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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (1) Strecker's quotient adaptation is for rack force signals in EPS systems, not for generating haptic feedback force at a steering intention input device; and (2) the filter is not described as "adaptive" in the sense of dynamically changing its cutoff frequency based on the value of the quotient or any other parameter.
In response to (1), Examiner notes that Strecker discloses in MTD paragraphs 5 “other functions can be involved in generating the target steering torque in order to achieve a desired and comfortable steering feel for the driver … safety-relevant information, for example about the current condition of the road surface, should be made known to the driver via the steering torque” and 41 “(t)he method according to the invention initially starts from a method in which a modeled rack force is generated, which is then used alternatively or additionally to the actual rack force acting on the wheels 14 in determining a target hand torque or road feedback.” Strecker clearly teaches of generating a haptic feedback force at a steering intention input device (i.e. steering wheel).
With regards to (2), Examiner notes MTD paragraph 54 “the adapted rack force follows the actual rack force insofar as, in particular, the extreme value in the modeled rack force between seconds 4.5 and 5, which is otherwise perceived as unpleasant by the driver, is filtered out”.
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 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinrich et al. (US 2021/0371009) in view of Strecker et al. (DE 10 2010 042 135 A1; Machine Translation of Description and claims ‘MTD’), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claims 1-14, Heinrich et al. discloses a method for producing a haptic feedback force by setting a manual torque at a steering intention input device of a steering system of a motor vehicle (claim 11) comprising the following steps: obtaining a first rack force value (paragraph 19, “obtain operating values for an actuator mechanically coupled to the rack (such as an electric motor). In some examples, the value may be a motor current from a motor that is configured to displace the rack by applying a motor torque”) and a second rack force value (paragraphs 19-20, “Additionally or alternatively, the valuator can include a model of the steering gear assembly that obtains the motor torque generated by the motor as an input value … obtained in the form of input values, e.g., the speed of the vehicle and a steering angle set by the driver”) from two different models (paragraphs 18-20), processing the first and second rack force values (paragraphs 18-20 describing obtaining values not only directly by sensors through motor torque generated by a motor in a steering system based model but also through modeling) originating from the two different models (14, 18), which determines a feedback force value (claim 11), by the second rack force value (paragraphs 19-20, “Additionally or alternatively, the valuator can include a model of the steering gear assembly that obtains the motor torque generated by the motor as an input value … obtained in the form of input values, e.g., the speed of the vehicle and a steering angle set by the driver”), and transferring the feedback force value (claim 11) to a steering reference torque generator (‘actuator’, paragraphs 8-9) of the steering system, which sets a manual torque at a steering intention input device in dependence on the feedback force value (claim 11). (Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 8-55.) Heinrich et al. is silent regarding forming a quotient between the models. Strecker et al. teaches of processing the first and second rack force values originating from the two different models (actual rack force 31 using steering-system based MTD paragraphs 40, 50, modeled rack force 42 using vehicle-data based paragraphs 45, 50) to form a quotient (MTD paragraphs 23-26, 50-53) which determines a feedback force value (44), by the second rack force value (42) being modified (MTD paragraph 50) by the quotient (61), and transferring the feedback force value (44) to a steering reference torque generator (10) of the steering system; the quotient (61) is used in a control circuit with an adaptive lowpass filter (62), which the first rack force value (actual rack force 31 using steering-system based MTD paragraphs 40, 50) passes through, in order to set a cut-off frequency (MTD paragraph 29, “the modeled rack force is strongly filtered under certain conditions to keep it at least close to zero. The conditions for activating the filter are determined by evaluating the actual rack force and the modeled rack force both in terms of their absolute value and from a relative comparison of the two quantities. If the modeled rack force is small and the actual rack force is large, the filter is activated”) of the lowpass filter (62) in a cut-off frequency module (MTD paragraph 54 “the adapted rack force follows the actual rack force insofar as, in particular, the extreme value in the modeled rack force between seconds 4.5 and 5, which is otherwise perceived as unpleasant by the driver, is filtered out”); wherein the cut-off frequency of the adaptive lowpass filter (62) is dependent on a deviation of the quotient (61) from 1 and is lowered if the quotient (61) changes in the direction of 1 (MTD paragraphs 22-30, 50-55); wherein the quotient (61) is scaled within a specified range and multiplied (MTD paragraphs 23, 50-52) by the second rack force value (42) in order to obtain the feedback force value (44); wherein the quotient (61) passes through a correction module (43) before the multiplication; wherein the quotient (61) is set to 1 by a delimiting module if a delimiting parameter lies within a specified value range (MTD paragraph 23); wherein the delimiting parameter is an upper limit for an absolute amount of a wheel positioning angle, a position on a front axle of the vehicle, a steering element, a steering wheel, a rack force value from one of the two models and/or an upper limit for a vehicle speed (MTD paragraphs 19-20, 25, 30, 47-49, 53). (Figs. 1-5, MTD paragraphs 14-55, claims 1, 6, 10.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the quotient method as described in Strecker et al. into the invention of Heinrich et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to generate a modeled rack force for steering devices of vehicles with an electric power steering (EPS), which represents a particularly good basis for generating a driver-desired torque, is as free from disturbances as possible and is of sufficient quality even in special situations. (MTD paragraph 14.)
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 JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614