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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, in view of at least ¶ 0006 of the “background” section of Applicant’s originally-filed specification [e.g., see” MPEP 608.02(g)]. Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein, in response that a failure occurs in the motor angle sensor, the processor determines a sum value of a result value obtained by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor and a result value obtained by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from the steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor and feed the sum value back to the position controller” in lines 7-13, which appears to be a misstating of something like --wherein, in response to a failure occurring in the motor angle sensor, the processor determines a sum value of a result value obtained by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor and a result value obtained by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from the steering angle sensor, and feeds the sum value back to the position controller--.
Claim 2 recites “in response that the failure occurs in the motor angle sensor, the processor determines a sum value of a result value obtained by applying the first weight value to a motor angle speed of the driving motor output from the motor angle sensor and a result value obtained by applying the second weight value to a steering angle speed of the steering wheel output from the steering angle sensor and feed the sum value back to the speed controller” in lines 4-9, which appears to be a misstating of something like --in response to the failure occurring in the motor angle sensor, the processor determines a sum value of a result value obtained by applying the first weight value to a motor angle speed of the driving motor output from the motor angle sensor and a result value obtained by applying the second weight value to a steering angle speed of the steering wheel output from the steering angle sensor, and feeds the sum value back to the speed controller--.
Claim 9 recites “in response that the failure does not occur in the motor angle sensor” in lines 1-2, which appears to be a misstating of something like --in response to the failure not occurring in the motor angle sensor--.
Claim 10 recites “in response that a failure occurs in a motor angle sensor, determining, by the processor, a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; determining, by the processor, a second result value by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from a steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor;” in lines 4-10, which appears to be a misstating of something like --in response to a failure occurring in a motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor, determining, by the processor, a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor, and determining, by the processor, a second result value by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from a steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor;--.
Claim 18 recites “in response that the failure does not occur in the motor angle sensor” in lines 1-2, which appears to be a misstating of something like --in response to the failure not occurring in the motor angle sensor--.
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.
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 2, 6-8, and 11-18 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 2 refers to “the sum value” in line 9; however, claim 2 previously introduces “a sum value” in line 5, and claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 previously introduces “a sum value” in line 8. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “sum value” referred to in line 9 of claim 2 is intended to be the same as the “sum value” previously introduced in line 8 of claim 1 or the “sum value” previously introduced in line 5 of claim 2. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend line 5 of claim 2 to instead recite --a second sum value-- AND to amend line 9 of claim 2 to instead recite --the second sum value--.
Claim 6 refers to “the steering angle speed of the steering wheel” in line 3; however, claim 6 is dependent from claim 1 via claims 3 and 4, and none of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 previously introduces either of “a steering wheel” and “a steering angle speed,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the steering angle speed of the steering wheel” in line 3 of claim 6. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 8 are dependent from claim 6, such that claims 7 and 8 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 6 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 6 is rejected. Note that claim 7 also refers to “the steering angle speed of the steering wheel” in lines 2-3, and claim 8 also refers to “the steering angle speed” in line 3.
Claim 7 refers to “the change amount per unit time” in lines 1-2; however, claim 7 is dependent from claim 6, and claim 6 previously introduces “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2, and it is unclear whether “the change amount per unit time” in lines 1-2 of claim 7 is intended to refer to each of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 6, or whether “the change amount per unit time” in lines 1-2 of claim 7 is instead intended to refer to one of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 6, and, in the latter case, it is unclear which of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 6 would be intended to correspond to “the change amount per unit time” in lines 1-2 of claim 7. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 refers to “the change amount per unit time of the first and second weight values” in line 2; however, claim 8 is dependent from claim 6, and claim 6 previously introduces “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2, and it is unclear whether “the change amount per unit time of the first and second weight values” in line 2 of claim 8 is intended to refer to each of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 6, or whether “the change amount per unit time of the first and second weight values” in line 2 of claim 8 is instead intended to refer to one of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 6, and, in the latter case, it is unclear which of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 6 would be intended to correspond to “the change amount per unit time of the first and second weight values” in line 2 of claim 8. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 refers to “the sum value” in line 10; however, claim 11 previously introduces “a sum value” in line 9, and claim 11 is dependent from claim 10, and claim 10 previously introduces “a sum value” in line 11. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “sum value” referred to in line 10 of claim 11 is intended to be the same as the “sum value” previously introduced in line 11 of claim 10 or the “sum value” previously introduced in line 9 of claim 10. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend line 9 of claim 11 to instead recite --a second sum value-- AND to amend line 10 of claim 11 to instead recite --the second sum value--.
Claims 12-18 are dependent from claim 11, such that claims 12-18 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 11 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 11 is rejected.
Claim 15 refers to “the steering angle speed of the steering wheel” in line 3; however, claim 15 is dependent from claim 10 via claims 11-13, and none of claims 10-13 and 15 previously introduces either of “a steering wheel” and “a steering angle speed,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the steering angle speed of the steering wheel” in line 3 of claim 15. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 16 and 17 are dependent from claim 15, such that claims 16 and 17 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 15 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 15 is rejected. Note that claim 16 also refers to “the steering angle speed of the steering wheel” in lines 2-3, and claim 17 also refers to “the steering angle speed” in line 3.
Claim 16 refers to “the change amount per unit time” in lines 1-2; however, claim 16 is dependent from claim 15, and claim 15 previously introduces “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2, and it is unclear whether “the change amount per unit time” in lines 1-2 of claim 16 is intended to refer to each of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 15, or whether “the change amount per unit time” in lines 1-2 of claim 16 is instead intended to refer to one of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 15, and, in the latter case, it is unclear which of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 15 would be intended to correspond to “the change amount per unit time” in lines 1-2 of claim 16. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 refers to “the change amount per unit time of the first and second weight values” in line 2; however, claim 17 is dependent from claim 15, and claim 15 previously introduces “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2, and it is unclear whether “the change amount per unit time of the first and second weight values” in line 2 of claim 17 is intended to refer to each of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 15, or whether “the change amount per unit time of the first and second weight values” in line 2 of claim 17 is instead intended to refer to one of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 15, and, in the latter case, it is unclear which of the “change amounts of change per unit time for the first and second weight values” in lines 1-2 of claim 15 would be intended to correspond to “the change amount per unit time of the first and second weight values” in line 2 of claim 17. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, and claims 2-9 depend from claim 1. Claim 10 is directed to a method, claims 11-18 depend from claim 10, and claim 19 fully incorporates claim 10. Therefore, claims 1-19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 10 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus for controlling a motor-driven power steering system, the apparatus comprising:
an input/output interface communicatively connected to a motor angle sensor, a steering angle sensor, and a position controller; and
a processor communicatively connected to the input/output interface and the position controller,
wherein, in response that a failure occurs in the motor angle sensor, the processor determines a sum value of a result value obtained by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor and a result value obtained by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from the steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor and feed the sum value back to the position controller.
Claim 10 recites:
A method of controlling a motor-driven power steering system, which is performed in a computing device including a processor, the method comprising:
in response that a failure occurs in a motor angle sensor, determining, by the processor, a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor;
determining, by the processor, a second result value by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from a steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; and
determining, by the processor, a sum value of the first and second result values and feeding the sum value back to a position controller communicatively connected to the processor.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mathematical concept” and/or a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mathematical calculation and/or performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, each instance of “determines…” (or “determining…”) in the context of these claims encompasses a person looking at data collected and performing basic arithmetic, including a mathematical calculation of a mathematical formula or equation generically expressed in words. Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are the underlined portions provided above while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea.”
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
In claim 1, the claim preamble statement “for controlling a motor-driven power steering system,” when read in the context of the entire claim, amounts to a recitation of intended use or purpose that does not appear to be germane to patentability of the claimed apparatus (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02), especially since no element of the claimed apparatus is necessarily configured to control the “motor-driven power steering system,” regardless of whether such control of the “motor-driven power steering system” is based on the determined “sum value,” and the claim does not require the claimed “apparatus” to include the “motor-driven power steering system.” Also, in claim 10, the claim preamble statement “of controlling a motor-driven power steering system,” when read in the context of the entire claim, amounts to a recitation of intended use or purpose that does not appear to be germane to patentability of the claimed apparatus, especially since no step of the claimed method necessarily involves controlling of the “motor-driven power steering system,” regardless of whether such controlling of the “motor-driven power steering system” is based on the determined “sum value,” and the claim does not require the claimed method to use the “motor-driven power steering system.” Additionally, ¶ 0005-0008 of the “background” section of Applicant’s originally-filed specification admits that the “motor-driven power steering system” was known in the art at the time the invention was made.
In claim 1, regarding the claimed structure “input/output interface” and “processor” of the claimed “apparatus,” and in claim 10, regarding the claimed use of the “computing device” and “processor,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely define inclusion or use of a generic computer components to support performing of the associated function or process, all recited at a high level of generality. Note that the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)_III]. Therefore, each of the “input/output interface,” the “processor,” and the “computing device” also amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In claim 1, the term “communicatively connected” of each of “communicatively connected to a motor angle sensor, a steering angle sensor, and a position controller” and “communicatively connected to the input/output interface and the position controller” merely functionally relates the “input/output interface” to each of the “motor angle sensor,” the “steering angle sensor,” the “position controller,” and the “processor,” and the “processor” to each of the “input/output interface” and the “position controller,” such that none of the “input/output interface,” the “processor,” or the claimed “apparatus” necessarily includes any of the “motor angle sensor,” the “steering angle sensor,” and the “position controller.” Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and “communicatively connected to a motor angle sensor, a steering angle sensor, and a position controller” and “communicatively connected to the input/output interface and the position controller” merely set forth the manner in which the “input/output interface” and the “processor” (and therefore the claimed “apparatus”) are intended to be employed. Additionally, ¶ 0005-0008 of the “background” section of Applicant’s originally-filed specification admits that each of the “motor angle sensor,” the “steering angle sensor,” and the “position controller” was known in the art at the time the invention was made. Each of claims 1 and 10 merely set forth a condition via “in response that a failure occurs in the motor angle sensor” and “in response that a failure occurs in a motor angle sensor,” respectively, that is not necessarily performed as function(s) or step(s) by the “input/output interface” or the “processor” or the “computing device.” Claim 1 merely defines information sources via recitations “from the motor angle sensor” and “from the steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor,” that are not necessarily performed as function(s) by the “input/output interface” or the “processor,” and claim 10 also merely defines information sources via recitations “from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor” and “from a steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor,” that are not necessarily performed as steps(s) by the “computing device” or the “processor.” Additionally, each of the function “feed the sum value back to the position controller” in claim 1 and the step “feeding the sum value back to a position controller” in claim 10 is directed to transmitting data over a network, claimed in a generic manner which has been recognized by the courts as corresponding to well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions or as insignificant extra-solution activity [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.05(d)_II_i].
Additionally, in claim 10, each of the following steps is a contingent limitation not required to be performed as part of a claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation: “in response that a failure occurs in a motor angle sensor, determining, by the processor, a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; […] and determining, by the processor, a sum value of the first and second result values and feeding the sum value back to a position controller communicatively connected to the processor.” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I). Also, 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). More specifically, in claim 10, “determining, by the processor, a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method when the condition “in response that a failure occurs in a motor angle sensor” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “in response that a failure occurs in a motor angle sensor, determining, by the processor, a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor” is not required to be performed as part of the claimed method and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Thus, neither of “determining, by the processor, a sum value of the first and second result values and feeding the sum value back to a position controller communicatively connected to the processor” would necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method when the condition “in response that a failure occurs in a motor angle sensor” is not met during performing of the claimed method, because “determining, by the processor, a sum value of the first and second result values and feeding the sum value back to a position controller communicatively connected to the processor” are contingent upon determining of the “first result value” and the “first result value” would not necessarily be determined at times including when “determining, by the processor, a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor” is not performed as part of the claimed method, such that “determining, by the processor, a sum value of the first and second result values and feeding the sum value back to a position controller communicatively connected to the processor” are not required to be performed as part of the claimed method and therefore do not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1 and 10 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As discussed in detail above, each of said elements in claims 1 and 10 amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art, and are all acknowledged as such by at least MPEP 2106 and/or at least ¶ 0005-0008 of the “background” section of Applicant’s originally-filed specification. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, which depend from claim 1, claims 11-18, which depend from claim 10, and claim 19, which fully incorporates claim 10, do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are not patent eligible under at least the same rationales as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 19 is directed to “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a program for performing the method of claim 10 is recorded,” and while the term “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” is understood to include an ordinary meaning in the art broadly corresponding to structure of a statutory manufacture, ¶ 0029 of Applicant’s originally-filed specification specially defines the term “non-transitory computer-readable media” away from its ordinary and customary meaning (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.01_IV) via intentional disclaimer that “non-transitory computer-readable media may be any available media that may be accessed by a computer, and may include both computer storage media and transmission media” (emphasis added), thereby broadening the term “non-transitory computer-readable media” to alternatively include signal(s) [e.g., transitory form(s) of signal transmission] and/or other non-statutory computer readable media (e.g., a compact disc) under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.03). Therefore, claim 19 is not necessarily directed to any of the statutory categories.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over the Prior Art
Claims 1, 10, and 19 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, and claims 11-18 depend from claim 10.
The prior art of record, either alone or in combination, neither teaches nor suggests an apparatus including “in response that a failure occurs in the motor angle sensor, the processor determines a sum value of a result value obtained by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor and a result value obtained by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from the steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor” or a method including “in response that a failure occurs in a motor angle sensor, determining, by the processor, a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; determining, by the processor, a second result value by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from a steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; and determining, by the processor, a sum value of the first and second result values” in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively.
At least ¶ 0005-0008 of the “background” section of Applicant’s originally-filed specification admits that a motor-driven power steering system including each of a motor angle sensor, a steering angle sensor, and a position controller was known at the time the invention was made, including to replace the motor angle sensor through the steering angle sensor in response to occurrence of a failure in the motor angle sensor; however, said Applicant-admitted prior art does not teach either of “in response that a failure occurs in the motor angle sensor, the processor determines a sum value of a result value obtained by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor and a result value obtained by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from the steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor and feed the sum value back to the position controller” and “in response that a failure occurs in a motor angle sensor, determining, by the processor, a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; determining, by the processor, a second result value by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from a steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; and determining, by the processor, a sum value of the first and second result values and feeding the sum value back to a position controller communicatively connected to the processor.”
JP 2007-331623 A to Suzuki et al. teaches determining, by a processor (7), a first result value by applying a first weight value (Kmot) to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; determining, by the processor, a second result value by applying a second weight value (Kstr) to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from a steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; and determining, by the processor, a sum value of the first and second result values (“Steering angle = Kstr x Steering angle + Kmot x Reaction force motor angle”); however, Suzuki teaches that the determining of the first and second result values is responsive to occurrence of a failure in the steering angle sensor, and Suzuki fails to teach or suggest that the determining of the first and second result values is responsive to occurrence of a failure in the motor angle sensor.
JP 2010-179848 A to Yamazaki et al. teaches determining, by a processor (21), a first result value by applying a first weight value to a motor angle of a driving motor output from the motor angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; determining, by the processor, a second result value by applying a second weight value to a steering angle of a steering wheel output from a steering angle sensor communicatively connected to the processor; and determining, by the processor, a sum value of the first and second result values [“based on the conversion steering angle calculated by the conversion steering angle calculation unit 42b and the detected value of the steering angle output by the steering angle sensor 11, the mixed steering angle calculation unit 43 calculates the conversion steering angle × mixing ratio + the steering angle. The detected value × (1−mixing ratio) is calculated to calculate the mixing steering angle (step S4). The return force current Id of the steering wheel 2 (see FIG. 1) is calculated from the mixed steering angle. That is, the steering control device 21 performs the steering angle return control according to the mixed steering angle”]; however, Yamazaki teaches that the determining of the sum value of the first and second result values is responsive to occurrence of normal operation in the steering angle sensor and the motor angle sensor [apparent from at least Fig. 3; “During normal operation of the electric power steering apparatus 1 (see FIG. 1), both the switch 51 and the switch 52 are ON, and the detected value of the steering angle output from the steering angle sensor 11 is sent to the mixed steering angle calculation unit 43. The converted steering angle calculated by the steering angle conversion unit 42 is input to the mixed steering angle calculation unit 43 and weighted by 0.3. Thus, the mixed steering angle calculation unit 43 performs a steering angle return control by generating a mixed steering angle of level 1 with a mixing ratio of 0.7 to 0.3 between the steering angle and the converted steering angle”], and Yamazaki further teaches that a switch 52 is switched OFF responsive to occurrence of a failure in the motor angle sensor such that the sum value of the first and second result values cannot be determined because the first result value is not input to a mixed steering angle calculation unit 43 (which determines the sum value of the first and second result values) [apparent from at least Fig. 3; “For example, when the resolver 14 fails, the steering control device 21 (see FIG. 2) generates a resolver failure signal and switches the switch 52 to OFF. At that moment, since the signal of the converted steering angle calculated by the steering angle conversion unit 42 becomes zero, only the detected value of the steering angle output from the steering angle sensor 11 is input to the mixed steering angle calculation unit 43, and weighting 0.7 Is multiplied. As a result, the mixed steering angle output from the mixed steering angle calculation unit 43 changes suddenly from level 1 to level 0.7”].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
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 at 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