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 .
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. US 20210046972 A1 in view of Isoh DE 102010000397 A.
Regarding independent claim 1, Fujita et al. discloses [a steering control system 1 comprising a plurality of control circuits 51, 52 configured to control in coordination with another a reaction force motor 103 by way of a plurality of turning control circuits,] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0027) and [a turning motor 11 in coordination with one another,] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0027) [the reaction force motor generating a steering reaction force applied to a steering wheel from which power transmission to turning wheels of a vehicle is cut off,] (Fig. 1-2; Paragraph 0019) [the turning motor generating a turning force for turning the turning wheels.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0029)
Fujita et al. does not disclose wherein when at least one control circuit among the control circuits that are operating normally is reset, the at least one control circuit that is reset is configured to execute a process for stopping travel of the vehicle upon restarting after completion of the reset.
Isoh teaches [wherein the plurality of control circuits are configured to operate in a first control mode in which all of the plurality of control circuits are operating normally and in a second control mode in which at least one of the plurality of control circuits is operating abnormally, and when the plurality of control circuits are operating in the second control mode and at least one normally operating control circuit among the plurality of control circuits is reset, the at least one control circuit that is reset is configured to execute a process for stopping travel of the vehicle upon restarting after completion of the reset.] (Page 5, lines 26-39; Isoh discloses monitoring a control device to determine whether it is operating normally and executing restart control when the control device is not in a normal operating state, wherein the restart control is performed from a vehicle-stopped condition. Thus, teaching a restart-related safety process that ensures vehicle travel is stopped when control is resumed after an abnormal condition, corresponding to the claimed limitation for stopping travel of the vehicle upon restarting after completion of a reset.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the reset-related stop process of Isoh with the steering control system of Fujita et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the dual-motor and control system to safely handle a control circuit reset without risking vehicle travel, thus improving the safety and reliability of the steering system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 contains the limitation wherein: the at least one control circuit that is reset is configured to execute, upon restarting after completion of the reset, a process for stopping driving of the reaction force motor or the turning motor that is a control target of the at least one control circuit that is reset; and a control circuit of the control circuits that is operating normally without being reset is configured to execute, in synchronization with the at least one control circuit that is reset, a process for stopping driving of the turning motor or the reaction force motor that is a control target of the control circuit that is operating normally without being reset. The closest prior art, Fujita et al. US 20210046972 A1, discloses the at least one control circuit that is reset is configured to execute, upon restarting after completion of the reset, a process for stopping driving, but does not disclose the at least one control circuit that is reset is configured to execute, upon restarting after completion of the reset, a process for stopping driving of the reaction force motor or the turning motor that is a control target of the at least one control circuit that is reset; and a control circuit of the control circuits that is operating normally without being reset is configured to execute, in synchronization with the at least one control circuit that is reset, a process for stopping driving of the turning motor or the reaction force motor that is a control target of the control circuit that is operating normally without being reset.
Claim 5 contains the limitation wherein: the reaction force motor has dual-system winding sets that are a winding set of a first system and a winding set of a second system; the turning motor has dual-system winding sets that are a winding set of the first system and a winding set of the second system; the plurality of control circuits includes dual-system reaction force control circuits that are a reaction force control circuit of the first system and a reaction force control circuit of the second system, the reaction force control circuit of the first system controlling power supply to the winding set of the first system included in the reaction force motor, the reaction force control circuit of the second system controlling power supply to the winding set of the second system included in the reaction force motor, and dual-system turning control circuits that are a turning control circuit of the first system and a turning control circuit of the second system, the turning control circuit of the first system controlling power supply to the winding set of the first system included in the turning motor, the turning control circuit of the second system controlling power supply to the winding set of the second system of the turning motor; each of the plurality of control circuits is configured to have, as a driving mode of the reaction force motor and the turning motor, a single-system driving mode in which the reaction force motor and the turning motor are controlled by only the reaction force control circuit and the turning control circuit of one of the first system and the second system; and in a case where the driving mode is the single-system driving mode, the at least one control circuit that is reset is configured to execute the process when the at least one control circuit among the control circuits that are operating normally is reset. The closest prior art, Fujita et al. US 20210046972 A1 and Akutsu US 20200102007 A1, discloses wherein: the reaction force motor has dual-system winding sets that are a winding set of a first system and a winding set of a second system; the turning motor has dual-system winding sets that are a winding set of the first system and a winding set of the second system; the plurality of control circuits includes dual-system reaction force control circuits that are a reaction force control circuit of the first system and a reaction force control circuit of the second system, the reaction force control circuit of the first system controlling power supply to the winding set of the first system included in the reaction force motor, the reaction force control circuit of the second system controlling power supply to the winding set of the second system included in the reaction force motor, and dual-system turning control circuits that are a turning control circuit of the first system and a turning control circuit of the second system, the turning control circuit of the first system controlling power supply to the winding set of the first system included in the turning motor, the turning control circuit of the second system controlling power supply to the winding set of the second system of the turning motor; each of the plurality of control circuits is configured to have, as a driving mode of the reaction force motor and the turning motor, but does not disclose a single-system driving mode in which the reaction force motor and the turning motor are controlled by only the reaction force control circuit and the turning control circuit of one of the first system and the second system; and in a case where the driving mode is the single-system driving mode, the at least one control circuit that is reset is configured to execute the process when the at least one control circuit among the control circuits that are operating normally is reset.
Claim 7 contains the limitation wherein: the control circuit of which a control target is the turning motor is configured to control the turning motor such that the turning wheels turn according to an amount of rotating operation of the steering wheel; the control circuit of which a control target is the reaction force motor is configured to execute a specified preparation process at start-up; and the preparation process includes: a midpoint learning process of learning a steering neutral position of the steering wheel by making the steering wheel rotate automatically through driving of the reaction force motor; and a steering angle synchronization process of correcting a rotational position of the steering wheel such that the rotational position of the steering wheel becomes a rotational position that corresponds to a turning position of the turning wheels. The closest prior art, Fujita et al. US 20210046972 A1, discloses wherein: the control circuit of which a control target is the turning motor is configured to control the turning motor such that the turning wheels turn according to an amount of rotating operation of the steering wheel, but does not disclose the control circuit of which a control target is the reaction force motor is configured to execute a specified preparation process at start-up; and the preparation process includes: a midpoint learning process of learning a steering neutral position of the steering wheel by making the steering wheel rotate automatically through driving of the reaction force motor; and a steering angle synchronization process of correcting a rotational position of the steering wheel such that the rotational position of the steering wheel becomes a rotational position that corresponds to a turning position of the turning wheels.
Claim 8 contains the limitation wherein: each of the control circuits is configured to store information indicating whether control was stopped as a vehicle power source was turned off; and at start-up, each of the control circuits is configured to determine that the control circuit has not been reset when the information indicating that control was stopped as the vehicle power source was turned off is stored, and determine that the control circuit has been reset when the information indicating that control was stopped as the vehicle power source was turned off is not stored. The closest prior art, Isoh DE 102010000397 A, discloses a controller that execute restart of an engine when the main controller is not in a normal operating state, but does not disclose wherein: each of the control circuits is configured to store information indicating whether control was stopped as a vehicle power source was turned off; and at start-up, each of the control circuits is configured to determine that the control circuit has not been reset when the information indicating that control was stopped as the vehicle power source was turned off is stored, and determine that the control circuit has been reset when the information indicating that control was stopped as the vehicle power source was turned off is not stored.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Isoh merely discloses resetting a control device that us itself operating abnormally and does not disclose resetting a normally operating control circuit while another control circuit is abnormal. The argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Isoh discloses a system having multiple control units, including a control microcomputer, an auxiliary microcomputer, and a monitoring unit that supervises the operational states of the control units. The monitoring unit detects abnormal operating states and initiates reset operations accordingly. The claim does not require any particular cause for the reset of the normally operating control circuit or exclude reset operations that occur in response to system-level fault management. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited combination teaches or at least suggest operating with one control circuit in an abnormal state while another control circuit is reset as part of a fault-handling method to maintain safe system operation.
The applicant further contends that Isoh merely resets an abnormally operating controller and does not disclose that the reset control circuit, upon restarting, executes a process for stopping vehicle travel. The argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Isoh teaches monitoring the operational state of a control device and performing restart-related control under conditions intended to ensure safe vehicle operation. In combination with Fujita’s steering control architecture, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of executing restart procedures in a manner that prevents unintended vehicle operation while control functionality is being restored. The rejection relies on the combined teachings of the references rather than on Isoh alone.
The applicant argues that the claimed system prevents continued vehicle travel while startup sequences are executed and provides advantages discussed in the specification, whereas Isoh does not disclose these benefits. The argument is not persuasive because alleged advantages or intended results described in the specification are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish patentability when the claimed structural and functional limitations would have been obvious from the prior art. The combination of Fujita and Isoh teaches implementing fault-handling and restart procedures in a manner that promotes safe operation of the vehicle, rending the claimed subject matter obvious regardless of any asserted advantages.
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 Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights