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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,628,903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently claimed limitations are taught by the patent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne ((WO2018/185528, cited by applicant) in view of Fairgrieve (US PGPub 2015/0224989).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Gagne teaches a driving control system and method for enhancing steering control of a vehicle (power steering system), the vehicle having a vehicle body (Figures 1A or 1B) and at least one ground engaging member 18 (ski or wheel) connected to the vehicle body, the driving control system comprising: a steering system 12 having a user operated steering element (handlebar 22) for adjusting an angle of the at least one ground engaging member relative to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle; an electrically actuated device (electric power steering system; para [0013], lines 1-3; Figure 2) coupled to the steering system for applying a torque to the steering system; a plurality of sensors (controller 26 receives various inputs from various sensors on the vehicle, para [0013], [0014], [0016]; vehicle speed sensor 28, steering torque sensor, steering rate sensor, steering position sensor) to generate terrain condition data of the terrain and to generate operational data of the vehicle, wherein said plurality of sensors comprises a torque sensor (para [0005], line 5) to generate a portion of the operational data of the vehicle and at least one additional sensor (speed sensor, steering position sensor, etc.); and at least one controller 26 coupled to the electrically actuated device and the sensors (see Figure 2), the at least one controller determining a torque to apply to the steering system responsive to an angle and speed of rotation of the user operated steering element by using the generated operational data (para [0013]); and operating the electrically actuated device (power steering electric motor) to apply the torque to the steering system for providing enhanced steering control of the vehicle responsive to the angle and speed of rotation of the user operated steering element (para [0016], lines 1-5), with the torque being applied only by the electrically actuated device.
Gagne does not explicitly teach selecting a terrain condition mode using the generated terrain condition data and determining the torque to apply to the steering system using the selected terrain condition mode, wherein the terrain condition mode is selected from a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode.
Fairgrieve teaches a driving control system for enhancing steering control of a vehicle (a power steering system is one of the vehicle subsystems that is controlled based on terrain conditions) including selecting a terrain condition mode (the control system automatically selects the appropriate operating mode (para [0008], lines 1-5) using the generated terrain condition data and selecting the torque to apply to the steering system in response to the selected terrain condition mode generated operational data, wherein the terrain condition mode is selected from a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode (many modes are discussed including a mud mode, an ice mode, a sand mode, a rock crawl mode, a rough-road mode, etc.; para [0036]-[0040]). Each operating mode is automatically selected in response to driving conditions and provides a control mode for the vehicle subsystems (including a steering subsystem; para [0066], [0067], [0116], [0117], [0118]). The power steering systems, in particular, are then operated in different modes to provide a varying level of assistance depending on the selected mode driving conditions (see para [0003], lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering control strategy of Gagne to include selecting a terrain condition mode, from at least three different terrain condition modes, using generated terrain condition data, to determine the torque to apply to the steering system, in view of Fairgrieve, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a varying level of assistance based on driving conditions for greater driving stability.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Gagne teaches that the at least one controller 26 operates the electrically actuated device (electric steering motor) to apply the torque to the steering system during the rotation of the user operated steering element in a direction that is opposite the rotation of the user operated steering element or toward the center position (counteracts feedback to steering device due to rough road conditions and dampens steering operation; para [0004], [0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Gagne teaches at least one additional sensor is selected from the group consisting of a tachometer, a torque request sensor (throttle sensor; para 0020], line 3), a speedometer (speed sensor 28; para [0020, line 4), a force sensor (para [0020], line 21), a side load torque sensor, a steering angle sensor (para [0016], line 5), a position sensor, a global positioning satellite module and an inertial navigation system module.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches that the at least one controller determines the torque to apply to the steering system responsive to an angle and speed of rotation of the user (Gagne) operated steering element by: using the selected terrain condition mode and the generated operational data to determine a current torque of the steering system responsive to the angle and speed of rotation of the user operated steering element (Fairgrieve); using the selected terrain condition mode and the generated operational data to calculate a target torque for the steering system responsive to the angle and speed of rotation of the user operated steering element; and operating the electrically actuated device to adjust the torque applied to the steering system responsive to the angle and speed of rotation of the user operated steering element from the determined current torque to the calculated target torque.
Regarding claim 5, Gagne teaches the at least one controller calculates the target torque from an engine RPM value (para [0014], lines 1-3; para [0020], line 4), an engine torque request value (throttle level; para [0020], line 4), and a determined current speed of the vehicle on the terrain (vehicle speed 28; para [0014], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Fairgrieve teaches the at least one controller implements a feedback loop that adjusts the torque applied to the steering system based on updates to the selected terrain condition mode and angle over time (terrain conditions are continuously monitored and a subsystem controller adjusts the selected mode to terrain conditions).
Regarding claim 8, Gagne teaches the user operated steering element 22 comprises a handle (para [0004], line 4; Figure 1A, 1B, 2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne and Fairgrieve as applied to claims 1-8 and 24 above, and further in view of Amatsuka (GPub 2018/0009474).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches all of the claimed limitations except for the controller determining an uphill condition, a neutral condition, or a downhill condition of the vehicle on the terrain and modifying a relative degree of the torque applied to the steering system based on the determined uphill condition or based on the determined downhill condition.
Amatsuka teaches a steering controller that determines an uphill condition, a neutral condition, or a downhill condition of the vehicle on the terrain (determines a slope parameter of the road ) and modifies a relative degree of the torque applied to the steering system based on the determined uphill condition or based on the determined downhill condition (Figure 12C shows relationship between uphill slope of the road on which the vehicle drives and the assist amount; para [0119]-[0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control strategy of the combination by determining an uphill condition and controlling the assist torque applied by the steering assist motor at least in part based on the determined uphill condition, in view of Amatsuka, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain turning stability of the steering wheel and easily change the steering angle of the steering wheel (see para Amatsuka, para [0123])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the obviousness double patenting rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walsh, Kato, Yan, Kreis, and Ankar teach steering systems responsive to terrain conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/