DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-10, 15-27, and 30-34 are currently pending.
2. Claims 11-14 and 28-29 are canceled.
3. Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 16, and 31 are currently amended.
4. The 112(b) rejection to Claim 1 has been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
6. Regarding Claim 30, the claim is indefinite because it cannot be clearly understood which claim it depends from. More specifically, Claim 30 currently depends from canceled Claim 29. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 30 depends from Claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oblizajek (US 20090294206 A1) in view of Fischer (DE 102004033240 B3; referred to as Fischer ‘240).
11. Regarding Claim 1, Oblizajek teaches a vibration control system (VCS) for a steering column and/or steering wheel of a vehicle, the steering column having a longitudinal X axis, a lateral Y axis, and a vertical Z axis, the steering wheel coupled to the steering column, the VCS comprising (Oblizajek: [0014]):
At least one linear force generator (LFG)… the at least one LFG aligned with one of the X, Y, or Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of a X1, Yi, or Zi axes; at least one vibration sensor capable of detecting a vibration in the steering column and/or the steering wheel (Oblizajek: [0019] and [0020] Note that the LFG is coupled to the steering column via the vibration sensor 92 attached to the steering column shaft. Each steering column shaft is aligned in a linear axis (Shaft 44 is aligned in axis). Commanding the motor to drive cancels out vibration forces in any of the components of the steering rack or power steering system.);
A VCS controller in electronic communication with the at least one LFG and the at least one vibration sensor, the VCS controller continuously analyzing data from the at least one vibration sensor, determining a vibration canceling force command, and continuously communicating the vibration canceling force command to the at least one LFG (Oblizajek: [0039] and [0041]);
And wherein in response to the vibration canceling force command the at least one LFG generates at least one vibration or noise canceling force in its aligned axis (Oblizajek: [0006] and [0055]).
Oblizajek fails to explicitly teach the at least one linear force generator (LFG) positioned within or on the steering column.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fischer ‘240 teaches at least one linear force generator (LFG) positioned within or on the steering column, the at least one LFG aligned with one of the X, Y, or Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of a X1, Yi, or Zi axes (Fischer ‘240: [0014], [0018], and [0024] Note that actuating cylinder 5 is aligned with one of the axes or aligned off-axis.).
Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vibration detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek to incorporate the teachings of Fischer ‘240 to position the linear force generator within the steering column because it provides the benefit of allowing for effective shock and vibration damping in the steering column system. Positioning the linear force generator directly within the steering column provides the additional benefit of damping the vibrations on the steering column to improve the driving behavior and comfort for the driver.
12. Regarding Claim 31, Oblizajek teaches a method of controlling vibrations in a steering column positioned in a passenger cabin of a vehicle having an internal combustion engine, a frame, a controller area network (CAN) bus, the method comprising: integrating a vibration control system (VCS) with the steering column, the steering column having a longitudinal X axis, a lateral Y axis, and a vertical Z axis, the VCS including (Oblizajek: [0014] and [0021] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that vehicles include engines, frames, and steering columns positioned within a passenger cabin (connected to steering wheel). Also, note that the steering column shafts are at least partially in an X, Y, and Z axes.):
At least one linear force generator (LFG)… the at least one LFG aligned with one of the X, Y, or Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of a X1, Yi, or Zi axes; at least one vibration sensor capable of detecting a vibration in the steering column and/or the steering wheel (Oblizajek: [0019] and [0020] Note that the LFG is coupled to the steering column via the vibration sensor 92 attached to the steering column shaft. Each steering column shaft is aligned in a linear axis (Shaft 44 is aligned in axis). Commanding the motor to drive cancels out vibration forces in any of the components of the steering rack or power steering system.);
A VCS controller in electronic communication with the at least one LFG, the at least one vibration sensor, and the CAN bus, the VCS controller continuously analyzing data from the at least one vibration sensor, the at least one LFG, and the CAN bus (Oblizajek: [0021], [0039], and [0041]);
And detecting vibrations or noise with the at least one vibration sensor (Oblizajek: [0020]);
Communicating the detected vibrations or noise to the VCS controller, the VCS controller analyzing the detected vibration, and calculating a vibration canceling force command (Oblizajek: [0039] and [0041]);
And communicating the calculated vibration canceling force command from the VCS controller to the at least one LFG; generating the vibration canceling force with the at least one LFG in the LFG's aligned axis and canceling the detected vibration or noise; and continuously repeating (Oblizajek: [0006] and [0055]).
Oblizajek fails to explicitly teach the at least one linear force generator (LFG) positioned within or on the steering column.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fischer ‘240 teaches at least one linear force generator (LFG) positioned within or on the steering column, the at least one LFG aligned with one of the X, Y, or Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of a X1, Yi, or Zi axes (Fischer ‘240: [0014], [0018], and [0024] Note that actuating cylinder 5 is aligned with one of the axes or aligned off-axis.).
Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vibration detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek to incorporate the teachings of Fischer ‘240 to position the linear force generator within the steering column because it provides the benefit of allowing for effective shock and vibration damping in the steering column system. Positioning the linear force generator directly within the steering column provides the additional benefit of damping the vibrations on the steering column to improve the driving behavior and comfort for the driver.
13. Regarding Claim 32, Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 remains as applied above in Claim 31, and further, Oblizajek teaches at least a second LFG, the second LFG being aligned with one of the two remaining X, Y, Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of the two remaining X1, Yi, or Zi axes (Oblizajek: [0014], [0020], and [0041] Note that introducing vibrations into one or more components of the electric power steering system is equivalent to a second LFG aligned with a remaining axis.).
14. Regarding Claim 33, Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 remains as applied above in Claim 32, and further, Oblizajek teaches at least a third LFG, the third LFG being aligned with one of the remaining X, Y, Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of the remaining X1, Yi, or Zi axes (Oblizajek: [0014], [0020], and [0041] Note that introducing vibrations into one or more components of the electric power steering system is equivalent to a third LFG aligned with a remaining axis.).
15. Claims 2-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oblizajek (US 20090294206 A1), in view of Fischer (DE 102004033240 B3; referred to as Fischer ‘240), and in further view of Fischer (US 20050167966 A1; referred to as Fischer ‘966).
16. Regarding Claim 2, Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fischer ‘240 teaches the VCS further comprises at least two LFGs each LFG positioned within or on the steering column (Fischer ‘240: [0014], [0018], and [0024]).
Fischer ‘240 fails to explicitly teach wherein a second LFG is aligned with one of the two remaining X, Y, or Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of the two remaining X1, Yi, or Zi axes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fischer ‘966 teaches wherein a second LFG is aligned with one of the two remaining X, Y, or Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of the two remaining X1, Yi, or Zi axes (Fischer ‘966: [0007] and [0028]).
Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vibration detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 to incorporate the teachings of Fischer ‘966 to include a second LFG in one of the remaining axes because it provides the benefit of enhancing a vibration damping and effectively damping the vibrations in the area of the steering column with minimal energy. The vibration compensation in all direction removes the undesired vibrations.
17. Regarding Claim 3, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Oblizajek teaches each of the at least two LFGs is capable of simultaneously controlling the vibration and a noise in multiple frequencies (Oblizajek: [0020], [0041], and [0055]).
18. Regarding Claim 4, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Oblizajek teaches each LFG has at least one vibration sensor integrated therewith (Oblizajek: [0020]).
19. Regarding Claim 5, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Fischer ‘240 teaches a plurality of VCS controllers, wherein each LFG (28) has a VCS controller associated therewith, wherein all VCS controllers are in electronic communication with each other, with each LFG, and with each vibration sensor (Fischer ‘240: [0027] Fischer '240 discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of VCS controllers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of VCS controllers associated with each LFG, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to have one VCS controller control each of the plurality of LFGs absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with one VCS controller controlling each of the plurality of LFGs.).
20. Regarding Claim 6, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Fischer ‘240 teaches a distributed electronic communication between each of the at least two LFGs (Fischer ‘240: [0027]).
21. Regarding Claim 7, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Fischer ‘966 teaches at least three LFGs, wherein a third LFG is aligned with the remaining X, Y, or Z axis or aligned off- axis with the remaining X1, Yi, or Zi axis (Fischer ‘966: [0007] and [0028]).
22. Regarding Claim 8, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, teaches each LFG has at least one vibration sensor (32) integrated therewith (Oblizajek: [0020]).
23. Regarding Claim 9, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Fischer ‘240 teaches a plurality of VCS controllers, wherein each LFG has a VCS controller associated therewith, wherein all VCS controllers are in electronic communication with each other, with each LFG, and with each vibration sensor (Fischer ‘240: [0027] Fischer '240 discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of VCS controllers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of VCS controllers associated with each LFG, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to have one VCS controller control each of the plurality of LFGs absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with one VCS controller controlling each of the plurality of LFGs.).
24. Regarding Claim 10, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, teaches a distributed electronic communication between each of the at least three LFGs (Fischer ‘240: [0027] Fischer '240 teaches in [0027] to communicate between the two LFGs. Fischer '240 discloses the claimed invention except for the third LFG. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to communicate between three LFGs, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.).
25. Regarding Claim 15, Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 fails to explicitly teach at least one vibration sensor is capable of detecting the vibration and/or a noise in two of three axes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fischer ‘966 teaches at least one vibration sensor is capable of detecting the vibration and/or a noise in two of three axes (Fischer ‘966: [0011]).
Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Fischer ‘966 are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vibration detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 to incorporate the teachings of Fischer ‘966 to include a vibration sensor capable of detection vibrations in two axes because it provides the benefit of determining additional vibration data for the system. This provides the additional benefit of effectively damping the vibrations in the area of the steering column with minimal energy.
26. Claims 16-18, 20-27, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oblizajek (US 20090294206 A1), in view of Fischer (DE 102004033240 B3; referred to as Fischer ‘240), and in further view of Orzechowski (US 20190337524 A1).
27. Regarding Claim 16, Oblizajek teaches a vibration control system (VCS) for a vehicle that has an engine, a frame, a controller area network (CAN) bus, and a steering column positioned within a passenger cabin (24), the VCS (10) comprising (Oblizajek: [0014] and [0021] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that vehicles include engines, frames, and steering columns positioned within a passenger cabin (connected to steering wheel).):
At least one linear force generator (LFG)… wherein the steering column has a longitudinal X axis, a lateral Y axis, and a vertical Z axis, and the LFG is aligned with one of the X, Y, or Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of a X1, Yi, or Zi axes (Oblizajek: [0019] and [0020] Note that the LFG is coupled to the steering column via the vibration sensor 92 attached to the steering column shaft. Each steering column shaft is aligned in a linear axis (Shaft 44 is aligned in axis). Commanding the motor to drive cancels out vibration forces in any of the components of the steering rack or power steering system.);
At least one or more additional vibration sensor positioned to continuously detect vibration or noise on or within the steering column and/or a steering wheel, the steering wheel being coupled to the steering column (Oblizajek: [0016] and [0020]);
At least one VCS controller (34), the at least one VCS controller in direct or indirect electronic communication with the CAN bus… the at least one LFG, and all vibration sensors, and the VCS controller providing direct or indirect electronic control to… the at least one LFGs (Oblizajek: [0021] and [0041]);
Wherein the VCS controller continuously analyzes data from the CAN bus, all the vibration sensors… and the at least one LFG, and wherein the VCS controller calculates and communicates a vibration canceling force command for… each LFG (Oblizajek: [0039] and [0041]);
And wherein the at least one LFG generates a linear vibration canceling force that attenuates the noise and/or vibration on or within the steering column and/or steering wheel, the VCS controller continuously updating and communicating vibration canceling force commands to the at least one LFG (Oblizajek: [0006] and [0055]).
Oblizajek fails to explicitly teach the at least one linear force generator (LFG) positioned within or on the steering column.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fischer ‘240 teaches at least one linear force generator (LFG) positioned within or on the steering column… the at least one LFG aligned with one of the X, Y, or Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of a X1, Yi, or Zi axes (Fischer ‘240: [0014], [0018], and [0024] Note that actuating cylinder 5 is aligned with one of the axes or aligned off-axis.).
Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vibration detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek to incorporate the teachings of Fischer ‘240 to position the linear force generator within the steering column because it provides the benefit of allowing for effective shock and vibration damping in the steering column system. Positioning the linear force generator directly within the steering column provides the additional benefit of damping the vibrations on the steering column to improve the driving behavior and comfort for the driver.
Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 fail to explicitly teach at least one circular force generator (CFG) coupled to the frame of the vehicle; at least one vibration sensor positioned to continuously detect vibration or noise from the internal combustion engine (14) and/or the frame; the at least one VCS controller in direct or indirect electronic communication with... the at least one CFG... and the VCS controller providing direct or indirect electronic control to the at least one CFG...; wherein the VCS controller continuously analyzes data from... the at least one CFG... and wherein the VCS controller calculates and communicates a vibration canceling force command for each CFG...; and wherein the at least one CFG generates a vibration canceling force having a magnitude and a phase that attenuates the noise and/or vibration within the passenger cabin, the VCS controller continuously updating and communicating vibration canceling force commands to each CFG.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Orzechowski teaches at least one circular force generator (CFG) coupled to the frame of the vehicle (Orzechowski: [0029] and [0033]);
At least one vibration sensor positioned to continuously detect vibration or noise from the internal combustion engine (14) and/or the frame (Orzechowski: [0028] and [0034]);
And the at least one VCS controller in direct or indirect electronic communication with... the at least one CFG... and the VCS controller providing direct or indirect electronic control to the at least one CFG...; wherein the VCS controller continuously analyzes data from... the at least one CFG... and wherein the VCS controller calculates and communicates a vibration canceling force command for each CFG...; and wherein the at least one CFG generates a vibration canceling force having a magnitude and a phase that attenuates the noise and/or vibration within the passenger cabin, the VCS controller continuously updating and communicating vibration canceling force commands to each CFG (Orzechowski: [0029] and [0033]).
Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle vibration control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 to incorporate the teachings of Orzechowski to include a circular force generator coupled to the frame of the vehicle for generating a vibration canceling force because it provides the benefit of reducing vibrations on additional vehicle systems. Orzechowski explains that generating vibrational forces on the frame of the vehicle improves the vibrational damping. This provides the additional benefit of increased comfort for the passengers of the vehicle.
28. Regarding Claim 17, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Oblizajek teaches the at least one LFG is capable of simultaneously controlling vibration and noise in multiple frequencies (Oblizajek: [0020], [0041], and [0055]).
29. Regarding Claim 18, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Oblizajek teaches the vibration sensors are selected from the group consisting of single axis vibration sensors, two-axis vibration sensors, three-axis vibration sensors, and combinations thereof (Oblizajek: [0019] and [0020] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a vibration sensor detects in at least one axis.).
30. Regarding Claim 20, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Oblizajek teaches a second LFG is aligned with one of the two remaining X, Y, or Z axes or aligned off-axis with one of the two remaining X1, Yi, or Zi axes (Oblizajek: [0014], [0020], and [0041] Note that introducing vibrations into one or more components of the electric power steering system is equivalent to a second LFG aligned with a remaining axis.).
31. Regarding Claim 21, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 20, and further, Oblizajek teaches a third LFG is aligned with the remaining X, Y, or Z axis or aligned off-axis with the remaining X1, Yi, or Zi axis (Oblizajek: [0014], [0020], and [0041] Note that introducing vibrations into one or more components of the electric power steering system is equivalent to a third LFG aligned with a remaining axis.).
32. Regarding Claim 22, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Oblizajek teaches each LFG… have at least one vibration sensor integrated therewith (Oblizajek: [0020]).
Oblizajek fails to explicitly teach each CFG have at least one vibration sensor integrated therewith.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Orzechowski teaches each CFG have at least one vibration sensor integrated therewith (Orzechowski: [0028] and [0034]).
Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle vibration control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 to incorporate the teachings of Orzechowski to include CFGs have an integrated vibration sensor because it provides the benefit of determining vibrations on additional vehicle systems.
33. Regarding Claim 23, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Oblizajek teaches a distributed electronic communication between each of the LFGs (Oblizajek: [0021] and [0055]).
34. Regarding Claim 24, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Orzechowski teaches at least two CFGs (Orzechowski: [0033]).
35. Regarding Claim 25, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 23, and further, Oblizajek teaches a distributed electronic communication between… each LFG (Oblizajek: [0021] and [0055]).
Oblizajek fails to explicitly teach a distributed electronic communication between each CFG.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Orzechowski teaches a distributed electronic communication between each CFG (Orzechowski: [0029] and [0033]).
Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle vibration control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 to incorporate the teachings of Orzechowski to include a distributed electronic communication between each CFG because it provides the benefit of determining vibration canceling forces on additional vehicle systems.
36. Regarding Claim 26, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Orzechowski teaches a distributed electronic communication between each of the plurality of CFGs (Orzechowski: [0029] and [0033]).
37. Regarding Claim 27, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 26, and further, Oblizajek teaches at least one vibration sensor is integral with at least one LFG... (Oblizajek: [0020]).
Oblizajek fails to explicitly teach at least one vibration sensor is integral with at least one CFG.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Orzechowski teaches at least one vibration sensor is integral with at least one CFG (Orzechowski: [0028] and [0034]).
Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle vibration control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 to incorporate the teachings of Orzechowski for a vibration sensor to be integral with a CFG because it provides the benefit of determining vibrations on additional vehicle systems.
38. Regarding Claim 30, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Oblizajek teaches one VCS controller is dominate over each of the other VCS controllers (Oblizajek: [0021] Note that the electronic controller 96 being integrated into a larger controller is equivalent to a plurality of VCS controllers. Also, note that the larger controller is equivalent to be dominate over each of the other VCS controllers.).
39. Regarding Claim 34, Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 remains as applied above in Claim 32.
Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 fail to explicitly teach wherein the VCS further comprises at least one circular force generator (CFG) coupled to a frame of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Orzechowski teaches wherein the VCS further comprises at least one circular force generator (CFG) coupled to a frame of the vehicle (Orzechowski: [0029] and [0033]).
Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle vibration control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek and Fischer ‘240 to incorporate the teachings of Orzechowski to include a circular force generator coupled to the frame of the vehicle because it provides the benefit of reducing vibrations on additional vehicle systems. Orzechowski explains that generating vibrational forces on the frame of the vehicle improves the vibrational damping. This provides the additional benefit of increased comfort for the passengers of the vehicle.
40. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oblizajek (US 20090294206 A1), in view of Fischer (DE 102004033240 B3; referred to as Fischer ‘240), in view of Orzechowski (US 20190337524 A1), and in further view of Fischer (US 20050167966 A1; referred to as Fischer ‘966).
41. Regarding Claim 19, Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski remains as applied above in Claim 16.
Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski fail to explicitly teach at least one vibration sensor is capable of detecting vibration and/or noise in two of three axes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fischer ‘966 teaches at least one vibration sensor is capable of detecting the vibration and/or a noise in two of three axes (Fischer ‘966: [0011]).
Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, Orzechowski, and Fischer ‘966 are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vibration detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oblizajek, Fischer ‘240, and Orzechowski to incorporate the teachings of Fischer ‘966 to include a vibration sensor capable of detection vibrations in two axes because it provides the benefit of determining additional vibration data for the system. This provides the additional benefit of effectively damping the vibrations in the area of the steering column with minimal energy.
Response to Arguments
42. Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2025 regarding the U.S.C. 103 rejection to Claims 32 and 33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
43. First, the Applicant has alleged "Oblizajek does not teach or suggest the use of two or more electric motors to compensate for vibrations within the steering sector. Further, Oblizajek does not suggest that the single motor is capable of generating vibrations along two different axes. Because the rejections of claims 2, 32 and 33 are based solely on supposition, the Office has not established the prima facie obviousness of the claims." The Examiner disagrees.
The argument regarding Claim 2 is moot because Fischer '240 and Fischer '966 have been applied to teach the amended subject matter. However, Claims 32 and 33 remain rejected in view of Oblizajek because the second and third LFG are not clarified to be position within or on the steering column. Additionally, Oblizajek teaches the second and third LFG in Claims 32 and 33 because the motor applies a force on multiple different components. Note that introducing vibrations into one or more components of the electric power steering system is equivalent to a second and third LFG aligned with a remaining axis because each component is aligned in a different axis.
As Claims 32 and 33 are currently claimed, there is not a distinction that indicates the LFGs must be positioned within or on the steering column. As a result, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second and third LFGs may be positioned within the steering system on another component.
44. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-10, 15-27, 30, and 34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Fischer (DE 102004033240 B3) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of positioning the linear force generator on the steering column in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0014], [0018], and [0024]. Fischer ‘240 teaches to include actuating cylinders on the steering column to generate a compensating vibration and dampen the disturbing vibration.
45. The references in the rejections above teach all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
46. Claims 1-10, 15-27, and 30-34 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
47. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663