed in FIG. 3.”).
Dolgov fails to explicitly disclose receiving torque sensor data from a plurality of torque sensing units coupled to respective different parts of a steering mechanism for a mobile structure, the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSUs, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism at the respective different parts of the steering mechanism and receive a heading, wind direction, and/or cross track error associated with the autopilot drive for the mobile structure.
Stark teaches receive a heading, wind direction, and/or cross track error associated with the autopilot drive for the mobile structure (See at least Stark Paragraph 64 “If there is a mismatch, the computing device 110 may detect a failure. Once detected, the computing device 110 may send a signal to the control computing devices of the planner system 102. This signal may also identify if there is “too much” acceleration or change in acceleration or “not enough” acceleration or change in acceleration. Similarly, the signal may identify if there is “too much” change in the vehicle's orientation or “not enough” change in the vehicle's orientation. More particularly, the signal may identify errors in one or more of acceleration, speed, position (both longitudinally and laterally), yaw (direction in which the vehicle is pointing), etc”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov to include receive a heading, wind direction, and/or cross track error associated with the autopilot drive for the mobile structure, as taught by Stark as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe traversal of the vehicle (Stark Paragraph 23 “ Accordingly, identifying and addressing such errors immediately is a critical function for these vehicles. To identify such errors, information from the acceleration system can be compared to instructions generated by one or more control computing devices of the vehicle's planner system to determine if an error is present and respond accordingly.”).
Dolgov in view of Stark fail to explicitly disclose receiving torque sensor data from a plurality of torque sensing units coupled to respective different parts of a steering mechanism for a mobile structure, the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSUs, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism at the respective different parts of the steering mechanism.
Zheng teaches receiving torque sensor data from a plurality of torque sensing units coupled to respective different parts of a steering mechanism for a mobile structure, the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSUs, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism at the respective different parts of the steering mechanism (See at least Zheng FIG. 2 and Paragraph 30 “Referring to FIG. 2, the sensor(s) may be located in the steering column steer drive 204 and/or the steering gear steer drive 208. The sensors may also provide to the steering control module information related to steering wheel speed, steering wheel torque, a commanded steering position or torque (e.g., from the autonomous control unit), and actual or current steering wheel position. The steering column steer drive 204 and/or the steering gear steer drive 208 can measure an amount of torque and/or the direction of torque applied to the steering system operated in an autonomous mode and/or applied to the steering wheel in a driver-controlled mode where the driver controls the steering wheel of the vehicle. When a driver decides to take control of the steering wheel, the driver may turn the steering wheel or refuse to let the steering wheel move to indicate that he or she wants to disengage autonomous mode operation and transition to a driver-controlled mode.” | Paragraph 32 “In some embodiments, the steering control module 165 may determine that a driver wants to operate the vehicle in a driver-controlled mode by determining that torque values measured by the sensor(s) are greater than or equal to a threshold value, where the torque values indicate that a torque applied by the driver is in a same direction, and where the torque values are obtained or measured over a period of time greater than or equal to a pre-determined amount of time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark to include receiving torque sensor data from a plurality of torque sensing units coupled to respective different parts of a steering mechanism for a mobile structure, the torque sensor data comprising torques or forces sensed by the TSUs, the torques or forces being applied to the steering mechanism at the respective different parts of the steering mechanism, as taught by Zheng as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate torque data is received before disengaging autopilot control (Zheng Paragraph 4 “This patent document describes systems and methods for transitioning control of a steering wheel of a vehicle operating in an autonomous mode to a driver-controlled mode where a driver can control the steering wheel of the vehicle.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Wiesenberg (US 20220242436 A1) (“Wiesenberg”) further in view of Engel (US 20090056473 A1) (“Engel”) further in view of Lehmann (US 20140136032 A1) (“Lehmann”).
With respect to claim 2, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng teach to determine the force applied to the one or more components of the steering mechanism based, at least in part, on a torque applied to the one or more components of the steering mechanism during an engagement of the autopilot drive with the mobile structure (See at least Dolgov Paragraph 84 “In some example implementations of method 300, a computing device may be configured to switch between autonomous mode and manual more than once. Further, the computing device may be configured to differentiate steering torque applied by the driver from any mechanical-feedback torque that may be caused from the road through the use of different levels of thresholds. For example, the computing device may be configured to determine the difference between the mechanical-feedback torque resulting from the vehicle hitting a bump during a turn and the application of force on the steering wheel by the driver. In order to determine the difference, the computing device may require a high threshold any indication received from a manual turning the steering wheel. Further, the computing device may be configured to eliminate over-steering through an adaptive strategy in the instructions for the handoff of control. For example, a computing device may use an adaptive strategy to smoothly ramp down the vehicle torque to zero in order to let the driver adapt”).
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng fail to explicitly disclose that the plurality of TSU comprises a first TSU disposed at least partially within and/or integrated with a steering wheel hub, and a second TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure.
Engel teaches a first TSU disposed at least partially within and/or integrated with a steering wheel hub (See at least Engel Paragraph 8 “In accordance with one embodiment, a steering wheel hub is provided, the input and output members being part of the steering wheel hub, i.e. the steering wheel hub is of a two-part design. A steering column is connected to the output member, which is a first part of the steering wheel hub; and the input member, which is a second part of the steering wheel hub, is connected with a steering wheel rim. The input member could just as well be part of the steering wheel rim. If the torque sensor is integrated in the steering wheel hub, a clock spring may be used for signal transmission. The signals from operating elements of a multifunctional steering wheel are also transmitted via the clock spring.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng to include a first TSU disposed at least partially within and/or integrated with a steering wheel hub, as taught by Engel as disclosed above, to ensure accurate torque measurement (Engel Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to a torque sensor for a steering wheel”).
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel fail to explicitly disclose a second TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure.
Lehmann teaches a second TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure (See at least Lehmann Paragraphs 14-15 “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the physical quantity is a bending stress and/or a torque. Alternatively to the bending stress, the bending moment acting on the rudder and causing the bending stress in the rudder can also be determined. Both the lift force and also the resistance force can readily be determined by calculation on the basis of the bending stress. This is also possible on the basis of the torsional force acting on the rudder, i.e. the torque. It is particularly preferable to determine both the bending stress and the torque in order to obtain the highest possible accuracy in the calculation of the forces acting on the rudder … In particular, it is expedient that the at least one measuring device is configured to determine the bending stress acting on a rudder trunk and/or a rudder stock of the rudder and/or the torque acting on the rudder stock of the rudder.” | Paragraph 44 “A measuring device 28 is provided on the surface of the rudder stock 40 in an upper region of the rudder stock 40 which is located inside the hull 26 and not yet in the rudder blade 50 … The measuring device 28 is configured to measure or determine the torque in the rudder stock 40 whilst the bending stress prevailing in the rudder trunk 30 can be determined by means of the measuring device 27. The measured or determined values are transmitted from both measuring devices 27, 28 to a processing unit (not shown here). For this purpose, transmitting or sending means (not shown here) suitable for wireless transmission of the data are provided in each measuring device 27, 28”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel to include a second TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure, as taught by Lehmann as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate torque measurement (Lehmann Paragraph 7 “It is therefore the object of the present invention to improve autopilot systems of watercraft and/or dynamic positioning systems in such a manner that the switching hysteresis is reduced. This object is solved with an arrangement for determining a force, in particular a lift force and/or resistance force, acting on a rudder, in particular spade rudders, for watercraft,”).
Claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Zheng (US 20200361494 A1) (“Zheng”) further in view of Engel (US 20090056473 A1) (“Engel”) further in view of Sumio (JP 4853070 B2) (“Sumio”) (Attached).
With respect to claim 4, and similarly claim 14, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng teach an autopilot drive release device comprising a portion of a steering wheel hub (See at least Dolgov Paragraph 53 and 71)
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng fail to explicitly disclose that the plurality of TSUs comprises a first TSU disposed at least partially within the steering wheel hub; and the first TSU comprises a strain gauge coupled to and/or integrated with the steering mechanism, wherein the force applied to the steering mechanism comprises a torque applied to the steering mechanism and measured or detected via the strain gauge.
Engel teaches that the TSU is disposed at least partially within the steering wheel hub (See at least Engel Paragraph 8 “In accordance with one embodiment, a steering wheel hub is provided, the input and output members being part of the steering wheel hub, i.e. the steering wheel hub is of a two-part design. A steering column is connected to the output member, which is a first part of the steering wheel hub; and the input member, which is a second part of the steering wheel hub, is connected with a steering wheel rim. The input member could just as well be part of the steering wheel rim. If the torque sensor is integrated in the steering wheel hub, a clock spring may be used for signal transmission. The signals from operating elements of a multifunctional steering wheel are also transmitted via the clock spring.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng to include that the TSU is disposed at least partially within the steering wheel hub, as taught by Engel as disclosed above, to ensure accurate torque measurement (Engel Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to a torque sensor for a steering wheel”).
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel fail to explicitly disclose that the first TSU comprises a strain gauge coupled to and/or integrated with the steering mechanism, wherein the force applied to the steering mechanism comprises a torque applied to the steering mechanism and measured or detected via the strain gauge.
Sumio that the first TSU comprises a strain gauge coupled to and/or integrated with the steering mechanism, wherein the force applied to the steering mechanism comprises a torque applied to the steering mechanism and measured or detected via the strain gauge (See at least Sumio FIG. 8 and Paragraphs 103-107 “Next, FIG. 8 is a cross-sectional view of a steering actuator (rotary actuator) of a steer-by-wire system according to a modified example of the first embodiment of the present invention … When the sensor (strain gauge 70) is attached to the housing 56, the sensor (strain gauge 70) does not move, so there is no need to worry about this and highly reliable load measurement can be performed … Furthermore, the relationship between the axial force of the tie rod arm 3 and the amount of strain of the strain gauge 70 changes depending on the angle of the pitman arm 2, but it is also possible to grasp the relationship in advance and calculate it by calculation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel to include that the first TSU comprises a strain gauge coupled to and/or integrated with the steering mechanism, wherein the force applied to the steering mechanism comprises a torque applied to the steering mechanism and measured or detected via the strain gauge, as taught by Sumio as disclosed above, in order to increase efficiency (Sumio Paragraph 19 “Furthermore, the degree of freedom in vehicle layout can be increased, and backlash that occurs when a planetary gear mechanism is used can be reduced, reducing noise and improving maneuverability”).
With respect to claim 7, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Sumio teach a power unit for the autopilot drive release device comprising one of a photo voltaic panel in a center of the steering wheel hub or a wired cable connection and slipring (See at least Dolgov Paragraph 16 “Components of the automobile 100 may be configured to work in an interconnected fashion with each other and/or with other components coupled to respective systems. For example, the power supply 110 may provide power to all the components of the automobile 100” | Paragraph 20 “The energy source 120 may be a source of energy that powers the engine/motor 118 in full or in part. That is, the engine/motor 118 may be configured to convert the energy source 120 into mechanical energy. Examples of energy sources 120 include gasoline, diesel, other petroleum-based fuels, propane, other compressed gas-based fuels, ethanol, solar panels, batteries, and other sources of electrical power. The energy source(s) 120 could additionally or alternatively include any combination of fuel tanks, batteries, capacitors, and/or flywheels. In some examples, the energy source 120 may provide energy for other systems of the automobile 100 as well”| Paragraph 52 “The power supply 110 may be configured to provide power to some or all of the components of the automobile 100. To this end, the power supply 110 may include, for example, a rechargeable lithium-ion or lead-acid battery. In some examples, one or more banks of batteries could be configured to provide electrical power. Other power supply materials and configurations are possible as well. In some examples, the power supply 110 and energy source 120 may be implemented together, as in some all-electric cars.”); and
a touch sensor integrated with a steering wheel for the mobile structure, wherein the disengaging the autopilot drive for the mobile structure is based, at least in part, on the determined applied force and touch sensor data provided by the touch sensor (See at least Dolgov Paragraph 71 “At block 302, the method 300 involves receiving, via a computing device, an indication for a transition of control of a vehicle operating in an autonomous mode, and the computing device is configured to control the vehicle in the autonomous mode. A computing device autonomously controlling a vehicle may be configured to continuously monitor for various types of indications from the driver requesting a switch to manual control of the vehicle. The computing device may be configured to detect and receive various indications from the driver, such as manual application of the throttle, brakes, or steering wheel, etc. In one implementation, a vehicle may be configured with a button, switch, or similar interface for receiving an indication from the driver for a transition from autonomous mode to manual mode. Further, a computing device may use various means to detect the indications, including gauges, sensors, or other components.”).
With respect to claim 17, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Sumio teach that the autopilot drive release device comprises a power unit including one of a photo voltaic panel in a center of the steering wheel hub or a wired cable connection and slipring (See at least Dolgov Paragraph 16 “Components of the automobile 100 may be configured to work in an interconnected fashion with each other and/or with other components coupled to respective systems. For example, the power supply 110 may provide power to all the components of the automobile 100” | Paragraph 20 “The energy source 120 may be a source of energy that powers the engine/motor 118 in full or in part. That is, the engine/motor 118 may be configured to convert the energy source 120 into mechanical energy. Examples of energy sources 120 include gasoline, diesel, other petroleum-based fuels, propane, other compressed gas-based fuels, ethanol, solar panels, batteries, and other sources of electrical power. The energy source(s) 120 could additionally or alternatively include any combination of fuel tanks, batteries, capacitors, and/or flywheels. In some examples, the energy source 120 may provide energy for other systems of the automobile 100 as well”| Paragraph 52 “The power supply 110 may be configured to provide power to some or all of the components of the automobile 100. To this end, the power supply 110 may include, for example, a rechargeable lithium-ion or lead-acid battery. In some examples, one or more banks of batteries could be configured to provide electrical power. Other power supply materials and configurations are possible as well. In some examples, the power supply 110 and energy source 120 may be implemented together, as in some all-electric cars.”).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Zheng (US 20200361494 A1) (“Zheng”) in view of Engel (US 20090056473 A1) (“Engel”) in view of Sumio (JP 4853070 B2) (“Sumio”) (Attached) further in view of Cyr (US 4681055 A) (“Cyr”).
With respect to claim 5, and similarly claim 15, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Sumio fail to explicitly disclose that the autopilot drive release device is mounted on a steering shaft of the steering mechanism and the steering wheel hub fixes the autopilot drive release device on the steering shaft.
Cyr teaches that the autopilot drive release device is mounted on a steering shaft of the steering mechanism and the steering wheel hub fixes the autopilot drive release device on the steering shaft (See at least Cyr Col. 1 Line 46 – Col. 2 line 1“The invention constitutes a system for enabling selective manual or autopilot control of a craft, for use with an autopilot device providing error signals to maintain a craft's heading in a pre-selected direction, the system adapted for mounting between the steering wheel of the craft and the steering wheel shaft thereof. The system comprises: a system housing connectable between said steering wheel and said steering wheel shaft; a servo mechanism in said housing electromechanically communicating with said autopilot device, said servo mechanism having a mechanical output; a servo interface in said housing, connected to said mechanical output of said servo mechanism, said servo interface connected to a first gear; an adapter in said housing connected between said steering wheel and said wheel shaft, said adapter configured for ease of installation of said autopilot device between said steering wheel and said steering wheel shaft without need for specialized hardware, said adapter connected to a second gear; and a means for selective mechanical coaction of said adapter and said servo output, said co-action means providing both an autopilot control of said steering wheel shaft and, alternatively, providing normal manual control of said steering wheel shaft,” | Col. 3 lines 19 - 32“With reference to FIG. 3, it may be noted that adaptor 16 includes female connector end 32 having threads 38. The threads 38 receive wheel shaft 28 thru hollow end 14 of the adaptor 16. At the other end of adaptor 16, the steering wheel 18 mates with adaptor 16 at a male connector end 36. Therein, it is to be seen that adaptor 16 includes said female connector end 32 which mirrors the threaded opening or recess in the steering wheel shaft 28 of the craft. At its other end, the adaptor 16 includes male connector end 36 having threads that mirror the distal end of steering wheel 18. The adaptor 16 is, in addition, keyed to driving hub 13 (See FIGS. 3 and 4) of drive gear 42 such that the adaptor 16 will rotate whenever gear 42 is rotated”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Sumio to include that the autopilot drive release device is mounted on a steering shaft of the steering mechanism and the steering wheel hub fixes the autopilot drive release device on the steering shaft, as taught by Cyr as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal device structure (Cyr “This invention relates generally to automatic directional control of a craft and particularly to automatic pilots for watercraft having a steering wheel apparatus connected to the steerage mechanism.”).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Zheng (US 20200361494 A1) (“Zheng”) in view of Engel (US 20090056473 A1) (“Engel”) in view of Sumio (JP 4853070 B2) (“Sumio”) (Attached) further in view of Cella (US 20200103892 A1) (“Cella”).
With respect to claim 6, and similarly claim 16, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Sumio fail to explicitly disclose that the logic device comprises a first logic device and is configured to determine the force applied to the one or more components by: receiving the torque sensor data and/or corresponding sensor signals generated by the strain gauge from a second logic device of the autopilot drive release device via a wireless communication channel, wherein the second logic device is configured to measure the torque via the strain gauge and compare the measured torque to a threshold torque level.
Cella teaches that the logic device comprises a first logic device and is configured to determine the force applied to the one or more components by: receiving the torque sensor data and/or corresponding sensor signals generated by the strain 4 gauge from a second logic device of the autopilot drive release device via a wireless communication channel, wherein the second logic device is configured to measure the torque via the strain gauge and compare the measured torque to a threshold torque level (See at least Cella Paragraph 636 “The plurality of sensors 8106 may be wired to ports on the data acquisition circuit 8104. The plurality of sensors 8106 may be wirelessly connected to the data acquisition circuit 8104. The data acquisition circuit 8104 may be able to access detection values corresponding to the output of at least one of the plurality of sensors 8106 where the sensors 8106 may be capturing data on different operational aspects of a piece of equipment or an operating component.” | Paragraphs 850 – 852 “The torsional analysis circuit 9412 may be structured to identify torsion in a component or system, such as based on anticipated state, historical state, system geometry and the like, such as that which is available from the data storage circuit 9414. The torsional analysis circuit 9412 may be structured to identify torsion using a variety of techniques such as amplitude, phase and frequency differences in the detection values from two linear accelerometers positioned at different locations on a shaft. The torsional analysis circuit 9412 may identify torsion using the difference in amplitude and phase between an angular accelerometer on a shaft and an angular accelerometer on a slip ring on the end of the shaft. The torsional analysis circuit 9412 may identify shear stress/elongation on a component using two strain gauges in a half bridge configuration or four strain gauges in a full bridge configuration … Additional input sensors may include a thermometer, a heat flux sensor, a magnetometer, an axial load sensor, a radial load sensor, an accelerometer, a shear-stress torque sensor … The torsional analysis circuit 9412 may include one or more of a transient signal analysis circuit and/or a frequency transformation circuit and/or a frequency analysis circuit as described elsewhere herein.” | Paragraph 870 “The response circuit 9410 may initiate actions based on a component performance parameter, a component health value, a component life prediction parameter, and the like. The response circuit 9410 may evaluate the results of the system evaluation circuit 9408 and, based on certain criteria or the output from various components of the system evaluation circuit 9408, may initiate an action … Criteria may include a predetermined peak value for a detection value from a specific sensor, a cumulative value of a sensor's corresponding detection value over time, a change in peak value, a rate of change in a peak value, and/or an accumulated value (e.g., a time spent above/below a threshold value, a weighted time spent above/below one or more threshold values, and/or an area of the detected value above/below one or more threshold values)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Sumio to include that the logic device comprises a first logic device and is configured to determine the force applied to the one or more components by: receiving the torque sensor data and/or corresponding sensor signals generated by the strain 4 gauge from a second logic device of the autopilot drive release device via a wireless communication channel, wherein the second logic device is configured to measure the torque via the strain gauge and compare the measured torque to a threshold torque level, as taught by Cella as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate evaluation of information (Cella Paragraph 14 “The present disclosure describes a monitoring system for data collection in a vehicle steering system including a vehicle steering system comprising a rack, a pinion, and a steering column”)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Lehmann (US 20140136032 A1) (“Lehmann”) in view of Johnsen (US 5413461 A) (“Johnsen”).
With respect to claim 8, Dolgov teaches a system comprising:
a logic device configured to receive torque sensor data from a torque sensor unit (TSU) coupled to a steering mechanism for a mobile structure and to disengage an autopilot drive for the mobile structure (See at least Dolgov FIG. 4A “404-412” FIG. 4B and Paragraph 110 “At block 406, the computing device may determine the state of the vehicle, including parameters relating to the speed, environment, levels of the systems of vehicle, etc. while operating in autonomous mode. As discussed in FIG. 3, the computing device may determine multiple parameters relating to the transition of the vehicle from autonomous mode to manual mode.” | Paragraph 84 “Further, the computing device may be configured to differentiate steering torque applied by the driver from any mechanical-feedback torque that may be caused from the road through the use of different levels of thresholds. For example, the computing device may be configured to determine the difference between the mechanical-feedback torque resulting from the vehicle hitting a bump during a turn and the application of force on the steering wheel by the driver.”), wherein the logic device is configured to:
determine a force applied to one or more components of the steering mechanism for the mobile structure based, at least in part, on the torque sensor data provided by the TSU (See at least Dolgov FIG. 4A “410” and 4B “403a” and Paragraph 94 “At block 403 a shown in FIG. 4B, the computing device may be configured to determine if the steering system of the vehicle received any input through manual force to the steering wheel. As discussed in FIG. 3, a computing device may be configured to detect indications from any force that the driver may apply to the steering system. In other examples, the computing device may be configured to check for other indications prior to determining if force has been applied to the steering wheel. Likewise, the computing device may be configured to check multiple systems simultaneously in real-time to determine if the driver has indicated a desire for a transition of control of the vehicle from autonomous mode to manual mode.”); and
disengage the autopilot drive for the mobile structure based, at least in part, on the determined applied force, wherein the autopilot drive is disengaged to allow manual manipulation of the steering mechanism for the mobile structure (See at least Dolgov FIG. 4A “412” and Paragraph 113 “At block 412, the computing device may provide the instructions to perform the transition of control of the vehicle from the autonomous mode to the manual mode of operation as discussed in FIG. 3.”).
Dolgov fails to explicitly disclose receive a heading, wind direction, and/or cross track error associated with the autopilot drive for the mobile structure and wherein: the TSU comprises an indirect TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure; and the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with the one of the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell.
Stark teaches receive a heading, wind direction, and/or cross track error associated with the autopilot drive for the mobile structure (See at least Stark Paragraph 64 “If there is a mismatch, the computing device 110 may detect a failure. Once detected, the computing device 110 may send a signal to the control computing devices of the planner system 102. This signal may also identify if there is “too much” acceleration or change in acceleration or “not enough” acceleration or change in acceleration. Similarly, the signal may identify if there is “too much” change in the vehicle's orientation or “not enough” change in the vehicle's orientation. More particularly, the signal may identify errors in one or more of acceleration, speed, position (both longitudinally and laterally), yaw (direction in which the vehicle is pointing), etc”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov to include receive a heading, wind direction, and/or cross track error associated with the autopilot drive for the mobile structure, as taught by Stark as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe traversal of the vehicle (Stark Paragraph 23 “ Accordingly, identifying and addressing such errors immediately is a critical function for these vehicles. To identify such errors, information from the acceleration system can be compared to instructions generated by one or more control computing devices of the vehicle's planner system to determine if an error is present and respond accordingly.”).
Dolgov in view of Stark fail to explicitly disclose the TSU comprises an indirect TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure; and the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with the one of the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell.
Lehmann teaches that the TSU comprises an indirect TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure (See at least Lehmann Paragraphs 14-15 “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the physical quantity is a bending stress and/or a torque. Alternatively to the bending stress, the bending moment acting on the rudder and causing the bending stress in the rudder can also be determined. Both the lift force and also the resistance force can readily be determined by calculation on the basis of the bending stress. This is also possible on the basis of the torsional force acting on the rudder, i.e. the torque. It is particularly preferable to determine both the bending stress and the torque in order to obtain the highest possible accuracy in the calculation of the forces acting on the rudder … In particular, it is expedient that the at least one measuring device is configured to determine the bending stress acting on a rudder trunk and/or a rudder stock of the rudder and/or the torque acting on the rudder stock of the rudder.” | Paragraph 44 “A measuring device 28 is provided on the surface of the rudder stock 40 in an upper region of the rudder stock 40 which is located inside the hull 26 and not yet in the rudder blade 50 … The measuring device 28 is configured to measure or determine the torque in the rudder stock 40 whilst the bending stress prevailing in the rudder trunk 30 can be determined by means of the measuring device 27. The measured or determined values are transmitted from both measuring devices 27, 28 to a processing unit (not shown here). For this purpose, transmitting or sending means (not shown here) suitable for wireless transmission of the data are provided in each measuring device 27, 28”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of to include that the TSU comprises an indirect TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure, as taught by Lehmann as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate torque measurement (Lehmann Paragraph 7 “It is therefore the object of the present invention to improve autopilot systems of watercraft and/or dynamic positioning systems in such a manner that the switching hysteresis is reduced. This object is solved with an arrangement for determining a force, in particular a lift force and/or resistance force, acting on a rudder, in particular spade rudders, for watercraft, ”).
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Lehmann fail to explicitly disclose that the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with the one of the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell.
Johnsen, however, teaches that the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with a propeller, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell (See at least Johnsen Col. 4 lines 15-25 “In FIG. 1 is shown the general principle for reading the propulsion force Fh in accordance with the invention. The propeller 1 is visualized as a propeller of the variable-pitch type (but may also be of the type with fixed blades). A load cell 3 (force sensor) reads Fh against the thrust bearing 4 of the propeller shaft 2, forwards and backwards, possibly in the rear sleeve 5 (“stern tube'). The measurement signals from load cell 3 are applied to a computer 6 of the microprocessor type, which in principle executes the following operation, compare FIGS. 2 and 3:” | Claim 1 “monitoring continuously a net axial force exerted longitudinally along the length of said solid propeller shaft (2) using a force sensor (3) mounted on one of said at least one bearing (4,5); and using said net axial force as a main parameter in controlling said power, in such a manner that the net axial force remains optimized in relation to propeller (1) efficiency and economic engine fuel consumption”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Lehmann to include that the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with a propeller, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell, as taught by Johnsen as disclosed above, such that the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with the one of the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, in order to ensure accurate torque sensing (Johnsen “The present invention concerns a method and a means for achieving optimum utilization of the propulsion engine of a vessel, and more specifically, optimum operation of a ship's propeller in relation to an economic utilization of fuel, in relation to the cavitation problem (formation of bubbles in metal) on the propeller surface, as well as in relation to increased manoeuvering safety at maximum utilization of the propeller performance”).
With respect to claim 9, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Lehmann in view of Johnsen teach a first logic device and is configured to determine the force applied to the one or more components by: receiving the torque sensor data and/or corresponding sensor signals from a second logic device of the TSU, wherein the second logic device characterizes the one or more sensor signals as a manual loading applied to the steering mechanism based on one or more load profiles for the steering mechanism, the autopilot drive, and/or the mobile structure (See at least Dolgov Paragraph 13 “In some instances, the computing device may be configured to only perform a transition of control to the driver if the indication from the driver satisfies one or more thresholds. For example, the computing device may be configured to only transition the control to the driver if the detected amount of change in the steering system of the vehicle exceeds a threshold. By requiring a threshold amount, the computing device may confirm that the received indication was intended by the driver and not an accidental bump of the steering wheel or other cause of a slight change” | Paragraph 72 “In addition, a computing device controlling a vehicle in autonomous mode may be configured to determine that a received indication exceeds a threshold to prevent detecting a false indication. For example, the computing device may be configured to determine that a manual change by the driver in the steering system of the vehicle (e.g., turning of the steering wheel) is above a threshold and unrelated to the control of the vehicle in the autonomous mode. The computing device may be configured to prevent transitioning control to the driver in instances that the driver accidently bumped the steering wheel and did not want a transition of control into manual operation mode by using a threshold” | Paragraph 84 “In some example implementations of method 300, a computing device may be configured to switch between autonomous mode and manual more than once. Further, the computing device may be configured to differentiate steering torque applied by the driver from any mechanical-feedback torque that may be caused from the road through the use of different levels of thresholds. For example, the computing device may be configured to determine the difference between the mechanical-feedback torque resulting from the vehicle hitting a bump during a turn and the application of force on the steering wheel by the driver. In order to determine the difference, the computing device may require a high threshold any indication received from a manual turning the steering wheel.” | Paragraph 104 “At block 405 a, the computing device may be configured to determine if the turning angle of the vehicle is above a threshold. For instance, a computing device may determine the current turning angle of the vehicle and/or determine if the force applied to the steering wheel by the driver exceeds a threshold. By using a threshold, the computing device may ensure that the force applied to the steering system was a result of the driver requesting control and not from hitting a bump in the road or the driver accidently bumping the steering wheel, for example. As discussed in FIG. 3, the computing device may require that force applied to the steering system by the driver exceeds a threshold to prevent initiating an unwanted transition from autonomous mode to manual mode.”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Lehmann (US 20140136032 A1) (“Lehmann”) in view of Johnsen (US 5413461 A) (“Johnsen”) further in view of Orivuori (US 20200115012 A1) (“Orivuori”).
With respect to claim 10, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Lehmann in view of Johnsen teach to generate the one or more load profiles based, at least in part, on manual loading applied to the steering mechanism (See at least Dolgov Paragraphs 13, 72, 84).
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Lehmann in view of Johnsen fail to explicitly disclose generating the one or more load profiles based on water loading backed to or through the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant.
Orivuori teaches generating load profiles based on detecting disturbances to the rudder that affect movement (See at least Orivuori Paragraphs 50-53 “In an example embodiment, the disturbance 140 in the one or more degrees of freedom comprises one or more of the following: the roll 200, the pitch 202, the yaw 204, the surge 206, the sway 208. In an example embodiment, the attenuation of the roll 200 and the yaw 204 decreases the use of rudder for an autopilot, and, consequently, reduces drag and fuel consumption of the marine vessel 100 … In 326, control data 114 is determined for the one or more apparatuses 102 exerting force to attenuate the detected disturbance 140.” | Paragraph 68 “In an example embodiment, the control data 114, 118 is determined to attenuate a future disturbance as the disturbance predicted with a periodic disturbance pattern detected based on the motion data 300. The periodic disturbance may be caused by waves and/or wind and/or sea currents and/or flow fields. In this way, the disturbances may be attenuated in a planned fashion. The periodic disturbance pattern may be continuously updated based on the motion data 300. The magnitude and direction of environmental forces affecting position of the marine vessel 100 as disturbances are measured and/or predicted”).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Lehmann in view of Johnsen to include generating load profiles based on detecting disturbances to the rudder that affect movement, as taught by Orivuori as disclosed above, such that the disturbance is water loading backed to or through the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, in order to ensure safe transportation of the mobile structure (Orivuori Paragraph 4 “The present invention seeks to provide an improved control for a marine vessel.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Zheng (US 20200361494 A1) (“Zheng”) further in view of Sumio (JP 4853070 B2) (“Sumio”) (Attached).
With respect to claim 12, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng teach the determining the one or more sensor signals comprises: determining the force applied to the one or more components of the steering mechanism based, at least in part, on a torque applied to the one or more components of the steering mechanism during an engagement of the autopilot drive with the mobile structure(See at least Dolgov FIG. 4A “410” and 4B “403a” and Paragraph 94 “At block 403 a shown in FIG. 4B, the computing device may be configured to determine if the steering system of the vehicle received any input through manual force to the steering wheel. As discussed in FIG. 3, a computing device may be configured to detect indications from any force that the driver may apply to the steering system. In other examples, the computing device may be configured to check for other indications prior to determining if force has been applied to the steering wheel. Likewise, the computing device may be configured to check multiple systems simultaneously in real-time to determine if the driver has indicated a desire for a transition of control of the vehicle from autonomous mode to manual mode.”).
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng fail to explicitly disclose that the plurality of TSUs comprises a direct TSU comprising a strain gauge coupled to and/or integrated with the one or more components of the steering mechanism.
Sumio that the plurality of TSUs comprises a direct TSU comprising a strain gauge coupled to and/or integrated with the one or more components of the steering mechanism (See at least Sumio FIG. 8 and Paragraphs 103-107 “Next, FIG. 8 is a cross-sectional view of a steering actuator (rotary actuator) of a steer-by-wire system according to a modified example of the first embodiment of the present invention … When the sensor (strain gauge 70) is attached to the housing 56, the sensor (strain gauge 70) does not move, so there is no need to worry about this and highly reliable load measurement can be performed … Furthermore, the relationship between the axial force of the tie rod arm 3 and the amount of strain of the strain gauge 70 changes depending on the angle of the pitman arm 2, but it is also possible to grasp the relationship in advance and calculate it by calculation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng to include the plurality of TSUs comprises a direct TSU comprising a strain gauge coupled to and/or integrated with the one or more components of the steering mechanism, as taught by Sumio as disclosed above, in order to increase efficiency (Sumio Paragraph 19 “Furthermore, the degree of freedom in vehicle layout can be increased, and backlash that occurs when a planetary gear mechanism is used can be reduced, reducing noise and improving maneuverability”).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Zheng (US 20200361494 A1) (“Zheng”) further in view of Engel (US 20090056473 A1) (“Engel”) further in view of Lehmann (US 20140136032 A1) (“Lehmann”) further in view of Johnsen (US 5413461 A) (“Johnsen”).
With respect to claim 18, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng fail to explicitly disclose that the plurality of TSUs comprises: a direct TSU disposed at least partially within and/or integrated with a steering wheel hub; and an indirect TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure; wherein the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with the one of the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell.
Engel teaches a direct TSU disposed at least partially within and/or integrated with a steering wheel hub (See at least Engel Paragraph 8 “In accordance with one embodiment, a steering wheel hub is provided, the input and output members being part of the steering wheel hub, i.e. the steering wheel hub is of a two-part design. A steering column is connected to the output member, which is a first part of the steering wheel hub; and the input member, which is a second part of the steering wheel hub, is connected with a steering wheel rim. The input member could just as well be part of the steering wheel rim. If the torque sensor is integrated in the steering wheel hub, a clock spring may be used for signal transmission. The signals from operating elements of a multifunctional steering wheel are also transmitted via the clock spring.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng to include a direct TSU disposed at least partially within and/or integrated with a steering wheel hub, as taught by Engel as disclosed above, to ensure accurate torque measurement (Engel Paragraph 2 “The present invention relates to a torque sensor for a steering wheel”).
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel fail to explicitly disclose an indirect TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure; wherein the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with the one of the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell.
Lehmann teaches an indirect TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure (See at least Lehmann Paragraphs 14-15 “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the physical quantity is a bending stress and/or a torque. Alternatively to the bending stress, the bending moment acting on the rudder and causing the bending stress in the rudder can also be determined. Both the lift force and also the resistance force can readily be determined by calculation on the basis of the bending stress. This is also possible on the basis of the torsional force acting on the rudder, i.e. the torque. It is particularly preferable to determine both the bending stress and the torque in order to obtain the highest possible accuracy in the calculation of the forces acting on the rudder … In particular, it is expedient that the at least one measuring device is configured to determine the bending stress acting on a rudder trunk and/or a rudder stock of the rudder and/or the torque acting on the rudder stock of the rudder.” | Paragraph 44 “A measuring device 28 is provided on the surface of the rudder stock 40 in an upper region of the rudder stock 40 which is located inside the hull 26 and not yet in the rudder blade 50 … The measuring device 28 is configured to measure or determine the torque in the rudder stock 40 whilst the bending stress prevailing in the rudder trunk 30 can be determined by means of the measuring device 27. The measured or determined values are transmitted from both measuring devices 27, 28 to a processing unit (not shown here). For this purpose, transmitting or sending means (not shown here) suitable for wireless transmission of the data are provided in each measuring device 27, 28”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel to include an indirect TSU coupled to a rudder arm or a rudder quadrant of the mobile structure, as taught by Lehmann as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate torque measurement (Lehmann Paragraph 7 “It is therefore the object of the present invention to improve autopilot systems of watercraft and/or dynamic positioning systems in such a manner that the switching hysteresis is reduced. This object is solved with an arrangement for determining a force, in particular a lift force and/or resistance force, acting on a rudder, in particular spade rudders, for watercraft,”).
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Lehmann fail to explicitly disclose that the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with the one of the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell.
Johnsen, however, teaches that the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with a propeller, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell (See at least Johnsen Col. 4 lines 15-25 “In FIG. 1 is shown the general principle for reading the propulsion force Fh in accordance with the invention. The propeller 1 is visualized as a propeller of the variable-pitch type (but may also be of the type with fixed blades). A load cell 3 (force sensor) reads Fh against the thrust bearing 4 of the propeller shaft 2, forwards and backwards, possibly in the rear sleeve 5 (“stern tube'). The measurement signals from load cell 3 are applied to a computer 6 of the microprocessor type, which in principle executes the following operation, compare FIGS. 2 and 3:” | Claim 1 “monitoring continuously a net axial force exerted longitudinally along the length of said solid propeller shaft (2) using a force sensor (3) mounted on one of said at least one bearing (4,5); and using said net axial force as a main parameter in controlling said power, in such a manner that the net axial force remains optimized in relation to propeller (1) efficiency and economic engine fuel consumption”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Lehmann to include that the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with a propeller, wherein the torque sensor data provided by the indirect TSU is based, at least in part, on sheer, tension, and/or compression sensor data and/or signals provided by the load pin or load cell, as taught by Johnsen as disclosed above, such that the indirect TSU comprises one of a load pin in sheer or a load cell in axial tension and compression with the one of the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, in order to ensure accurate torque sensing (Johnsen “The present invention concerns a method and a means for achieving optimum utilization of the propulsion engine of a vessel, and more specifically, optimum operation of a ship's propeller in relation to an economic utilization of fuel, in relation to the cavitation problem (formation of bubbles in metal) on the propeller surface, as well as in relation to increased manoeuvering safety at maximum utilization of the propeller performance”).
With respect to claim 19, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Lehmann in view of Johnsen teach a first logic device and is configured to determine the force applied to the one or more components by: receiving the torque sensor data and/or corresponding sensor signals from a second logic device of the TSU, wherein the second logic device characterizes the one or more sensor signals as a manual loading applied to the steering mechanism based on one or more load profiles for the steering mechanism, the autopilot drive, and/or the mobile structure (See at least Dolgov Paragraph 13 “In some instances, the computing device may be configured to only perform a transition of control to the driver if the indication from the driver satisfies one or more thresholds. For example, the computing device may be configured to only transition the control to the driver if the detected amount of change in the steering system of the vehicle exceeds a threshold. By requiring a threshold amount, the computing device may confirm that the received indication was intended by the driver and not an accidental bump of the steering wheel or other cause of a slight change” | Paragraph 72 “In addition, a computing device controlling a vehicle in autonomous mode may be configured to determine that a received indication exceeds a threshold to prevent detecting a false indication. For example, the computing device may be configured to determine that a manual change by the driver in the steering system of the vehicle (e.g., turning of the steering wheel) is above a threshold and unrelated to the control of the vehicle in the autonomous mode. The computing device may be configured to prevent transitioning control to the driver in instances that the driver accidently bumped the steering wheel and did not want a transition of control into manual operation mode by using a threshold” | Paragraph 84 “In some example implementations of method 300, a computing device may be configured to switch between autonomous mode and manual more than once. Further, the computing device may be configured to differentiate steering torque applied by the driver from any mechanical-feedback torque that may be caused from the road through the use of different levels of thresholds. For example, the computing device may be configured to determine the difference between the mechanical-feedback torque resulting from the vehicle hitting a bump during a turn and the application of force on the steering wheel by the driver. In order to determine the difference, the computing device may require a high threshold any indication received from a manual turning the steering wheel.” | Paragraph 104 “At block 405 a, the computing device may be configured to determine if the turning angle of the vehicle is above a threshold. For instance, a computing device may determine the current turning angle of the vehicle and/or determine if the force applied to the steering wheel by the driver exceeds a threshold. By using a threshold, the computing device may ensure that the force applied to the steering system was a result of the driver requesting control and not from hitting a bump in the road or the driver accidently bumping the steering wheel, for example. As discussed in FIG. 3, the computing device may require that force applied to the steering system by the driver exceeds a threshold to prevent initiating an unwanted transition from autonomous mode to manual mode.”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolgov (US 20140303827 A1) (“Dolgov”) in view of Stark (US 20190092332 A1) (“Stark”) in view of Lehmann (US 20140136032 A1) (“Lehmann”) in view of Johnsen (US 5413461 A) (“Johnsen”) further in view of Orivuori (US 20200115012 A1) (“Orivuori”).
With respect to claim 20, Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Lehmann in view of Johnsen teach to generate the one or more load profiles based, at least in part, on manual loading applied to the steering mechanism (See at least Dolgov Paragraphs 13, 72, 84).
Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Lehmann in view of Johnsen fail to explicitly disclose generating the one or more load profiles based on water loading backed to or through the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant.
Orivuori teaches generating load profiles based on detecting disturbances to the rudder that affect movement (See at least Orivuori Paragraphs 50-53 “In an example embodiment, the disturbance 140 in the one or more degrees of freedom comprises one or more of the following: the roll 200, the pitch 202, the yaw 204, the surge 206, the sway 208. In an example embodiment, the attenuation of the roll 200 and the yaw 204 decreases the use of rudder for an autopilot, and, consequently, reduces drag and fuel consumption of the marine vessel 100 … In 326, control data 114 is determined for the one or more apparatuses 102 exerting force to attenuate the detected disturbance 140.” | Paragraph 68 “In an example embodiment, the control data 114, 118 is determined to attenuate a future disturbance as the disturbance predicted with a periodic disturbance pattern detected based on the motion data 300. The periodic disturbance may be caused by waves and/or wind and/or sea currents and/or flow fields. In this way, the disturbances may be attenuated in a planned fashion. The periodic disturbance pattern may be continuously updated based on the motion data 300. The magnitude and direction of environmental forces affecting position of the marine vessel 100 as disturbances are measured and/or predicted”).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dolgov in view of Stark in view of Zheng in view of Engel in view of Lehmann in view of Johnsen to include generating load profiles based on detecting disturbances to the rudder that affect movement, as taught by Orivuori as disclosed above, such that the disturbance is water loading backed to or through the rudder arm or the rudder quadrant, in order to ensure safe transportation of the mobile structure (Orivuori Paragraph 4 “The present invention seeks to provide an improved control for a marine vessel.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667