DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-14 have been considered but are not persuasive and/or 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 arguments [e.g., in view of applicant’s amendments, the previously cited prior art reference DE 10053335 A1 (Ahner) is now being relied upon as a secondary reference to fairly render the claimed invention(s) obvious, in particular with respect to the subject matter concerning the symmetrical and/or redundant control configuration of the two torque actuators]; [e.g., the invention per claim 1 at best constitutes a novel but non-inventive system that would have been obvious over US 20220194464 A1 (Dahler) in view of Ahner].
Furthermore, and notwithstanding substantial outstanding clarity issues in the claims, with respect to applicant’s arguments concerning the teachings per Dahler, in particular that Dahler fails to teach or suggest the claimed weighting of certain factors and/or known characteristics of the two torque actuators, and/or that the respective torques for the actuators are influenced by the electronic control unit, the examiner respectfully disagrees
[e.g., aside from what at best appears to be a difference in the exact wording/phrasing being used to describe the same (or a substantially similar) system/functionality, there does not appear to be any perceivable difference between the weighting or consideration of factors and/or characteristics of the claimed and prior art inventions];
[e.g., note at least Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0031]-[0033] of Dahler, of which indicate and/or describe the corresponding torque signals for the steering actuator 7 and the feedback actuator 9 that are output from the electronic control unit 5]; [e.g., the correction angle(s) is/are being determined as a function of torque signals that are output from the electronic control unit];
[e.g., per Fig. 2, the respective arrows extending from the position controller 52 correspond to and/or constitute respective torque signals for the actuators, and the specific torque that necessarily has to be exerted to achieve the correction angle(s) is/are dependent on the angular positions of the respective shafts];
[e.g., per Fig. 2, observe the explicitly indicated torque request signal T, and note that in steer-by-wire systems such as that of Dahler, the feedback signal for the actuator 9 described and corresponding to the arrow extending from the position controller 52 to the feedback actuator 9 constitutes a torque signal (or torque feedback signal) output from the electronic control unit]. See detailed rejection below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the particular means via which the electronic control unit is configured to control the respective torque actuators must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) [e.g., applicant must provide at least one drawing that clearly illustrates and/or indicates how the virtual spring constant, the additional factors (and/or the various factors/variables of the dependent claims 12-14), and the known characteristics of the torque actuators are being utilized (or weighted) to control the respective torque actuators]. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim provides for “additional factors” and “known characteristics”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that the defining feature(s) of the claimed system is/are not exactly clear, and to the extent that it is not exactly clear as to exactly how the respective torque actuators are being controlled or controlled with respect to one another
[e.g., it is not exactly clear as to what the aforementioned additional factors necessarily are and/or encompass, and it is especially not exactly clear as to what the aforementioned factors are “additional” with respect to];
[e.g., it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned limitation(s) is/are intended to imply that the virtual spring constant (k) is supposed to be regarded as a factor];
[e.g., it is not exactly clear as to what the aforementioned known characteristics necessarily are and/or encompass (or why said characteristics are being regarded as “known”), and/or as to what necessarily distinguishes the known characteristics from the additional factors];
[e.g., the particular extent and/or degree via which the claim limitation(s) is/are “weighted” is/are not clear, especially considering that it is not exactly clear as to what necessarily defines a factor such that it is clear as to what constitutes an additional factor].
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “a gear ratio factor (g)”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned factor is intended to be distinct from (or in reference to) the “additional factors” previously established per the independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the gear ratio factor (g) is a variable factor”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned factor is intended to be distinct from (or in reference to) the “additional factors” previously established per the independent claim 1.
Regarding claims 12-14, the claim provides for various functions, factors, and/or other variables via which the respective torque actuators are to be controlled. The claims are rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned functions, factors, and/or other variables are intended to be distinct from (or in reference to) the “additional factors” and/or “known characteristics” previously established per the independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20220194464 A1 (Dahler) in view of DE 10053335 A1 (Ahner).
Regarding claim 1, Dahler (Figures 1-4) teaches a system (1) to control a controlled element (10 or 10-12) via an input device (4) by delivering a feedback force from the controlled element to the input device (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraph [0030]) [e.g., via the feedback actuator 9]; [e.g., “Control unit 5 furthermore serves to detect feedback effects from the carriageway which engage on steering actuator 7 as loads F, for example, in the form of a toothed rack force, and actuate feedback actuator 9 as a function of these loads F so that the driver feels the feedback effects from the carriageway in a familiar manner at steering control element 4”], the system comprising:
an input shaft (2) configured for attachment to the input device (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraph [0030]);
a remote shaft [regarded as an implicit and/or inherent feature of the disclosed electric motor or synchronous machine of the steering actuator 7] configured for attachment to the controlled element (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0014], [0030], [0032]) [e.g., synchronous machines and/or electric motors have a shaft and/or are well-known for comprising as shaft]; [e.g., in a rack-and-pinion steering system, such as that of Dahler, the pinion gear 11 is mounted to a shaft of the steering actuator 7], wherein the remote shaft and the input shaft are spatially separated and each shaft is rotatably mounted (implicit) in a respective frame member [e.g., the respective structure(s) supporting the respective shafts] (see Fig. 1),
an angle sensor provided to each shaft [e.g., steering shaft sensor 3 and a rotor position sensor (described but not illustrated) at the steering actuator 7], each angle sensor being configured to measure a rotational position of the respective shaft with respect to the respective frame member (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0031]-[0033]) [e.g., “Steering shaft sensor 3 comprises a steering angle sensor and a torque sensor which can be formed individually or as a measuring unit”]; [e.g., “Position controller 52 is provided to determine, from wheel steering angle 105 (nominal value) and an actual actuating angle ξ, a torque request signal T for steering actuator 7 which is suitable for adjusting wheel steering angle Ψ to steered wheels 6. Actual actuating angle ξ can be determined, for example, via a rotor position sensor at steering actuator 7”]; [e.g., a rotor position sensor is a type of angle sensor configured to measure the angular position(s) of a rotating shaft (such as that of the disclosed electric motor or synchronous machine of the steering actuator 7)];
an electronic control unit (5) to which output signals of the angle sensors are transmitted (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0031]-[0033]),
a first torque actuator (9) mounted on the input shaft (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0030]), and
a second torque actuator (7) mounted on the remote shaft (implicit) (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0030]),
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the torque actuators in such a manner that torques exerted to the input shaft and to the remote shaft are both functions of different angular positions of the input shaft and of the remote shaft as measured by the angle sensors (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0031]-[0033]) [e.g., “The feedback signal can preferably be specified as a function of—in particular proportional to—the present position deviation between wheel steering angle Ψ and actuating angle ξ”], wherein the angular positions are weighted (or configured to be weighted) by a virtual spring constant (k) that emulates a mechanical connection between the input shaft and the remote shaft [e.g., at the calculation unit 51 and/or the correction angle determination unit 54] (see Fig. 2, 4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0008], [0016] and [0037]) [e.g., “the steering system is equipped with a virtual steering stiffness which suggests a flexibility of the steering chain to the driver as is familiar to him or her from conventional steering systems”]; [e.g., “it can alternatively or additionally be provided that the steering torque or the load is multiplied by a selectable stiffness parameter in order to calculate the correction angle. The stiffness parameter is preferably selected in such a manner that the correction angle corresponds to a spring stiffness of the steering shaft in the range from 0.5 to 4 Nm per angular degree, particularly preferably from 1 to 3 Nm per angular degree and very particularly preferably from 1.5 to 2.5 Nm per angular degree. As a result of this, a virtual steering stiffness of the steering system is generated which lies in a range which is familiar to the driver from conventional steering systems”]; [e.g., “Stiffness parameter k can be selected as a function of steering torque LM, steering angle φ, steering angle speed, vehicle speed, for example, by a function in which the stated variables serve as an input value. Depending on the embodiment, stiffness parameter k can also be represented in a characteristic field, or be acted upon as a function of the states with amplification factors. To this end, virtual steering shaft torque M is multiplied in a multiplier 56 by stiffness parameter k in correction angle determination unit 54. Virtual steering shaft torque M is preferably proportional to load F so that in this case, in order to calculate correction angle χ, load F or steering torque LM is multiplied by a selectable stiffness parameter k. The stiffness parameter is preferably selected so that the resultant virtual steering stiffness corresponds to a spring stiffness of steering shaft 2 in the range from 0.5 to 4 Nm per angular degree. This corresponds to the normal spring stiffness of a real torsion rod”], and
wherein the angular positions of the shafts are [further] weighted (or configured to be weighted) by additional factors [e.g., load F, driving speed V, state variables Z, torque request signal T, motor current(s) I, etc., and/or amplification factors] that can be different for the calculation of said torques to be exerted by the torque actuator to the input shaft and by the torque actuator to the remote shaft (see Fig. 2, 4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0031]-[0033], [0037]) and wherein said torques exerted to the input shaft and to the remote shaft are also functions of known characteristics of the torque actuators (see Fig. 2, 4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0031]-[0033], [0037]) [e.g., the respective angles Ψ and ξ that are such that the torques applied to the input shaft and to the remote shaft are also functions of known characteristics (e.g., positions, angles, etc.) of the torque actuators].
Dahler fails to expressly teach wherein the remote shaft and the input shaft are mounted in their respective frames against a spring force, and wherein the system is designed symmetrical so that functions of the input shaft and of the remote shaft are interchangeable so that the remote shaft can control movement of the input device when the input device is connected to the input shaft.
However, it is customary and/or routine in the relevant art(s) concerning steer-by-wire systems to have the respective shafts of a steering feedback actuator and/or a steering actuator mounted with respect to a spring mechanism (or a spring force) to help create a natural resistance and centering feel of the steering wheel (or turning wheels) and/or to provide (or ensure) a specific steering feel, haptic feedback, and/or proper functioning of the steering system, thereby allowing the driver to feel the road and control the vehicle safely and/or more intuitively (also refer to the Pertinent Prior Art section provided below).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly have the respective shafts of the steering feedback actuator and/or the steering actuator per Dahler mounted with respect to a spring mechanism (or a spring force) to help create a natural resistance and centering feel of the steering wheel (or turning wheels) and/or to provide (or ensure) a specific steering feel, haptic feedback, and/or proper functioning of the steering system, thereby allowing the driver to feel the road and control the vehicle safely and/or more intuitively (also refer to the Pertinent Prior Art section provided below).
Furthermore, Ahner (Figure 1) teaches an analogous steer-by-wire steer system (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraph [0001]), and wherein the system is (or can be) designed symmetrical [e.g., via utilizing redundant actuators/modules] so that functions of the input shaft and of the remote shaft are interchangeable so that the remote shaft can control movement of the input device when the input device is connected to the input shaft (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0006]-[0007], [0041]) [e.g., “The safety-relevant modules of the SbW steering system are constructed from redundant components so that if one component fails, the function of this component can be taken over by the other redundant component”]; [e.g., “The steering wheel module LRMD and the steering module LMD are symmetrical”]; [e.g., the steering wheel module LRMD corresponding to applicant’s torque actuator 114 per Fig. 2, and the steering module LMD corresponding to applicant’s torque actuator 124 per Fig. 2].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have and/or apply the aforementioned redundant and/or symmetrical configuration as a modification (or an alternative) [e.g., having the respective corresponding actuators/modules 9 and 7 per Dahler be designed and/or constructed symmetrically and/or as redundant steering actuators/modules], as suggested by Ahner, in order to further ensure steering system functionality via utilizing redundant and/or symmetrical actuators/modules, so that in the event of a failure of one of the actuators/modules, one or more of safety and reliability is improved since the function(s) of the failed actuator/module can be taken over by the other redundant actuator/module [e.g., in the event that one of the actuators/modules per Dahler fails, a driver will still be able to safely and/or reliably steer the vehicle].
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Dahler and Ahner are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning steer-by-wire steering systems, improvements relating to steer-by-wire steering system control configurations, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned redundant and/or symmetrical configuration (or technical features) per Ahner to the steer-by-wire system per Dahler, so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) pertaining to improved safety and/or reliability via the utilization of redundant and/or symmetrical actuators/modules, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (e.g., cost considerations, space considerations, safety considerations/requirements, opting for or contemplating implementing redundancy when designing the particular steer-by-wire system, etc.), without exercising inventive skill].
Regarding claim 4, Dahler in view of Ahner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dahler (Figures 1-4) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the virtual spring constant (k) is a variable spring constant (see Fig. 2, 4 in conjunction with paragraphs [0008], [0016] and [0037]) [e.g., “Stiffness parameter k can be selected as a function of steering torque LM, steering angle φ, steering angle speed, vehicle speed, for example, by a function in which the stated variables serve as an input value. Depending on the embodiment, stiffness parameter k can also be represented in a characteristic field, or be acted upon as a function of the states with amplification factors”]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Dahler in view of Ahner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dahler (Figures 1-4) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the frame members of the input shaft and of the remote shaft are [at least to some extent] connected to each other (see Fig. 1-2) [e.g., the connection defined by the electronic control unit indicated by the reference numeral 5]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 9-10, Dahler in view of Ahner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dahler (Figures 1-4) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the electronic control unit multiplies (or is configured to multiply) at least one of the output signals of the angle sensors by a gear ratio factor, and wherein the gear ratio factor is a variable factor (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0008], [0030]-[0033]) [e.g., implicit and/or readily inferable in view of the steering gear 10 configured with respect to the steering actuator 7 and the actual actuating angle ξ]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Dahler in view of Ahner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dahler (Figures 1-4) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the torque actuators are (or can be) electrical motors (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0014]). Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 12-14, Dahler in view of Ahner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dahler (Figures 1-4) further teaches a corresponding method to operate the disclosed steering system (see abstract).
Dahler fails to explicitly or expressly teach the specific equations and/or algorithms used to operate the steering system. Note that Dahler does teach (at least implicitly) and/or suggest controlling the torque actuators with the electronic control unit using time dependent torque signals such that the torques exerted to the input shaft and to the remote shaft are both functions of the difference in angular positions of the input shaft and of the remote shaft as measured by the angle sensors, wherein the angular positions are weighted by the virtual spring constant k that emulates the mechanical connection between the input shaft and the remote shaft, wherein the time dependent torque signals controlling the two actuators are calculated (see Fig. 2, 4 in conjunction with abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0016], [0031] and [0037]) [e.g., the respective torque actuators 9 and 7 are necessarily time dependent, such that both are controlled as a function of the particular time(s) that one or more inputs are made by a driver of the vehicle via the input device 4]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
However, in consideration (or to the extent) that Dahler teaches and/or suggests the same (or a substantially similar) overall functionality as that of the claimed invention(s) [e.g., utilizing a virtual spring constant or stiffness, torque and/or speed amplification factor(s), a virtual steering shaft torque, an adjustable virtual steering stiffness (defining, encompassing, and/or at least suggesting a virtual gear ratio, since steering stiffness is a function of the steering gear ratio), angular positions of the respective shafts, steering angle speeds with respect to time (or first derivatives of the angular positions/detected steering angles), etc. to determine how and/or when to apply the appropriate torque signals to the respective actuators (noting that the aforementioned factors/variables are also provided as being dependent on vehicle speed and with respect to a steer-by-wire system for vehicles)] (see Fig. 2, 4 in conjunction with abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0016], [0031] and [0037]), there would be no exercise of inventive skill and/or effort involved (or required) in accordingly performing calculations and/or indicating the specific equations, constants, and/or algorithms to be utilized for the particular steering application(s) [e.g., there is/are no apparent (or meaningful) functional distinctions between the claimed invention(s) as compared to that of the inventions suggested, encompassed, and/or contemplated by Dahler (aside from the symmetrical and/or redundant configuration of the actuators/modules, of which constitutes an obvious modification or alternative in view of the analogous teachings and/or system(s) per Ahner)]; [e.g., performing the calculations according to (and/or choosing the parameters for) the equations per claims 12-14 would at best merely involve (or require) routine skill in the art, such that said calculations constitute one of the straightforward possibilities contemplated by Dahler and/or a specific application of the teachings per Dahler (or encompassed by Dahler) for controlling the respective corresponding torque actuators of a steer-by-wire system in a substantially similar (if not essentially identical) manner]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20220194464 A1 (Dahler) in view of DE 10053335 A1 (Ahner) in further view of US 20220324506 A1 (Tarandek).
Regarding claims 5-6, Dahler in view of Ahner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dahler fails to expressly teach the claimed configuration including wherein the input shaft and the remote shaft are each axially divided into two parts that are connected via a respective flexible element [e.g., a torsion spring], and such that multiple angle sensors are provided for each shaft for measuring one or more of the respective angular positions of the input device and associated input shaft and the controlled element and associated remote shaft.
However, Tarandek (Figure 1) teaches an analogous steer-by-wire steering system for a vehicle (see abstract and paragraph [0001]), and wherein the provision(s) of having an associated torque actuator of the steer-by-wire steering system configured and/or designed to include the features of the claimed configuration is/are well-known in the relevant art(s) concerning steer-by-wire systems for vehicles (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0021], [0028], [0036], [0042]-[0046], [0051]) [e.g., observe the steering shaft 4 configured with respect to the steering-feel unit 5 and electric motor 6, such that the shaft 4 comprises two axially divided parts 28 which are connected by a flexible coupling element 15, 17, the flexible coupling element being provided (or providable) as, among other things, one or more torsion springs (notably just as per applicant’s specification/drawings)]; [e.g., also observe the springs 11, 12, 13, 14, etc.].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly utilize (or implement) the aforementioned features per Tarandek in (or into) the steer-by-wire system torque actuators per Dahler [e.g., alternatively having (or modifying) the respective torque actuators per Dahler configured (or to be configured) in accordance with the teachings per Tarandek], as suggested by Tarandek, so as to provide (or enable, achieve, etc.) a robust and straightforward means of improving (or further improving) steering feedback via a torque actuator configured to bias the steering wheel/input device towards its center position using flexible springs, and thereby provide feedback (or additional feedback) to the driver of the vehicle that results in one or more of improved stability, enhanced steering feel, and/or reduced steering effort (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles concerning steering systems and/or steering feedback systems) (see abstract and paragraphs [0024], [0028] and [0044], [0051]).
Furthermore, it is noted that the positioning of the corresponding position sensor(s) (7) per Tarandek is/are not provided as two sensors (or first and second sensors) with respect to the two parts of the respective shaft(s).
However, Tarandek expressly contemplates the use of additional steering condition sensors (9) [e.g., in addition to the sensor(s) 7] for controlling the torque actuator(s) to adjust the loading and/or stiffness of the spring(s) (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraph [0062]), and the provision(s) of accordingly positioning a desired amount of appropriate sensors is/are a mere matter of routine design choice/consideration, such that there would be no exercise of inventive skill and/or effort involved (or required) in accordingly positioning the desired amount of appropriate sensors with respect to the shaft(s) of the torque actuator(s) [e.g., it is customary for one of ordinary skill in the art to accordingly determine how many sensors to use and/or where said sensor(s) is/are to be positioned in a particular system/application], and such that the result(s)/effect(s) to be yielded via said provision(s) would be highly predictable [e.g., utilizing more steering sensor inputs for improved accuracy, having an additional sensor in case one sensor fails and/or malfunctions for improved reliability, etc.].
Additionally, note that the aforementioned alternative(s) and/or modification(s) constitute(s) the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results
[e.g., in consideration that Dahler and Tarandek are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning steer-by-wire systems, steering feedback systems and/or torque actuators, etc., there would be no exercise of inventive skill and/or effort involved (or required) in accordingly implementing one or more of the aforementioned technical features per Tarandek into the steering system(s) per Dahler, so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) pertaining to improvement(s) in steering feedback, feel, etc., and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (e.g., with respect to determining a quantity and/or positioning of appropriate angle sensors and/or the utilization of two shaft portions and a flexible element/torsion spring/etc., cost considerations, space considerations, steering requirements for a particular environment/application, etc.), without exercising inventive skill and/or effort]. Also refer to discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Dahler in view of Ahner in view of Tarandek teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Dahler (Figures 1-4) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the torques exerted to the input shaft and to the remote shaft are functions of differences between the angular positions of the input device and the controlled element as well as of angular differences between the angular positions of the input device and the torque actuator of the input shaft and the angular positions of the controlled element and the angular position of the torque actuator on the remote shaft (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0031]-[0033]) [e.g., “The feedback signal can preferably be specified as a function of—in particular proportional to—the present position deviation between wheel steering angle Ψ and actuating angle ξ”]. Also refer to discussion regarding claims 1 and 5.
Pertinent Prior Art
While not relied upon in rejecting the independent claim 1, the examiner notes the following prior art reference to further support the assertion(s) that it is customary and/or routine in the relevant art(s) concerning steer-by-wire systems to have the respective shafts of a steering feedback actuator and/or a steering actuator mounted with respect to a spring mechanism (or a spring force) to help create a natural resistance and centering feel of the steering wheel (or turning wheels) and/or to provide (or ensure) a specific steering feel, haptic feedback, and/or proper functioning of the steering system, thereby allowing the driver to feel the road and control the vehicle safely and/or more intuitively:
US 20220324506 A1 (Tarandek) (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0021], [0028], [0036], [0042]-[0046], [0051]) [e.g., “Preferably, the at least one spring biases the steering wheel towards its center position in which the angular position of the steering wheel is zero. Optionally, the at least one spring is preloaded in the center position of the steering wheel”]; [e.g., “The springs 11, 12, 13, 14 provide a steering feedback to the driver of the vehicle when the steering wheel 3 is rotated from its center position towards an angular position greater than zero”]; [e.g., “The steering system for a vehicle having a steering-feel unit according to the various embodiments of the present disclosure can provide in a robust and straightforward manner and additional steering feedback in conventional steering systems or to improve steering feedback in conventional steering systems”].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747