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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 12/17/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 12 have been amended; claims 3, 6-10, 13, and 14 have been canceled; claim 15 has been added; no claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 15 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to claims 1, 2, 8, and 12 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims 1, 2, and 12 and the cancellation of claim 8.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims 1, 4, and 11 and the cancellation of claim 8.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 8.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0012253 to Lee have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant asserts on page 7 of the remarks that the prior art rejection of claim 1 cannot be maintained in view of the amendments to the claim because “claim 1 now requires a mandatory profile analysis [and] performing a movement-profile analysis for each detected movement that exceeds the second limiting value and does not exceed the first limiting value, to classify the movement as user-caused versus environmental.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1, as amended, now recites “after the vehicle has been shut down, monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” in lines 3-4. Note that the claim term “defined monitoring period” is broad enough to correspond to one of a smallest definable non-zero time period and a full duration of the shut-down state of the vehicle. Also, note that “after the vehicle has been shut down, monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” (emphasis added) does not require the “steering wheel” to be moved, or for movement of the “steering wheel” to be detected, during performing of the claimed method. Lee teaches, for example, that a steering wheel controller 21 of a steer-by-wire (SBW) system 20 monitors whether turning of a steering wheel 22 occurs using a torque sensor 24, at times including during a definable period after a vehicle having the SBW system 20 is stopped and an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned off, such as in a first scenario when no turning of the steering wheel 22 is sensed by the torque sensor 24 during the definable period after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch is turned off (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0015-0018, 0062-0063, 0083-0086, 0094, 0115 & 0119 of Lee).
Claim 1, as amended, also now recites “for each detected movement of the starring wheel that exceeds a second limiting value and does not exceed a first limiting value, performing a movement-profile analysis to determine whether the movement was caused by a user or by environmental factors” in lines 6-8. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I). In amended claim 1, the step “performing a movement-profile analysis to determine whether the movement was caused by a user or by environmental factors” is contingent upon meeting of a condition “for each detected movement of the starring wheel that exceeds a second limiting value and does not exceed a first limiting value” that is not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when no movement of the steering wheel occurs during performing of the claimed method, or when no movement of the steering wheel is detected during performing of the claimed method, or when the/each detected movement of the steering wheel during performing of the claimed method only either does not exceed the second limiting value or exceeds the first limiting value), especially since “after the vehicle has been shut down, monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” (emphasis added) does not require the “steering wheel” to be moved, or for movement of the “steering wheel” to be detected, during performing of the claimed method, such that “for each detected movement of the starring wheel that exceeds a second limiting value and does not exceed a first limiting value, performing a movement-profile analysis to determine whether the movement was caused by a user or by environmental factors” does not further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, in the first scenario of Lee, as discussed in detail above, no turning of the steering wheel 22 is sensed by the torque sensor 24 during the definable period after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch is turned off.
Next, Applicant asserts on page 7 of the remarks that the prior art rejection of claim 1 cannot be maintained in view of the amendments to the claim because “claim 1 activates the damping unit within the second-band only when the movement-profile analysis determines the movement is user-caused.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies [i.e., the “second-band,” and “[activating] the damping unit within the second-band only when the movement-profile analysis determines the movement is user-caused” (emphasis added)] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, claim 1, as amended, now recites “activating a damping unit to damp the movement of the steering wheel when either (i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value, or (ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user” in lines 9-12. In amended claim 1, the step “activating a damping unit to damp the movement of the steering wheel” is contingent upon meeting of at least one of conditions “(i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value” and “(ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user” that are not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when no movement of the steering wheel occurs during performing of the claimed method, or when no movement of the steering wheel is detected during performing of the claimed method, or when all detected movement(s) of the steering wheel during performing of the claimed method do not exceed the second limiting value), especially since “after the vehicle has been shut down, monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” (emphasis added) does not require the “steering wheel” to be moved, or for movement of the “steering wheel” to be detected, during performing of the claimed method, such that “activating a damping unit to damp the movement of the steering wheel when either (i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value, or (ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user” does not further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above). For example, in the first scenario of Lee, as discussed in detail above, no turning of the steering wheel 22 is sensed by the torque sensor 24 during the definable period after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch is turned off.
Applicant further asserts on pages 7-8 of the remarks that the prior art rejection of claim 1 cannot be maintained in view of the amendments to the claim because “[claim] 1 requires automatic termination of both monitoring and damping for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period when (a) no movement above the first threshold occurs within the defined monitoring period, or (b) only second-band movements occur and are all classified as environmental.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies [i.e., automatic termination of both “monitoring and damping,” the “first threshold,” “second-band movements,” “environmental” classification, and “[automatically terminating] both monitoring and damping for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period when (a) no movement above the first threshold occurs within the defined monitoring period, or (b) only second-band movements occur and are all classified as environmental”] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, claim 1, as amended, now recites “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period when at least one of: (a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period, or (b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction” in lines 18-24. In amended claim 1, the step “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” is contingent upon meeting of one of conditions “(a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period” and “(b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction” that are not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when at least one detected movement of the steering wheel during performing of the claimed method exceeds the second limiting value), such that “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period when at least one of: (a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period, or (b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction” does not further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above). Also, the step “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” appears to be contingent upon the contingent limitation “activating a damping unit to damp the movement of the steering wheel when either (i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value, or (ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user” (emphasis added) being performed during performing of the claimed method (note the claim fails to previously introduce any “monitoring and damping functions,” “a monitoring function” or “monitoring functions, and “a damping function” or “damping functions”), and “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” is further contingent upon meeting of at least one of conditions “(i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value” and “(ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user” that are not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method (and that would never be met during performing of the claimed method when either of conditions “(a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period” and “(b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction” is met during performing of the claimed method), such that “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period when at least one of: (a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period, or (b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction” does not further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above). For example, in the first scenario of Lee, as discussed in detail above, no turning of the steering wheel 22 is sensed by the torque sensor 24 during the definable period after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch is turned off.
Therefore, the prior art rejection of claim 1 has been maintained and updated in order to address the amendments to the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended to recite --and-- immediately following the semicolon at the end of line 12.
Claim 15 should be amended to recite --and-- immediately following the semicolon at the end of line 23.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “monitoring unit” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, and 12, “damping unit” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 15, and “control unit” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 15 are 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.
Claim 1, as amended, introduces “a user” in line 12; however, the claim, as amended, also now previously introduces “a user” in line 8, and it is unclear whether the “user” in line 12 is intended to be the same as or different from the “user” in line 8. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, as amended, refers to “the monitoring and damping functions” in line 18; however, the claim fails to previously introduce any of “monitoring and damping functions,” “a monitoring function” or “monitoring functions, and “a damping function” or “damping functions,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the monitoring and damping functions” in line 18. Additionally, it is unclear whether “the monitoring and damping functions” is intended to include multiple “monitoring functions” and/or multiple “damping functions,” or whether “the monitoring and damping functions” is differently intended to be directed to each of a singular “monitoring function” and a singular “damping function.” Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, as amended, refers to “the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” in lines 18-19; however, the claim fails to previously introduce “a vehicle shut-down period,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by each of “the vehicle shut-own period” and “the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” in lines 18-19. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 1, as amended, introduces “movement profile analysis” in line 23; however, the claim, as amended, also now previously introduces “movement-profile analysis” in line 7, and it is unclear whether the “movement profile analysis” in line 23 are intended to be the same as or different from the “movement-profile analysis” in line 7. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, as amended, introduces “environmental factors” in line 23; however, the claim, as amended, also now previously introduces “environmental factors” in line 8, and it is unclear whether the “environmental factors” in line 23 are intended to be the same as or different from the “environmental factors” in line 8. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites “wherein the monitoring unit operates continuously during the defined monitoring” in line 25; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the defined monitoring,” as the claim does not appear to previously introduce “a defined monitoring.” Claim 1 does, however, previously introduce a step of “monitoring…” in lines 3-5, and it is unclear whether the “defined monitoring” in line 25 is intended to refer to the step of “monitoring…” in lines 3-5 or whether the “defined monitoring” in line 25 is instead intended to refer to something else. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 11, and 12 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2, 4, 5, 11, and 12 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 2 refers to “the steering wheel movement” in lines 1-2; however, claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, and neither claim previously introduces “a steering wheel movement,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the steering wheel movement.” Claim 1 does, however, previously introduce “each detected movement of the steering wheel…” in lines 6-7, “a detected movement of the steering wheel…” in line 10, “a movement…” in lines 11-12, and “only movements […] and all such movements…” in lines 21-24, while previously referring to each of “the movement” in line 8 and “the movement of the steering wheel” in line 9, and it is unclear whether the “steering wheel movement” in lines 1-2 of claim 2 is intended to be the same as or different from each of the aforementioned “movement” elements of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 2, such that claims 11 and 12 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 2 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 2 is rejected. Note that claim 11 also refers to “the steering wheel movement” in line 2, and claim 12 also refers to “the steering wheel movement” in line 3.
Claim 4 refers to “the steering wheel movement” in line 2; however, claim 4 is dependent from claim 1, and neither claim previously introduces “a steering wheel movement,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the steering wheel movement.” Claim 1 does, however, previously introduce “each detected movement of the steering wheel…” in lines 6-7, “a detected movement of the steering wheel…” in line 10, “a movement…” in lines 11-12, and “only movements […] and all such movements…” in lines 21-24, while previously referring to each of “the movement” in line 8 and “the movement of the steering wheel” in line 9, and it is unclear whether the “steering wheel movement” in line 2 of claim 4 is intended to be the same as or different from each of the aforementioned “movement” elements of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 introduces “monitoring of the movement of the steering wheel” in lines 1-2. Claim 5 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 previously introduces “monitoring whether the steering wheel is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” in lines 3-4. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “monitoring” introduced in line 1 of claim 5 is intended to be the same as or different from the “monitoring” previously introduced in line 3 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 refers to “the steering wheel movement” in line 3; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1, and neither claim previously introduces “a steering wheel movement,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the steering wheel movement.” Claim 1 does, however, previously introduce “each detected movement of the steering wheel…” in lines 6-7, “a detected movement of the steering wheel…” in line 10, “a movement…” in lines 11-12, and “only movements […] and all such movements…” in lines 21-24, while previously referring to each of “the movement” in line 8 and “the movement of the steering wheel” in line 9, and it is unclear whether the “steering wheel movement” in line 3 of claim 5 is intended to be the same as or different from each of the aforementioned “movement” elements of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 introduces “monitoring of the movement of the steering wheel” in lines 1-2. Claim 12 is dependent from claim 1 via claims 2 and 11, and claim 1 previously introduces “monitoring whether the steering wheel is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” in lines 3-4. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “monitoring” introduced in line 1 of claim 12 is intended to be the same as or different from the “monitoring” previously introduced in line 3 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 introduces “movement of the steering wheel” in line 8; however, the claim previously introduces “movement of the steering wheel” in line 3, and it is unclear whether the “movement of the steering wheel” in line 8 is intended to be the same as or different from the “movement of the steering wheel” in line 3. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 refers to “the steering wheel movement” in line 10; however, the claim does not previously introduce “a steering wheel movement,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the steering wheel movement.” Claim 15 does, however, twice previously introduce “movement of the steering wheel” in each of line 3 and line 8, and it is unclear whether the “steering wheel movement” in line 10 is intended to be the same as or different from the “movement of the steering wheel” in line 3 and/or the “movement of the steering wheel” in line 8. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 also refers to “the movement” in lines 10-11; however, the claim does not previously introduce “a movement,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the movement.” Claim 15 does, however, twice previously introduce “movement of the steering wheel” in each of line 3 and line 8, while further previously referring to “the steering wheel movement” in line 10, and it is unclear whether the “movement” in lines 10-11 is intended to be the same as or different from the “movement of the steering wheel” in line 3 and/or the “movement of the steering wheel” in line 8 and/or the “steering wheel movement” in line 10. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 refers to “the monitoring and damping functions” in line 18; however, the claim fails to previously introduce any of “monitoring and damping functions,” “a monitoring function” or “monitoring functions, and “a damping function” or “damping functions,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the monitoring and damping functions” in line 18. Additionally, it is unclear whether “the monitoring and damping functions” is intended to include multiple “monitoring functions” and/or multiple “damping functions,” or whether “the monitoring and damping functions” is differently intended to be directed to each of a singular “monitoring function” and a singular “damping function.” Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 refers to “the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” in lines 18-19; however, the claim fails to previously introduce “a vehicle shut-down period,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by each of “the vehicle shut-own period” and “the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” in lines 18-19. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 introduces “environmental factors” in line 23; however, the claim, as amended, also now previously introduces “environmental factors” in line 11, and it is unclear whether the “environmental factors” in line 23 are intended to be the same as or different from the “environmental factors” in line 11. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0012253 to Lee (hereinafter: “Lee”).
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches a method for operating a steer-by-wire steering system of a vehicle with a steering wheel in a shut-down state of the vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-6 in view of at least the Abstract), the method comprising: after the vehicle has been shut down, monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0015-0018, 0062-0063, 0083-0086, 0094, 0115 & 0119, a steering wheel controller 21 of a steer-by-wire (SBW) system 20 monitors whether turning of a steering wheel 22 occurs using a torque sensor 24, at times including during a definable period after a vehicle having the SBW system 20 is stopped and an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned off, such as in a first scenario when no turning of the steering wheel 22 is sensed by the torque sensor 24 during the definable period after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch is turned off; note: the claim term “defined monitoring period” is broad enough to correspond to one of a smallest definable non-zero time period and a full duration of the shut-down state of the vehicle; also, note that “after the vehicle has been shut down, monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” (emphasis added) does not require the “steering wheel” to be moved, or for movement of the “steering wheel” to be detected, during performing of the claimed method]; for each detected movement of the starring wheel that exceeds a second limiting value and does not exceed a first limiting value, performing a movement-profile analysis to determine whether the movement was caused by a user or by environmental factors [the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and “performing a movement-profile analysis to determine whether the movement was caused by a user or by environmental factors” is contingent upon meeting of a condition “for each detected movement of the starring wheel that exceeds a second limiting value and does not exceed a first limiting value” that is not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when no movement of the steering wheel occurs during performing of the claimed method, or when no movement of the steering wheel is detected during performing of the claimed method, or when the/each detected movement of the steering wheel during performing of the claimed method only either does not exceed the second limiting value or exceeds the first limiting value), especially since “after the vehicle has been shut down, monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” (emphasis added) does not require the “steering wheel” to be moved, or for movement of the “steering wheel” to be detected, during performing of the claimed method, such that “for each detected movement of the starring wheel that exceeds a second limiting value and does not exceed a first limiting value, performing a movement-profile analysis to determine whether the movement was caused by a user or by environmental factors” does not further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation; for example, in the first scenario, as discussed in detail above, no turning of the steering wheel 22 is sensed by the torque sensor 24 during the definable period after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch is turned off]; activating a damping unit to damp the movement of the steering wheel when either (i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value, or (ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user [“activating a damping unit to damp the movement of the steering wheel” is contingent upon meeting of at least one of conditions “(i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value” and “(ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user” that are not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when no movement of the steering wheel occurs during performing of the claimed method, or when no movement of the steering wheel is detected during performing of the claimed method, or when all detected movement(s) of the steering wheel during performing of the claimed method do not exceed the second limiting value), especially since “after the vehicle has been shut down, monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” (emphasis added) does not require the “steering wheel” to be moved, or for movement of the “steering wheel” to be detected, during performing of the claimed method, such that “activating a damping unit to damp the movement of the steering wheel when either (i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value, or (ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user” does not further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); for example, in the first scenario, as discussed in detail above, no turning of the steering wheel 22 is sensed by the torque sensor 24 during the definable period after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch is turned off]; automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period when at least one of: (a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period, or (b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction [“automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” is contingent upon meeting of one of conditions “(a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period” and “(b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction” that are not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when at least one detected movement of the steering wheel during performing of the claimed method exceeds the second limiting value), such that “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period when at least one of: (a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period, or (b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction” does not further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); ALSO, “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” appears to be contingent upon the contingent limitation “activating a damping unit to damp the movement of the steering wheel when either (i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value, or (ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user” (emphasis added) being performed during performing of the claimed method (note the claim fails to previously introduce any “monitoring and damping functions,” “a monitoring function” or “monitoring functions, and “a damping function” or “damping functions”), and “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period” is further contingent upon meeting of at least one of conditions “(i) a detected movement of the steering wheel exceeds the first limiting value” and “(ii) the movement-profile analysis determines that a movement exceeding the second limiting value and not exceeding the first limiting value was caused by a user” that are not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method (and that would never be met during performing of the claimed method when either of conditions “(a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period” and “(b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction” is met during performing of the claimed method), such that “automatically terminating both the monitoring and damping functions for the remainder of the vehicle shut-down period when at least one of: (a) no movement exceeding the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period, or (b) only movements between the second limiting value and the first limiting value are detected within the defined monitoring period and all such movements are determined through movement profile analysis to be caused by environmental factors rather than user interaction” does not further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, for example, in the first scenario, as discussed in detail above, no turning of the steering wheel 22 is sensed by the torque sensor 24 during the definable period after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch is turned off], wherein the monitoring unit operates continuously during the defined monitoring [no part of the recitation “wherein the monitoring unit operates continuously during the defined monitoring” necessarily introduces further step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines any previously introduced step of the claimed method, such that “wherein the monitoring unit operates continuously during the defined monitoring” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I, as discussed in detail above); even so, for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0063, 0092, 0117-0118, the steering wheel controller 21 is continuously maintained in the activated state at times including after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch of the vehicle is turned off, including during the definable period after the vehicle is stopped and the ignition switch is turned off].
With respect to claim 2, Lee teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the steering wheel movement is detected based on a rotational speed of the steering wheel and/or on a change in a position of the steering wheel [no part of the recitation “wherein the steering wheel movement is detected based on a rotational speed of the steering wheel and/or on a change in a position of the steering wheel” necessarily introduces step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines any previously introduced step of the claimed method, especially since the scope of the previously introduced step “monitoring whether the steering wheel is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” includes a result of the steering wheel never being moved within the defined monitoring period, such that “wherein the steering wheel movement is detected based on a rotational speed of the steering wheel and/or on a change in a position of the steering wheel” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the defined monitoring period is extended when the steering wheel movement exceeds the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period [no part of the recitation “wherein the defined monitoring period is extended when the steering wheel movement exceeds the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period” necessarily introduces step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines any previously introduced step of the claimed method, especially since the scope of the previously introduced step “monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” includes a result of the steering wheel never being moved within the defined monitoring period, such that “wherein the defined monitoring period is extended when the steering wheel movement exceeds the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 5, Lee teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein monitoring of the movement of the steering wheel is intensified when an ascertained movement value of the steering wheel movement is between the first limiting value and the second limiting value [no part of the recitation “wherein monitoring of the movement of the steering wheel is intensified when an ascertained movement value of the steering wheel movement is between the first limiting value and the second limiting value” necessarily introduces step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines any previously introduced step of the claimed method, especially since the previously introduced step “monitoring whether the steering wheel of the vehicle is being moved for a defined monitoring period using a monitoring unit” includes a result of the steering wheel never being moved within the defined monitoring period, such that “wherein monitoring of the movement of the steering wheel is intensified when an ascertained movement value of the steering wheel movement is between the first limiting value and the second limiting value” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the defined monitoring period is extended if when the steering wheel movement exceeds the first limiting value is detected within the defined monitoring period (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 2 and 4).
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein monitoring of the movement of the steering wheel is intensified when an ascertained movement value of the steering wheel movement is between the first limiting value and the second limiting value (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 5 and 11).
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over the Prior Art
Claim 15 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747