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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 2, 6-7, 12, and 16-17 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-4 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendments
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-11, 13-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al. (US Publication 2020/0023894 A1) in view of Kodera (US Publication 2019/0367075 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Naik teaches an electronic steering device mounted on a vehicle, the electronic steering device comprising: a first ECU configured to control a steer wheel feedback actuator (SFA) in order to change a steering wheel angle on the basis of a steering control command provided from a vehicle ECU (Naik: Para. 24, 31; steering sensors can include a computer such as an electronic control unit; actuate the steering wheel based on the specified feedback torque) and to obtain a target rack position on the basis of the changed steering wheel angle (Naik : Para. 11, 46, 49; based on the steering input, the computer instructs the road wheel actuator to turn the steerable wheels via the steering rack; position of the steering rack determines the actual wheel angle of the steerable wheels) in a case where the vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving mode (Naik: Para. 25; the driver may be a virtual driver in a computer based, autonomous driving system that provides digital input); and a second ECU configured to control a road wheel actuator (RWA) in order to change a rack position (Naik: Para. 43; road wheel actuator sensors include a computer such as an electronic control unit (ECU) or the like, programmed to communicate on a vehicle bus and, for example, send commands to and/or receive commands from the computer) on the basis of the target rack position provided from the first ECU (Naik: Para. 11, 31; computer can be further programmed to receive steering data from a sensor indicating a steering wheel angle of the steering wheel; steering sensors can include a computer such as an electronic control unit), wherein the first ECU controls the SFA in order to change the steering wheel angle to a target steering wheel angle obtained on the basis of the steering control command (Naik: Para. 68-69; function including vehicle speed and/or steering speed, a table may be generated and stored in the computer that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque and the feedback torque adjustment factor; the computer applies, via the steering wheel torque actuator, the steering wheel feedback torque to the steering wheel), detects the changed steering wheel angle (Naik: Para. 31; steering sensors may include one or more position sensors arranged to detect the steering wheel angle of the steering wheel), obtains the target rack position on the basis of the detected steering wheel angle (Naik : Para. 11, 46, 49; based on the steering input, the computer instructs the road wheel actuator to turn the steerable wheels via the steering rack; position of the steering rack determines the actual wheel angle of the steerable wheels) using a two-dimensional lookup table (Naik: Para. 68; a table may be generated and stored in the computer that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque), and provides the obtained target rack position to the second ECU (Naik: Para. 43; road wheel actuator sensors include a computer such as an electronic control unit (ECU) or the like, programmed to communicate on a vehicle bus and, for example, send command to and/or receive commands from the computer), the first ECU controls the SFA in order to change the steering wheel angle to the target steering wheel angle obtained (Naik: Para. 24, 31, 68; steering sensors can include a computer such as an electronic control unit; actuate the steering wheel based on the specified feedback torque) on the basis of the steering control command (Naik: Para. 25; the driver may be a virtual driver in a computer based, autonomous driving system that provides digital input).
Naik doesn’t explicitly teach then provides the target rack position obtained on the basis of the detected steering wheel angle to the second ECU if a current speed of the vehicle is equal to or higher than a preset reference speed, and the first ECU provides the target rack position obtained on the basis of the steering control command to the second ECU without performing the operation of controlling the SFA if the current speed of the vehicle is less than the reference speed.
However Kodera, in the same field of endeavor, teaches then provides the target rack position obtained on the basis of the detected steering wheel angle to the second ECU if a current speed of the vehicle is equal to or higher than a preset reference speed (Kodera: Para. 277, 295; distribution proportion increases with an increase in the vehicle speed when the vehicle speed is greater than the vehicle speed threshold value), and the first ECU provides the target rack position obtained on the basis of the steering control command to the second ECU without performing the operation of controlling the SFA if the current speed of the vehicle is less than the reference speed (Kodera: Para. 291, 295; distribution proportion is “0” in an area in which the vehicle speed is equal to or less than a vehicle speed threshold value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedback torque to a steering wheel (Naik: Para. 24) with the speed threshold (Kodera: Para. 295) with a reasonable expectation of success because a steering control device that changes the inertia reciprocal gain based on vehicle speed improves the steering feeling for the driver (Kodera: Para. 15).
Regarding claim 3, Naik teaches the electronic steering device of claim 1, wherein, if the steering control command includes information regarding the steering wheel angle, the first ECU obtains the information included in the steering control command as the target steering wheel angle (Naik: Para. 68-69; function including vehicle speed and/or steering speed, a table may be generated and stored in the computer that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque and the feedback torque adjustment factor; the computer applies, via the steering wheel torque actuator, the steering wheel feedback torque to the steering wheel).
Regarding claim 4, Naik teaches the electronic steering device of claim 1, wherein, if the steering control command includes information regarding the rack position, the first ECU obtains the target steering wheel angle (Naik: Para. 68-69; function including vehicle speed and/or steering speed, a table may be generated and stored in the computer that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque and the feedback torque adjustment factor; the computer applies, via the steering wheel torque actuator, the steering wheel feedback torque to the steering wheel) on the basis of the information included in the steering control command (Naik: Para. 25; the driver may be a virtual driver in a computer based, autonomous driving system that provides digital input).
Regarding claim 8, Naik teaches the electronic steering device of claim 1, wherein, if the steering control command includes information regarding the steering wheel angle, the first ECU obtains the target rack position on the basis of the information included in the steering control command (Naik: Para. 11, 31; computer can be further programmed to receive steering data from a sensor indicating a steering wheel angle of the steering wheel; steering sensors can include a computer such as an electronic control unit) using the two-dimensional lookup table (Naik: Para. 68; a table may be generated and stored in the computer that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque).
Regarding claim 9, Naik teaches the electronic steering device of claim 1, wherein, if the steering control command includes information regarding the rack position, the first ECU obtains the information included in the steering control command as the target rack position (Naik : Para. 11, 46, 49; based on the steering input, the computer instructs the road wheel actuator to turn the steerable wheels via the steering rack; position of the steering rack determines the actual wheel angle of the steerable wheels).
Regarding claim 10, Naik teaches the electronic steering device of claim 1, wherein the first ECU controls the SFA in order to change the steering wheel angle (Naik: Para. 24, 31; steering sensors can include a computer such as an electronic control unit; actuate the steering wheel based on the specified feedback torque) on the basis of a steering wheel operation of a driver (Naik: Para. 29; the steering wheel allows an operator to steer the vehicle by applying rotational force to the steering wheel), obtains the target rack position on the basis of the changed steering wheel angle (Naik: Para. 53; steerable wheels begin to turn in response to the steering torque), and provides the obtained target rack position to the second ECU (Naik: Para. 43; road wheel actuator sensors include a computer such as an electronic control unit (ECU) or the like, programmed to communicate on a vehicle bus and, for example, send commands to and/or receive commands from the computer) in a case where the vehicle is not operated in the autonomous driving mode (Naik: Para. 29; the steering wheel allows an operator to steer the vehicle by applying rotational force to the steering wheel).
Regarding claim 11, Naik teaches a method of operating an electronic steering device mounted on a vehicle, the method comprising: a first step of controlling a steer wheel feedback actuator (SFA) in order to change a steering wheel angle on the basis of a steering control command provided from a vehicle ECU (Naik: Para. 24, 31; steering sensors can include a computer such as an electronic control unit; actuate the steering wheel based on the specified feedback torque) and obtaining a target rack position on the basis of the changed steering wheel angle (Naik : Para. 11, 46, 49; based on the steering input, the computer instructs the road wheel actuator to turn the steerable wheels via the steering rack; position of the steering rack determines the actual wheel angle of the steerable wheels) in a case where the vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving mode (Naik: Para. 25; the driver may be a virtual driver in a computer based, autonomous driving system that provides digital input); and a second step of controlling a road wheel actuator (RWA) in order to change a rack position (Naik: Para. 43; road wheel actuator sensors include a computer such as an electronic control unit (ECU) or the like, programmed to communicate on a vehicle bus and, for example, send commands to and/or receive commands from the computer) on the basis of the target rack position (Naik: Para. 11, 31; computer can be further programmed to receive steering data from a sensor indicating a steering wheel angle of the steering wheel; steering sensors can include a computer such as an electronic control unit), wherein the first step comprises controlling the SFA in order to change the steering wheel angle to a target steering wheel angle obtained on the basis of the steering control command (Naik: Para. 68-69; function including vehicle speed and/or steering speed, a table may be generated and stored in the computer that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque and the feedback torque adjustment factor; the computer applies, via the steering wheel torque actuator, the steering wheel feedback torque to the steering wheel), detecting the changed steering wheel angle (Naik: Para. 31; steering sensors may include one or more position sensors arranged to detect the steering wheel angle of the steering wheel), and obtaining the target rack position on the basis of the detected steering wheel angle (Naik: Para. 53; steerable wheels begin to turn in response to the steering torque) using a two-dimensional lookup table (Naik: Para. 68; a table may be generated and stored in the computer that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque), the first step comprises controlling the SFA in order to change the steering wheel angle to the target steering wheel angle obtained (Naik: Para. 24, 31, 68; steering sensors can include a computer such as an electronic control unit; actuate the steering wheel based on the specified feedback torque) on the basis of the steering control command (Naik: Para. 25, 69; the driver may be a virtual driver in a computer based, autonomous driving system that provides digital input).
Naik doesn’t explicitly teach and then obtaining the target rack position on the basis of the detected steering wheel angle if a current speed of the vehicle is equal to or higher than a preset reference speed, and the first step comprises obtaining the target rack position on the basis of the steering control command without performing the operation of controlling the SFA if the current speed of the vehicle is less than the reference speed.
However Kodera, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and then obtaining the target rack position on the basis of the detected steering wheel angle if a current speed of the vehicle is equal to or higher than a preset reference speed (Kodera: Para. 277, 295; distribution proportion increases with an increase in the vehicle speed when the vehicle speed is greater than the vehicle speed threshold value), and the first step comprises obtaining the target rack position on the basis of the steering control command without performing the operation of controlling the SFA if the current speed of the vehicle is less than the reference speed (Kodera: Para. 291, 295; distribution proportion is “0” in an area in which the vehicle speed is equal to or less than a vehicle speed threshold value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedback torque to a steering wheel (Naik: Para. 24) with the speed threshold (Kodera: Para. 295) with a reasonable expectation of success because a steering control device that changes the inertia reciprocal gain based on vehicle speed improves the steering feeling for the driver (Kodera: Para. 15).
Regarding claim 13, Naik teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first step comprises, if the steering control command includes information regarding the steering wheel angle, obtaining the information included in the steering control command as the target steering wheel angle (Naik: Para. 68-69; function including vehicle speed and/or steering speed, a table may be generated and stored in the computer that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque and the feedback torque adjustment factor; the computer applies, via the steering wheel torque actuator, the steering wheel feedback torque to the steering wheel).
Regarding claim 14, Naik teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first step comprises, if the steering control command includes information regarding the rack position, obtaining the target steering wheel angle on the basis of the information included in the steering control command (Naik : Para. 11, 46, 49; based on the steering input, the computer instructs the road wheel actuator to turn the steerable wheels via the steering rack; position of the steering rack determines the actual wheel angle of the steerable wheels).
Regarding claim 18, Naik teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first step comprises, if the steering control command includes information regarding the steering wheel angle, obtaining the target rack position on the basis of the information included in the steering control command (Naik: Para. 11, 31; computer can be further programmed to receive steering data from a sensor indicating a steering wheel angle of the steering wheel; steering sensors can include a computer such as an electronic control unit) using the two-dimensional lookup table (Naik: Para. 68; a table may be generated and stored in the computer that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque).
Regarding claim 19, Naik teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first step comprises, if the steering control command includes information regarding the rack position, obtaining the information included in the steering control command as the target rack position (Naik : Para. 11, 46, 49; based on the steering input, the computer instructs the road wheel actuator to turn the steerable wheels via the steering rack; position of the steering rack determines the actual wheel angle of the steerable wheels).
Regarding claim 20, Naik teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first step comprises controlling the SFA in order to change the steering wheel angle on the basis of a steering wheel operation of a driver (Naik: Para. 29; the steering wheel allows an operator to steer the vehicle by applying rotational force to the steering wheel) and obtaining the target rack position on the basis of the changed steering wheel angle in a case where the vehicle is not operated in the autonomous driving mode (Naik: Para. 25; the driver may be a virtual driver in a computer based, autonomous driving system that provides digital input).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al.(US Publication 2020/0023894 A1) in view of Kodera (US Publication 2019/0367075 A1) and in further view of Kim et al. (US Publication 2022/0367075 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Naik and Kodera don’t explicitly teach wherein the first ECU obtains the target steering wheel angle on the basis of the information included in the steering control command through inverse mapping of the two-dimensional lookup table.
However Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first ECU obtains the target steering wheel angle on the basis of the information included in the steering control command through inverse mapping of the two-dimensional lookup table (Kim: Para. 5; the rotating torque is calculated based on a speed of the vehicle and a steering angle by using a map, a weight factor is calculated in inverse proportion to a torque that the driver applies to the steering wheel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedback torque to a steering wheel (Naik: Para. 24) with the speed threshold (Kodera: Para. 295) and the inverse mapping (Kim: Para. 5) with a reasonable expectation of success because the steer-by-wire system may have a return control returning the steering wheel to a center and generating a rotating torque to provide the steering feel for the driver when the driver removes his hand from the steering wheel (Kim: Para. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Naik doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first step comprises obtaining the target steering wheel angle on the basis of the information included in the steering control command through inverse mapping of the two-dimensional lookup table.
However Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first step comprises obtaining the target steering wheel angle on the basis of the information included in the steering control command through inverse mapping of the two-dimensional lookup table (Kim: Para. 5; the rotating torque is calculated based on a speed of the vehicle and a steering angle by using a map, a weight factor is calculated in inverse proportion to a torque that the driver applies to the steering wheel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedback torque to a steering wheel (Naik: Para. 24) with the speed threshold (Kodera: Para. 295) and the inverse mapping (Kim: Para. 5) with a reasonable expectation of success because the steer-by-wire system may have a return control returning the steering wheel to a center and generating a rotating torque to provide the steering feel for the driver when the driver removes his hand from the steering wheel (Kim: Para. 5).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 3 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 10-14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claims 5-9 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The attorney’s applicant argues that “the first ECU controls the SFA in order to change the steering wheel angle to the target steering wheel angle obtained on the basis of the steering control command” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Naik teaches a table used to specific the steering wheel feedback torque based on a different combination of factors including steering torque and the feedback torque adjustment factor (Naik: Para. 68-69). The table is the value that changes the SFA on the basis of the steering control command.
The attorney’s applicant argues that “then proves the target rack position obtained on the basis of the detected steering wheel angle to the second ECU if a current speed of the vehicle is equal to or higher than a preset reference speed” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Kodera teaches a vehicle state axial force applied to the rack shaft based on the yaw rate and lateral acceleration. This vehicle state axial force can be used to estimate the ideal axial force for a desired correlation between the steering shaft and the rack position (Kodera: Para. 277, 291). The calculation is creating a target steering angle based on the model and vehicle state (Kodera: Para. 273). Kodera teaches a vehicle speed threshold. The distribution proportion increases with an increase in the vehicle speed when the vehicle speed is greater than a threshold (Kodera: Para. 295). When the vehicle is traveling above a speed threshold then the distribution proportion is increased relative to speed in order to calculate the target steering angle based on the estimated axial force applied to the rack shaft.
The applicant next argues that “the first ECU provides the target rack position obtained on the basis of the steering control command to the second ECU without performing the operation of controlling the SFA if the current speed of the vehicle is less than the reference speed” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Kodera teaches that below a vehicle speed the axial force cannot be detected accurately because of noise and so the axial force is not used in steering feedback calculations (Kodera: Para. 291). Therefore when the vehicle is traveling less than the reference speed the target steering angle does not include the steering feedback of the axial force.
The applicant next argues that the examiner is improperly picking and choosing isolated teachings of Kodera to teach isolated teachings of the claimed invention without actually considering either Naik or Kodera as a whole.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The applicant next argues that there is nothing in Kodera that could lead one of ordinary skill to combine these conditions of Kodera with the specific actions performed by the first ECU of Naik.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, both Naik and Kodera are in the field of vehicle steering feedback. Naik teaches a desired wheel angle for steerable wheels and the actuator commands using a table of different combinations of factors to create the proper steering wheel feedback torque and desired wheel angle (Naik: Para. 11, 68-69). Kodera teaches a vehicle state axial force applied to the rack shaft based on the yaw rate and lateral acceleration. This vehicle state axial force can be used to estimate the ideal axial force for a desired correlation between the steering shaft and the rack position (Kodera: Para. 277, 291). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Kodera’s speed threshold and improved calculations in feedback to supplement Naik’s table that specifies the steering wheel feedback torque for different combinations of the steering torque and the feedback torque adjustment factor.
The applicant next argues that claim 11 is similarly amended and the same arguments would apply.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the examiner has responded to the claim 1 arguments. The examiner’s responses would similarly apply to claim 11.
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Naik’s steering feedback table in view of Kodera’s steering feedback calculations reads on applicant’s electronic steering device. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights