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 ..
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 4/13/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a serious search burden is not present. This is not found persuasive because invention I requires gears and estimated gear friction and invention II requires a range of offset torque component values.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/13/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3 claim “the the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: lines 4 claims “utilising”, which should be spelled “utilizing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 contains the typo “toque”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “Steer-by-Wire Handwheel” does not need to be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4-9 and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the constant friction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only a mechanical friction was previously claimed, not necessarily being constant.
Regarding claim 5, the term "optionally" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "optionally"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Regarding claim 6, the term "optionally" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "optionally"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. Claims 7-9 rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 6.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the angle demand" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only an angle control system was previously claimed. The Examiner notes that the term “angle demand” needs to be defined in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beyerlein (US 10,479,399) in view of Oshita (US 4,800,975).
In re claim 1, Beyerlein discloses a dual motor drive assembly comprising: a housing (torque sensor 50 housing); a shaft (22) rotatably mounted with respect to the housing; a first gear (28) connected to and configured to rotate with the shaft; first and second motors (58, 60; not claimed to be within said housing), each having an output (30, 31) driving a respective output gear (64, 70), the output gears being engaged with the first gear (as shown in Figures 1 and 3); a control circuit (common controller 52 contains circuits/processors; see column 3, lines 34-36) configured to allocate independent torque demands to each of the first and second motors to cause a net torque to be applied to the shaft (column 3, lines 29-34), and a processing circuit (controllers 52, 62 contain circuits/processors; see column 3, lines 34-36) configured to apply torque demands to the two motors that include equal and opposite offset components which provide a net zero torque plus an additional torque component that is applied to the motors to provide an overall non-zero torque to the first gear in which the processing circuit varies the difference between the motor torques demanded from each motor over a range of values at a time when there are no external inputs to the system (column 5, lines 16-45; one motor can apply 75% of torque and the other can provide 25% to equal the desired 100% or 50/50 or any combination that equals the desired 100% torque), but does not disclose estimating the level of mechanical friction of the system to control the torques and observes the lowest value of the net torque within that range that overcomes the mechanical friction to cause the shaft to rotate at a constant velocity.
Oshita, however, does disclose a steering system that determines the amount of torque necessary to overcome the mechanical friction of the gears and the motor’s moment of inertia to improve/smooth the steering action (see column 5, lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor control of Beyerlein such that it comprised the friction overcoming torque component of Oshita to advantageously improve the steering action by smoothing it out.
In re claim 5, Beyerlein further discloses, as discussed above, wherein the two motors are controlled so that the net torque that they impose on the shaft is matched to the demand torques, excluding friction effects (since Beyerlein does not take into account friction), optionally wherein the control circuit is configured to provide scaling for a gear ratio and/or compensation for one or more factors that can cause a variation in motor outputs including: temperature, ripple torque and internal dynamics. The Examiner notes that all language after “optionally” is not required by the claim.
In re claim 10, Beyerlein further discloses a motor controller (52) that generates independent control signals for each of the two motors and a drive circuit for each motor that causes a motor torque to be generated in response to the control signals (common controller; see column 4, lines 25-27).
In re claim 11, Beyerlein further discloses wherein the motor controller is configured as a torque demand-based control system in which the torque demands applied to each motor correspond to a target output toque (desired torque) from that motor and wherein the dual motor drive assembly is configured to increase or decrease a net torque demand whilst monitoring the shaft velocity at each step to identify when a motor speed is constant.
In re claim 13, Beyerlein further discloses wherein the first gear comprises a worm wheel (28), and each motor is connected to the worm wheel through a respective output gear comprising a worm gear (64, 70) (as shown in Figure 2).
In re claim 14, Beyerlein further discloses wherein the dual motor drive assembly comprises a part of a steer-by-wire (column 2, lines 42-45) handwheel (20) actuator assembly (10) for a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the processing circuit is configured to vary offset components over the range and, for a plurality of values in that range, determine the net torque required to cause the shaft to rotate at a constant velocity” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach varying offset components while determining the net torque required for constant velocity shaft rotation.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the processing circuit is configured to measure the constant friction that is present at a time when there are no external inputs on the system” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art teaches estimating the friction as an amount of torque required to overcome the friction, not actually measuring the exact friction.
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the processing circuit is configured to estimate the mechanical friction as a function of the identified lowest net torque optionally utilizing a look up table of a memory that maps net torque to mechanical friction” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a look up table mapping torque to the mechanical friction.
Claim 11 is 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the motor controller is configured as a torque demand-based control system in which the torque demands applied to each motor correspond to a target output torque from that motor and wherein the dual motor drive assembly is configured to increase or decrease a net torque demand whilst monitoring the shaft velocity at each step to identify when a motor speed is constant” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach increasing or decreasing the net torque demand while monitoring the shaft velocity at each step until the motor speed is constant.
Claims 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the motor controller is configured as an angle control system in which the angle demand is set as a ramp to provide a period of constant velocity operation” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose an angle control system in which an angle demand is set as a ramp to provide a period of constant velocity operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach steering devices of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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 on (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 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.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/KEVIN HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights