Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, i.e. claims 1-12 and 14-19, in the reply filed on May 13, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“estimator unit” in claim in claims 5-6, 8-9, 15-18 and dependent claims (because A – “unit” is a nonce / placeholder term; B-“estimator” represents the function, and C-no structural limitations are recited, that may perform said function; in other words, the phrase is equivalent to “means for estimating”).
“monitoring arrangement” in claim in claims 11 and 19 and dependent claims (because A – “arrangement” is a nonce / placeholder term; B-“monitoring” represents the function, and C-no structural limitations are recited, that may perform said function; in other words, the phrase is equivalent to “means for monitoring”).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See related discussion under 35 USC 112b, regarding ambiguous and insufficient guidance offered by the specification, with respect to these two limitations.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “an” is missing from the phrase “comprising an estimator unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 15-19, claim limitations “estimator unit” and “monitoring arrangement” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Para. [0025] of the instant specification describes an “electronic control unit” that may be configured to estimate backlash, but a “processing unit” is also claimed (in at least claim 1) and it is therefore not known if these are intended to be both the “processing unit” and the “estimator unit”. Para. [0030] describes a “means to continuously monitor the gearbox backlash” but does not disclose any specific structure for doing so. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, the term “near-zero” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near-zero” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what amount of motion of the output shaft would be considered “near-zero”. The instant specification describes in para. 0030: “when the shaft is not rotating or near-zero… without the handwheel moving or moving only a small amount”, but the term “small amount” does not sufficiently quantify “near-zero”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 10, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected parent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO (JP-2010159040-A) in view of Wilson-Jones (US-6597141-B1).
Regarding Claim 1, SATO teaches a dual motor drive assembly, for use in a handwheel actuator assembly of a vehicle (Steering System 1, Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (some form of cover, case, or housing being necessary for a gear system, a housing is implicitly taught);
a shaft (Column Shaft 7, Fig. 1) rotatably mounted with respect to the housing;
a first gear (Primary Gear 12, Fig. 1) connected to and configured to rotate with the shaft (7);
first (Reaction Force Generating Motor 13, Fig. 1) and second (Reaction Force Generating Motor 14, Fig. 1) motors, each having an output (Motor Pinion Gears 15 and 16, Fig. 1) driving a respective output gear (Secondary Gears 17 and 18, Fig. 1), the output gears (17 and 18) being engaged with the first gear (Secondary Gears 17 and 18 being meshed with Primary Gear 12 as taught in Para. [0048] and Fig. 1);
a motor controller (Control Device 5, Fig. 1) which allocates torque demands to each of the first and second motors (13 and 14) to cause each motor to apply a respective torque to the first gear (Paras. [0050]- [0051]),
a position determining unit (Angle Sensor 34, Fig. 1) arranged to determine a respective angular position signal (Angle Detection Signal 35, Para. [0050]) indicative of the angular position of the first motor (13) and the angular position of the second motor (14; Para. [0050] and Fig. 1),
and a processing unit (Control Device 5) which is arranged to:
- receive the angular position signals (35) at a first time when the motor controller (5) allocates a torque demand to the motors (13 and 14) that produces a differential torque at the shaft (7) having a first sense (i.e. to turn Steering Wheel 6 in a left direction); the differential torque being sufficient to overcome friction between the gears and to ensure that any free play between the two output gears (17 and 18) and the first gear (12) is taken up (Para. [0050] teaches Control Device 5 receiving Angle Detection Signal 35 and outputting a command to drive the Reaction Force Generating Motors 13 and 14);
-receive the angular position signals (35) at a second time when the motor controller (5) allocates a torque demand to the motors (13 and 14) that produces a differential torque at the shaft (7) having a second, opposite sense (i.e. to turn Steering Wheel 6 in a right direction), the differential torque being sufficient to overcome friction between the gears and to ensure that any free play between the two output gears (17 and 18) and the first gear (12) is taken up (Para. 0050]).
SATO does not teach estimating the level of backlash.
Wilson-Jones teaches, in another motor drive arrangement (Abstract), a processing unit (Electric Processing Means 6, Fig. 1) that is arranged to estimate a level of backlash in a gearbox (Gearbox 3, Fig. 1) as a function of values of angular position signals at first and second times (Col. 5, Line 32- Col. 6, Line 66, teaches calculating backlash- particularly at Col. 6, Lines 22-26, which is based on measuring an output shaft position at multiple clock pulses- particularly at Col. 5, Lines 55-64).
Wilson-Jones further teaches that a calculated value of backlash is desirable to take into account changes due to wear of the teeth (Col. 8, Lines 55-58).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SATO and Wilson-Jones in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SATO’s dual motor drive assembly to include estimating a level of backlash as suggested by Wilson-Jones. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of calculating a value of backlash a gearbox that would beneficially account for tooth wear, as taught by Wilson-Jones and discussed above.
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that SATO does not teach a housing, Wilson-Jones teaches one (a housing being illustrated for Gearbox 3 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SATO and Wilson-Jones in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SATO’s dual motor drive assembly to include a housing as suggested by Wilson-Jones. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of protecting a gearbox that would beneficially make a more robust assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, SATO further teaches that an arrangement for allocating torque demands comprises an electronic control unit (Control Device 5, Paras. [0050]- [0051]).
Regarding Claim 3, SATO further teaches that the position determining unit comprises at least one motor position sensor (Angle Sensor 34).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), SATO does not teach an individual motor position sensor for each motor.
Wilson-Jones teaches at least one position sensor associated directly with a single motor (Col. 4, Lines 40-64 teaches Hall Effect Sensors 5 used to determine a position value of Motor 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SATO and Wilson-Jones in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SATO’s dual motor drive assembly to include an individual motor position sensor for each motor as suggested by Wilson-Jones. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of measuring the position of each motor that would beneficially make a more useful gearbox control system.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), SATO does not teach an estimator unit.
Wilson-Jones teaches an estimator unit (Electric Processing Means 6) to estimate the level of backlash in the gearbox (3) whilst controlling an average shaft rotation velocity (Output Shaft Speed Value 101 and Rotor and Output Shaft Backlash 110 being a part of the same process, Fig. 3).
The estimator unit (6) of Wilson-Jones is arranged to estimate the level of backlash by observing a differential motion of the motor during a power-up or power-down sequence (the process of Fig. 3 being understood to operate continuously during while power is on, it is considered to measure backlash while being powered-up) (note: these teachings relate to claims 6 and 16 as discussed below).
The estimator unit (6) of Wilson-Jones is further arranged to estimate the level of backlash by observing a differential motion of the motor (1) during a period of operation with near-zero motion of an output shaft (Col. 11, Lines1-36 teaches estimating a Backlash Magnitude 280 by reversing the direction of Motor 1 and measuring the difference in positions, which does not require a large motion from Output Shaft 2) (note: these teachings relate to claims 8 and 17 as discussed below).
The estimator unit (6) of Wilson-Jones is further arranged to estimate the compliance (Gearset Compliance 208, Fig. 5) in the gearbox (3) by observing a wind-up in the gearbox with two or more levels of differential torque applied (Gearbox 3 comprising an Electric Processing Means 6, Hall Effect Sensor 5, means for storing a Compliance Value 208, Fig. 5 and Col. 8, Lines 42-52, and being configured to measure a backlash, Col. 6, Lines 22-26, it is considered to be at least capable of estimating a Compliance Value 208- see below regarding “intended use”) (note: these teachings relate to claims 9 and 18 as discussed below).
The estimator unit (6) of Wilson-Jones is further arranged such that, to estimate the compliance in the gearbox, a greater torque demand is applied in comparison to the torque demand applied to estimate the backlash applied (being considered to be at least capable of estimating a Compliance Value 208, it is further considered capable of varying the measuring torque between measuring a backlash and a compliance) (note: these teachings relate to claim 10 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SATO and Wilson-Jones in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SATO’s dual motor drive assembly to include an estimator unit as suggested by Wilson-Jones. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing means for calculating a value of backlash a gearbox that would beneficially account for tooth wear, as taught by Wilson-Jones and discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
Further, the examiner notes that the clauses:
“to estimate the level of backlash by observing a differential motion of the motor during a power-up or power-down sequence” of claims 6 and 16
“to estimate the level of backlash by observing a differential motion of the two motors during a period of operation with near-zero motion of the output shaft” of claims 8 and 17
“to estimate the compliance in the gearbox by observing a wind-up in the gearbox with two or more levels of differential torque applied” of claims 9 and 18
“to estimate the compliance in the gearbox, a greater torque demand is applied in comparison to the torque demand applied to estimate the backlash applied” of claim 10
are considered to be intended use as they are recitations with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and thus are given no patentable weight because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114. In this case the dual motor drive assembly of SATO, as modified by Wilson-Jones, teaches all of the claimed structural limitations as discussed above (e.g. a position determining unit- 34 of SATO and 5 of Wilson-Jones, a motor controller- 5 of SATO, and an estimator unit- 6 of Willson-Jones) and, because the dual motor drive assembly of SATO, as modified, is capable of applying varied levels of motor torque and measuring and storing backlash and compliance values, it is understood to be structurally capable of the claimed intended uses as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 6, 8-10, and 16-18, SATO, as modified by Wilson-Jones, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claims 5 and 15 above for the teachings of Wilson-Jones and motivation to combine them with SATO’s dual motor drive assembly).
Regarding Claim 7, SATO further teaches that a closed- loop control system is used to hold the output shaft (7) at a substantially constant angle by varying the torque demand (Motor Output Values 41 and 42, Fig. 1) to both motors (Control Device 5 measuring Angle Detection Signal 35 and outputting Motor Output Values 41 and 42, Fig. 1, it is understood to be a closed loop system).
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), SATO does not teach a monitoring arrangement.
Wilson-Jones teaches a monitoring arrangement (Electric Processing Means 6, considered to monitor a Backlash Magnitude 280, Fig. 5) to continuously monitor the gearbox backlash (280) by measuring the differential motion of the motor (as illustrated in Fig. 5 by Forward 260 and Reverse 270 Motor Position Offsets being used to calculate the Backlash Magnitude 280).
The monitoring arrangement (6) of Wilson-Jones is arranged such that the differential motion of the motor is measured when a total torque demand is at or above a pre-determined value (Motor Torque > 0, Col. 10, Lines 55-60 teaches updating Forward 260 and Reverse 270 Motor Position Offsets “IF (motor torque>0)”), the pre-determined value being approximately an amount sufficient to fully engage the teeth (as known to one of ordinary skill in the art, gearboxes are generally built with as low of friction as possible, such that even a low torque value would be sufficient to engage the gear teeth) (note: these teachings relate to claim 12 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SATO and Wilson-Jones in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SATO’s dual motor drive assembly to include a monitoring arrangement as suggested by Wilson-Jones. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing means for monitoring a value of backlash a gearbox that would beneficially account for tooth wear, as taught by Wilson-Jones and discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
Further, the examiner notes that the clauses:
“to continuously monitor the gearbox backlash by measuring the differential motion of the two motors whenever the two motors are driving in opposition” (claims 11 and 19)
“the differential motion of the two motors is measured when a total torque demand is at or above a pre-determined value, the pre-determined value being approximately an amount sufficient to fully engage the teeth of the first gear and output gears” (claim 12)
are considered to be intended use as they are recitations with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and – although fully considered – are not understood to affect the scope of the claim because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114. In this case the dual motor drive assembly of SATO, as modified by Wilson-Jones, teaches all of the claimed structural limitations as discussed above (e.g. a position determining unit- 34 of SATO and 5 of Wilson-Jones, a motor controller- 5 of SATO, a first motor (13 of SATO and 1 of Wilson-Jones), as second motor (14 of SATO), and a monitoring arrangement- 6 of Willson-Jones) and, because the dual motor drive assembly of SATO, as modified, is capable of applying varied levels of motor torque and measuring and storing backlash values, it is understood to be structurally capable of the claimed intended uses as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Antonello (US-20190203822-A1) teaches claimed and unclaimed elements of the described invention drawn to a dual motor drive assembly with means for reducing and measuring a backlash.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights