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
This action is in reply to the communication filed on October 29, 2025. The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending: 1, 3-15
Rejected: 1, 3-15
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive
Regarding Claims 1-7 and 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
Regarding Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1, and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ihara et al. (US 2006/0217861) in view of Ueyama et al. (US 2014/0229068) hereinafter “Ueyama et al.” and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0286127) hereinafter “Watanabe et al.”.
Regarding Claim 1,
Ihara et al. disclose:
A method for operating an electrical steering system of a vehicle, comprising the following steps:
providing the electrical steering system, the electrical steering system having an input device which can be operated by an operator of the vehicle by changing an input position, and the electrical steering system having a steering device which implements a steering movement of the vehicle by changing a wheel position angle of at least one vehicle wheel of the vehicle; See at least ¶¶0005, 0039-0043, 0082
executing an automated steering movement of the vehicle, in which an input position change and a wheel position angle change take place and for which a starting time point, an input position change profile, and a wheel position angle change profile are specified to implement a calculated vehicle trajectory of the vehicle; See at least ¶¶0043-0045, 0049-0053, 0068, 0073-0075 (ECU 7 determines lateral deviation, calculates assist torque, applies torque via motor 5 to steering wheel to keep lane center, thus utilizing automated steering to implement a calculated trajectory);
Ihara et al. fail to explicitly disclose:
notifying the operator when the automated steering movement is executed in the input position change is brought forward in time in relation to the wheel position angle change, wherein the input position change begins at a first time point and the wheel position angle change begins at a subsequent predetermined second time point; and
However, Ihara et al. disclose:
wherein the input position change begins at a first time point, and the wheel position angle change begins at a subsequently staggered second time point. See at least ¶¶0016, 0045-0046, 0071-0072
Ihara et al. discloses:
a prior art method upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Ueyama et al. teach:
a prior art method utilizing a known technique applicable to the method of Ihara et al. Namely, the technique of notifying the operator when the automated steering movement is executed in the input position change is brought forward in time in relation to the wheel position angle change, wherein the input position change begins at a first time point and the wheel position angle change begins at a subsequent predetermined second time point in order to increase driver comfort. See at least ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Fig 16.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Ueyama et al. to the method of Ihara et al. would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved method. Namely, a method that would notify the operator when the automated steering movement is executed in the input position change is brought forward in time in relation to the wheel position angle change, wherein the input position change begins at a first time point and the wheel position angle change begins at a subsequent predetermined second time point in Ihara et al. to increase driver comfort. See at least ¶¶0122-0135; Fig 16 ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
terminating, after notifying the operator, the automated steering movement in response to the operator operating the input device counter to the input position change.
The combination of references disclose:
a prior art method upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Watanabe et al. teach:
a prior art method utilizing a known technique applicable to the method of the combination of references. Namely, the technique of utilizing terminating, after notifying the operator, the automated steering movement in response to the operator operating the input device counter to the input position change in order to increase compatibility of manual and automated driving. See at least ¶¶0009, 0023-0024, 0080-0083, 0085.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Watanabe et al. to the method of the combination of references would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved method. Namely, a method that would terminate, after notifying the operator, the automated steering movement in response to the operator operating the input device counter to the input position change in the combination of references to increase compatibility of manual and automated driving. See at least ¶¶0009, 0023-0024, 0080-0083, 0085 ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the first time point corresponds to the specified starting time point. Ueyama et al.: See at least ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Fig 16. ; Ihara et al.: See at least ¶¶0016, 0045-0046, 0071-0072
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the first time point is before the specified starting time point. Ueyama et al.: See at least ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Fig 16. ; Ihara et al.: See at least ¶¶0016, 0045-0046, 0071-0072
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the second time point corresponds to the specified starting time point. Ueyama et al.: See at least ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Fig 16. ; Ihara et al.: See at least ¶¶0016, 0045-0046, 0071-0072
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the second time point is before or after the specified starting time point. Ueyama et al.: See at least ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Ihara et al.: See at least ¶¶0019, 0023-0027, 0058-0066
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the automated steering movement is terminated at a termination time point subsequent to the first time point and before the second time point. See at least Watanabe et al.: ¶¶0009, 0023-0024, 0080-0083, 0085 Ueyama et al.: See at least ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Ihara et al.: See at least ¶¶0044-0045, 0073-0075
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the termination takes place when the operating the input device counter to the input position change exceeds a specified threshold value. See at least Watanabe et al.: ¶¶0080-0083, 0085
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein a selection of the at least one notification measure for notification of the automated steering movement is dependent on a driving state and/or surrounding conditions of the vehicle. Ueyama et al.: See at least ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Ihara et al.: See at least ¶¶0019, 0023-0027, 0058-0066, 0080-0081
Regarding Claim 10,
Ihara et al. disclose:
An electrical steering system, comprising:
an input device (1) which can be operated by an operator of a vehicle by changing an input position; and a steering device which implements a steering movement of the vehicle by changing a wheel position angle of at least one vehicle wheel of the vehicle; See at least ¶¶0039-0043, 0082
at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
execute an automated steering movement of the vehicle, in which an input position change and a wheel position angle change take place and for which a starting time point, an input position change profile, and a wheel position angle change profile are specified to implement a calculated vehicle trajectory of the vehicle See at least ¶¶0043-0045, 0049-0053, 0068, 0073-0075 (ECU 7 determines lateral deviation, calculates assist torque, applies torque via motor 5 to steering wheel to keep lane center, thus utilizing automated steering to implement a calculated trajectory); and
Ihara et al. fail to explicitly disclose:
notify the operator when the automated steering movement is executed in the input position change is brought forward in time in relation to the wheel position angle change, wherein the input position change begins at a first time point and the wheel position angle change begins at a subsequent predetermined second time point; and
However, Ihara et al. disclose:
wherein the input position change begins at a first time point, and the wheel position angle change begins at a subsequently staggered second time point. See at least ¶¶0016, 0045-0046, 0071-0072
Ihara et al. discloses:
a prior art system upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Ueyama et al. teach:
a prior art system utilizing a known technique applicable to the system of Ihara et al. Namely, the technique of notifying the operator when the automated steering movement is executed in the input position change is brought forward in time in relation to the wheel position angle change, wherein the input position change begins at a first time point and the wheel position angle change begins at a subsequent predetermined second time point in order to increase driver comfort. See at least ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Fig 16.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Ueyama et al. to the system of Ihara et al. would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system. Namely, a system that would notify the operator when the automated steering movement is executed in the input position change is brought forward in time in relation to the wheel position angle change, wherein the input position change begins at a first time point and the wheel position angle change begins at a subsequent predetermined second time point in Ihara et al. to increase driver comfort. See at least ¶¶0122-0135; Fig 16 ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
terminate, after notifying the operator, the automated steering movement in response to the operator operating the input device counter to the input position change.
The combination of references disclose:
a prior art system upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Watanabe et al. teach:
a prior art system utilizing a known technique applicable to the system of the combination of references. Namely, the technique of utilizing terminating, after notifying the operator, the automated steering movement in response to the operator operating the input device counter to the input position change in order to increase compatibility of manual and automated driving. See at least ¶¶0009, 0023-0024, 0080-0083, 0085.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Watanabe et al. to the system of the combination of references would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system. Namely, a system that would terminate, after notifying the operator, the automated steering movement in response to the operator operating the input device counter to the input position change in the combination of references to increase compatibility of manual and automated driving. See at least ¶¶0009, 0023-0024, 0080-0083, 0085 ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the notifying the operator further includes notifying the operator in that the input change is at least initially elevated in relation to the specified input position change profile. See at least Ueyama et al.: ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Fig 16.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the notifying the operator further includes notifying the operator in that the wheel position angle change is at least initially reduced in relation to the specified wheel position angle change profile. See at least Ueyama et al.: ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Fig 16.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the notifying the operator further includes selecting at least one of the following notification measures:
notifying the operator in that the input position change is at least initially elevated in relation to the specified input position change profile; and notifying the operator in that the wheel position angle change is at least initially reduced in relation to the specified wheel position angle change profile. See at least Ueyama et al.: ¶¶0093, 0122-0135; Fig 16.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the input device is a steering wheel of the vehicle. See at least Ihara et al.: ¶¶0039-0043; See at least Watanabe et al.: ¶¶0080, 0082, 0085; See at least Ueyama et al.: ¶¶0093, 0125-0135
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the automated steering movement of the vehicle results in a turning of the vehicle. See at least ¶¶Ihara et al.: ¶¶0043-0045, 0049-0053, 0068, 0073-0075 ; See at least Ueyama et al.: ¶¶0092-0093, 0130-0135;
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747