Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/302,658

STEERING DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 18, 2023
Examiner
STRICKLER, SCOTT LAWRENCE
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Jtekt Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
36 granted / 45 resolved
+28.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
79
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
60.5%
+20.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 45 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This communication is in response to application No. 18/302,658; Steering Device; filed on 4/18/2023 and amended on 12/01/2025. Claims 1 - 14 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 3 has been cancelled by amendment. 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima (US 2020/0130728 A1) in view of Onoda (JP 2005-239031). PNG media_image1.png 373 601 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Takashima discloses; A steering device (steering device 20; fig. 1, paragraph 43) configured to turn a tire (tire 25) of a vehicle of a steer-by-wire system, the steering device comprising: a turning device including a turning actuator (turning motor 24) configured to turn the tire according to an instructed turning angle (Fig.1 illustrates the turning end of the steer-by-wire system from the turning motor to the vehicle wheels.) a turning angle control device (control device 4) configured to calculate a turning angle command value (correction target turning angle; fig. 2), which corresponds to an inputted steering angle signal (steering angle from sensor 22), and generate a signal to drive the turning actuator (turning motor 24) based on the turning angle command value, (Fig. 2 and paragraph 48 describe the control unit (4) receiving a signal from the steering angle sensor (22) and generating a turning command which is passed to the turning motor (24).) wherein the turning angle control device (control device 4) is configured to apply a limit, such that an absolute value of a turning angle velocity becomes equal to or below a turning angle velocity limit value, which is set according to a predetermined parameter, (Paragraph 83 describes the rate limiter processing unit 42 as limiting the rate of change of the turning angle signal based on the input steering angle from the user and more strongly limited towards large steering angles. Paragraph 86 and Fig. 15 describes this limit as resulting by using maps or functions defining a relationship as shown in fig. 15. Takashima (paragraph 50) utilizes steering angles from zero (straight ahead) to full steering lock in either direction and applies the limiting calculation to the absolute value of the angle regardless of the left or right direction of turning. Paragraph describes the desire to limit actual steering wheel movement to less than 150 to 170 degrees in each of the right and left directions, in order to allow the driver to fully steer the vehicle without removing their hands from the wheel.) Takashima does not disclose varying the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value. However, Onoda teaches; and vary the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value. (Paragraph 37 of Onoda describes a steering angular velocity limit (for limiting the speed of the steering actuator), which is determined by a steering angular velocity limit control unit. Paragraph 38 describes this limit, which functions to suppress the front wheels from being suddenly turned, as a being determined from a combination of a vehicle motion parameter, (such as steering angle / torque, or lateral acceleration / yaw rate) and a vehicle speed parameter (which depends on vehicle speed over the ground). The vehicle motion parameter is a turning angle equivalent value as described in paragraph 27 of the application, which states that the turning angle equivalent value may be the turning angle itself or any value correlated with a turning angle.) A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Takashima to include varying the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value as taught by Onoda, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to steer-by-wire systems. As disclosed by Onoda, it is well known for steer-by-wire systems to vary the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takashima to include varying the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value as taught by Onoda, as such a modification would function to suppress the front wheels from being suddenly turned. (Paragraph 37 of Onoda). Regarding claim 2, Takashima further discloses; wherein the steering device is to be applied to a vehicle of a steer-by-wire system in which a driver performs driving operation, the steering device further comprising: (Takashima describes a steer-by-wire system for a vehicle under operator control.) a reaction force device (motor 23 and sensor 22) including a reaction force actuator (reaction force motor 23) configured to impart reaction force to a driver’s steering operation of a steering and a reaction force control device configured to generate a signal, which is to drive the reaction force actuator, based on a signal from the turning angle control device. (Paragraph 43 describes the reaction force motor as applying a reaction force to the steering wheel corresponding to the angle of the vehicle tires. Takashima does not specifically describe a controller for the reaction motor, but such a controller must be present in order to provide a signal to the reaction motor based on the movement of the vehicle tires.) Regarding claim 5, Takashima discloses; wherein the turning angle control device is configured to vary the turning angle velocity limit value according to a vehicle behavior. (Paragraph 63 describes varying the turning angle limit based on the yaw rate of the vehicle.) Regarding claim 6, Takashima discloses; wherein the turning angle control device is configured to vary the turning angle velocity limit value according to a vehicle speed. (Paragraph 12 describes the steering angle change amount as changing depending on vehicle speed.) Regarding claim 8, Takashima discloses; wherein the turning angle control device is configured to vary a steering angle ratio, which is a ratio of a turning angle to a steering angle, according to a steering angle equivalent value or a turning angle equivalent value. (Paragraph 9 discloses that the ratio of the turning angle change to the steering angle change may be a constant.) Regarding claim 9, Takashima discloses; A steering device (steering device 20; fig. 1, paragraph 43) configured to turn a tire (tire 25) of a vehicle of a steer-by-wire system, the steering device comprising: a processor (control device 4; fig. 1, paragraph 45) configured to turn the tire according to an instructed turning angle, (commands sent to turning motor 24)s calculate a turning angle command value, which corresponds to an inputted steering angle signal, (Turning angle commands calculated in the converting unit and the rate limiter / filter unit and passed to the turning motor.) generate a signal to drive a turning actuator based on the turning angle command value, (command signal sent from the rate limiter / filter unit to the turning motor.) apply a limit, such that an absolute value of a turning angle velocity becomes equal to or below a turning angle velocity limit value, which is set according to a predetermined parameter, (Paragraph 83 describes the rate limiter processing unit 42 as limiting the rate of change of the turning angle signal based on the input steering angle from the user and more strongly limited towards large steering angles. Paragraph 86 and Fig. 15 describes this limit as resulting by using maps or functions defining a relationship as shown in fig. 15.) Takashima does not disclose varying the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value. However, Onoda teaches; and vary the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value. (Paragraph 37 of Onoda describes a steering angular velocity limit (for limiting the speed of the steering actuator), which is determined by a steering angular velocity limit control unit. Paragraph 38 describes this limit, which functions to suppress the front wheels from being suddenly turned, as a being determined from a combination of a vehicle motion parameter, (such as steering angle / torque, or lateral acceleration / yaw rate) and a vehicle speed parameter (which depends on vehicle speed over the ground). The vehicle motion parameter is a turning angle equivalent value as described in paragraph 27 of the application, which states that the turning angle equivalent value may be the turning angle itself or any value correlated with a turning angle.) A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Takashima to include varying the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value as taught by Onoda, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to steer-by-wire systems. As disclosed by Onoda, it is well known for steer-by-wire systems to vary the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takashima to include varying the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value as taught by Onoda, as such a modification would function to suppress the front wheels from being suddenly turned. (Paragraph 37 of Onoda). Regarding claim 10, Takashima in view of Onoda discloses; wherein the turning angle control device is configured to vary the turning angle velocity limit value in both the turning and the returning. (Claim 1 of Onoda describes a turning actuator operation adjustment which determines that the steering handle has been steered in a returning direction, back towards the neutral position. Regarding claim 12, Takashima in view of Onoda discloses; wherein the turning angle control device is configured to determine the turning and the returning based on the steering angle signal and the turning angle velocity. (Onoda, paragraph 37 of Onoda describes the steering angular velocity limit control unit as determining whether the driver is steering the wheel back based on the input steering angle (from the steering angle sensor) and the steering angular velocity. The steering angular velocity limit is then calculated (paragraph 38) based on vehicle motion characteristics including lateral acceleration and yaw rate, which would be a turning angle velocity.) Regarding claim 13, Takashima in view of Onoda discloses; wherein the turning angle control device is configured to determine the turning and the returning based on a steering torque and the turning angle velocity. (Onoda, paragraph 38 describes steering torque and lateral acceleration or yaw angle as vehicle motion parameters utilized in the calculation of the steering angular velocity limit.) Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Regarding claim 7, none of the cited references either alone or in combination disclose the combination of limitations as claimed. Specifically, the references fail to disclose; the turning angle velocity limit value for returning is smaller than the turning angle velocity limit value for turning. Claims 4, 11, 14 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 4, 11, and 16, none of the cited references either alone or in combination disclose the combination of limitations as claimed. Specifically, the references fail to disclose; Regarding claim 4; wherein the turning angle control device is configured to reduce the turning angle velocity limit value with reduction in a remaining angle, which is an absolute value of a difference between a current turning angle or steering angle and a critical angle at a corresponding mechanical end, according to the remaining angle, such that an angle error, which is caused by turning angle velocity limit, becomes equal to a predetermined allowable angle error or below. Regarding claim 11; wherein the reaction force device is configured to i) switch a constant of the reaction force control device or ii) to match a constant of friction control and a constant of inertia control, such that the reaction force is increased, when the turning angle control device applies the limit to the turning angle velocity. Regarding claim 14 wherein the turning angle control device is configured to determine the turning and the returning based on a reaction force torque and a detection value of a torque sensor. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Applicant has correctly described the primary reference Takashima as affecting a decrease in the amplitude of the turning angle; however the secondary reference Onoda teaches a process to vary the turning angle velocity limit value according to a turning angle equivalent value. New limitations disclosed in claims 7 and 10-14 are addressed above. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:30am to 5:30pm. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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. /SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3614 /JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 18, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 07, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 01, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594991
CRAWLER-TYPE WORK MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594996
VEHICLE FRONT STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576685
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE SUSPENSION WITH USER CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC ASSIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570357
Method for Influencing a Movement of a Steering Control Element of a Steer-by-Wire Steering System in a Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568880
RIDING LAWN MOWER, DISPLAY INTERFACE OF A POWER TOOL AND RIDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+9.5%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 45 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month