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
The amendment of 05/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Applicant’s submission on 05/22/2026 of a certified translation of the foreign priority application is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 4 line 16 “the at least two wheel steering angle actuators” should read --the at least one wheel steering angle actuator--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least one wheel steering actuator” in lines 7-8. It is unclear to which of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- at least one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators--, and the limitation “at least one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators” at lines 10-11 has been considered as --the at least one wheel steering angle actuator--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the at least one wheel steering actuator” in lines 7-8. It is unclear to which of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- at least one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators--, and the limitation “at least one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators” at lines 10-11 has been considered as --the at least one wheel steering angle actuator--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the at least one wheel steering actuator” in lines 7-8. It is unclear to which of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- at least one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators--, and the limitation “one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators” in lines 11-12 has been considered as --the at least one wheel steering angle actuator--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the reduced power consumption by the at least two wheel steering angle actuators” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim because the claim has introduced reducing the power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator in lines 10-12. For examination purposes the limitation in lines 13-14 has been considered as --the at least one wheel steering angle actuator--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the at least one wheel steering actuator” in lines 7-8. It is unclear to which of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the at least two wheel steering angle actuators--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the at least one wheel steering actuator” in lines 7-8. It is unclear to which of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the at least two wheel steering angle actuators--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the at least one wheel steering actuator” in line 8. It is unclear to which of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --at least one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators--, and the limitation “at least one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators” in lines 11-12 has been considered as --the at least one wheel steering angle actuator--.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, and 14 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Analysis - 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 1-15 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the reducing a power consumption step recited in each independent claim integrates the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
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 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.
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASZTOR (US 12,509,141) in view of NAKATA (US 2021/0245795).
Regarding claim 11, PASZTOR discloses a method for reducing an energy demand and/or energy consumption by a vehicle (title), the vehicle including a steering system having at least one wheel steering angle actuator (5, Fig. 1) for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 44 46), and a vehicle sensor system used for driving situation recognition (vehicle sensors implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 3 lines 2-7 and col. 4 lines 25-29), the method comprising:
identifying a predefined driving situation using the vehicle sensor system (implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 4 lines 25-29), the predefined driving situation being associated with a planned power consumption by at least one wheel steering actuator (implied/inherent, i.e. if the power were not reduced; col. 1 lines 31-35), wherein: the predefined driving situation corresponds to a driving operation with low steering demand (no steering input, col. 4 line 27); and
reducing, in at least one operating state in which the predefined driving situation is identified (col. 4 lines 25-29), a power consumption (col. 4 lines 30-31) by one wheel steering angle actuator, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least two wheel steering angle actuators is less than the planned power consumption (col. 4 lines 30-31) that provides a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof (col. 1 lines 41-43).
PASZTOR does not disclose the steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis.
NAKATA teaches a steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis (34, 0030 lines 2-5, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for power saving in steering systems taught by PASZTOR to the steering system of NAKATA to provide a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof.
PASZTOR as modified teaches reducing, in at least one operating state in which the predefined driving situation is identified, a power consumption by one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators in order to reduce the energy demand and/or energy consumption, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least two wheel steering angle actuators is less than the planned power consumption.
The limitation “in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art method is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2111.02 (II.). In the instant case, PASZTOR discloses the limitation (col. 4 line 31).
Regarding claim 12, PASZTOR discloses a method for reducing an energy demand and/or energy consumption by a vehicle (title), the vehicle including a steering system having at least one wheel steering angle actuator (5, Fig. 1) for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 44 46), and a vehicle sensor system used for driving situation recognition (vehicle sensors implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 3 lines 2-7 and col. 4 lines 25-29), the method comprising:
identifying a predefined driving situation using the vehicle sensor system (implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 4 lines 25-29), the predefined driving situation being associated with a planned power consumption by the at least one wheel steering actuator (implied/inherent, i.e. if the power were not reduced; col. 1 lines 31-35), wherein the predefined driving situation corresponds to a stopping process in which the vehicle is at a standstill (the motor vehicle is stopped, col. 4 line 27); and
reducing, in at least one operating state in which the predefined driving situation is identified (col. 4 lines 25-29), a power consumption (col. 4 lines 30-31) by one wheel steering angle actuator, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least two wheel steering angle actuators is less than the planned power consumption (col. 4 lines 30-31) that provides a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof (col. 1 lines 41-43).
PASZTOR does not disclose the steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis.
NAKATA teaches a steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis (34, 0030 lines 2-5, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for power saving in steering systems taught by PASZTOR to the steering system of NAKATA to provide a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof.
PASZTOR as modified teaches reducing, in at least one operating state in which the predefined driving situation is identified, a power consumption by one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators in order to reduce the energy demand and/or energy consumption, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least two wheel steering angle actuators is less than the planned power consumption.
The limitation “in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art method is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2111.02 (II.). In the instant case, PASZTOR discloses the limitation (col. 4 line 31).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASZTOR (US 12,509,141) in view of NAKATA (US 2021/0245795) and SHIMIZU (US 6,250,418).
Regarding claim 13, PASZTOR discloses a method for reducing an energy demand and/or energy consumption by a vehicle (title), the vehicle including a steering system having at least one wheel steering angle actuator (5, Fig. 1) for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 44 46), and a vehicle sensor system used for driving situation recognition (vehicle sensors implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 3 lines 2-7 and col. 4 lines 25-29), the method comprising:
identifying a predefined driving situation using the vehicle sensor system (implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 4 lines 25-29), the predefined driving situation being associated with a planned power consumption by the at least one wheel steering actuator (implied/inherent, i.e. if the power were not reduced; col. 1 lines 31-35); and
reducing, in at least one operating state in which the predefined driving situation is identified (col. 4 lines 25-29), a power consumption (col. 4 lines 30-31) by one wheel steering angle actuator, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least two wheel steering angle actuators is less than the planned power consumption (col. 4 lines 30-31) that provides a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof (col. 1 lines 41-43).
PASZTOR does not disclose the steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis.
NAKATA teaches a steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis (34, 0030 lines 2-5, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for power saving in steering systems taught by PASZTOR to the steering system of NAKATA to provide a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof.
PASZTOR is not relied upon to teach the predefined driving situation corresponds to straight-ahead driving.
SHIMIZU teaches a method in which a predefined driving situation corresponds to straight-ahead driving (col. 5 lines 57 and 66-67), and
a power consumption by a wheel steering angle actuator is reduced in the predefined driving situation (col. 5 lines 65-67) to enhance energy saving (col. 5 lines 65-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for power saving in steering systems in a third predefined driving situation taught by SHIMIZU to the steering system of NAKATA to enhance energy saving.
PASZTOR as modified teaches reducing, in at least one operating state in which the predefined driving situation is identified, a power consumption by one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators in order to reduce the energy demand and/or energy consumption, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least two wheel steering angle actuators is less than the planned power consumption.
The limitation “in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art method is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2111.02 (II.). In the instant case, SHIMIZU discloses the limitation (col. 5 lines 65-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
PASZTOR (US 12,509,141) and NAKATA (US 2021/0245795) is the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, PASZTOR discloses a method for reducing an energy demand and/or energy consumption by a vehicle (title), the vehicle including a steering system having a wheel steering angle actuators (5, Fig. 1) for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 44-46), and a vehicle sensor system used for driving situation recognition (vehicle sensors implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 3 lines 2-7 and col. 4 lines 25-29), the method comprising:
identifying a predefined driving situation using the vehicle sensor system (implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 4 lines 25-29), the predefined driving situation being associated with a planned power consumption by the at least one wheel steering actuator (implied/inherent); and
reducing, in at least one operating state in which the predefined driving situation is identified, a power consumption by the wheel steering angle actuator (col. 4 lines 30-31) in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator is less than the planned power consumption (implied/inherent, col. 4 lines 25-31).
NAKATA teaches a steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis (34, 0030 lines 2-5, Fig. 2).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the claim limitation “wherein the reducing of the power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator is based on a state of health and/or wear of the at least one wheel steering angle actuator” in the manner defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, PASZTOR discloses a method for reducing an energy demand and/or energy consumption by a vehicle (title), the vehicle including a steering system having a wheel steering angle actuators (5, Fig. 1) for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 44-46), and a vehicle sensor system used for driving situation recognition (vehicle sensors implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 3 lines 2-7 and col. 4 lines 25-29), the method comprising:
identifying a predefined driving situation using the vehicle sensor system (implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 4 lines 25-29), the predefined driving situation being associated with a planned power consumption by the at least one wheel steering actuator (implied/inherent); and
reducing, in at least one operating state in which the predefined driving situation is identified, a power consumption by the wheel steering angle actuator (col. 4 lines 30-31) in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator is less than the planned power consumption (implied/inherent, col. 4 lines 25-31).
NAKATA teaches a steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis (34, 0030 lines 2-5, Fig. 2).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “adjusting, in the at least one operating state, a steering ratio between a steering handle of the steering system and the at least two wheel steering angle actuators to compensate for the reducing of the power consumption in the at least two wheel steering angle actuators such that a steering behavior of the vehicle remains unchanged” in the manner defined in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, PASZTOR further discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of vehicle wheels (implied, i.a. wheels col. 3 line 5);
a steering system comprising a wheel steering angle actuator (5, Fig. 1);
a vehicle sensor system configured to identify a predefined driving situation (vehicle sensors implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 3 lines 2-7 and col. 4 lines 25-29), the predefined driving situation being associated with a planned power consumption by the at least one wheel steering actuator (implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 4 lines 25-29); and
a computing unit (10, col. 4 lines 18-23) configured to reduce an energy demand and/or energy consumption by the vehicle (i.a. col. 4 line 31) by, in at least one operating state in which the predefined driving situation is identified by the vehicle sensor system (col. 3 lines 2-7), reducing a power consumption by the wheel steering angle actuator in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption (col. 4 lines 30-31), such that the reduced power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator is less than the planned power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator planned for in the identified predefined driving situation (i.e. if the power were not reduced; col. 1 lines 31-35) that provides a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof (col. 1 lines 41-43).
NAKATA teaches a steering system comprising at least two wheel steering angle actuators configured to change a respective wheel steering angle of the plurality of vehicle wheels on an individual wheel basis (34, 0030 lines 2-5, Fig. 2).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “wherein the reducing of the power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator is based on a state of health and/or wear of the at least one wheel steering angle actuator” in the manner defined in claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 05/22/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 112(b), see top of p. 12, have been fully considered but are not persuasive because the amendments have introduced new issues in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the allowability of claims 11-13, see bottom of p. 12, have been fully considered but are not persuasive due to Applicant’s amendments of the claims. Regarding claims 11 and 12, PASZTOR discloses the predetermined driving situation corresponds to a driving operation with low steering demand in which the vehicle is at a standstill (col. 4 lines 25-31). Claims 12 and 13 were amended in independent form but not to include the intermediate limitations of claim 11.
Current claim 11 would be allowable if amended to recite the predefined driving situation corresponds to a driving operation with low-steering demand while the vehicle is moving.
Current claim 12 would be allowable if amended to recite both the first and second predefined driving situations as recited in original claim 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights