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 .
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 6-7 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. The meaning of “in a connecting work of connecting the operation member” in Claim 6 and “in an adjusting work of adjusting alignment of the wheel” in Claim 7 is unclear.
Paragraph [0015] of the Specification of the instant application recites – “…the connecting work of connecting the operation member or the adjustment of the wheel alignment should be performed at assembly factories of the vehicle or repair factories of dealers and should not be performed by the user of the vehicle.”, and Paragraph [0009] recites – “the operation member is typically a steering wheel. The operation member may be a joystick or the like.”. Using this information, the Examiner hereinafter interprets the limitation “in a connecting work of connecting the operation member” in Claim 6 to be any instance where the reaction force actuator is held in place so as to facilitate the connection or disconnection of a steering wheel and its equivalents at the appropriate angular position, such as during assembly or maintenance by a skilled technician.
Similarly, Paragraph [0013] of the Specification recites – “…the motion position hold processing may be executed in an adjusting work of adjusting alignment of the wheel (such as adjusting a toe angle) …”. Using this information, the Examiner hereinafter interprets the limitation “in an adjusting work of adjusting alignment of the wheel” in Claim 7 to be any instance where the steering actuator is held in place for a wheel so as to facilitate the alignment of the wheel(s) during assembly or routine wheel alignment maintenance, or passively as to reduce/eliminate the need for specialized alignment equipment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wunderlich et. al, hereinafter referred to as Wunderlich – US20230064903A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Wunderlich teaches a steer-by-wire steering system for a vehicle, comprising:
a reaction force actuator (“feedback actuator” – element 46) to which an operation member (“steering input unit” – element 44, with attached “steering input element” – element 12) is connected such that the reaction force actuator is moved by the operation member (Paragraph [0018] – “Moreover, the steering input unit 44 comprises a feedback actuator 46 which is, in particular mechanically, coupled to the steering input element 12.”) the reaction force actuator including a power source (inherent in the actuator) by which the reaction force actuator applies an operation reaction force to the operation member (Paragraph [0018] – “…the feedback actuator 46 is provided at least for generating a steering resistance and/or a restore moment on the steering input element 12.”);
a steering actuator (“steering angle actuator” – element 48 additionally comprising a “steering actuator” – element 34) to which a wheel is connected (Paragraph [0019] – “The wheel steering angle actuator 48 has an operative connection to at least two of the vehicle wheels…”), the steering actuator including a power source by which the steering actuator steers the wheel (Paragraph [0023] – “The steering actuator 34 is electrically actuatable…”); and
a controller (“control apparatus” – element 36) configured to control the reaction force actuator and the steering actuator (Paragraph [0024] – “The control apparatus 36 is provided for actuating the steering actuator 34…” and “The control apparatus 36 is furthermore provided for actuating the feedback actuator 46…”),
wherein the controller (36) is configured to execute, for the reaction force actuator (46), the steering actuator (34 and 48 assembly), or both the reaction force actuator and the steering actuator, a neutral position setting processing (Paragraph [0006] – “For adapting the steering ratio as a function of a deflection of the steering input element… an advantageously simple control algorithm can be provided…”) of setting a neutral position in a motion range (Paragraph [0007] – “…when determining the target position of the steering actuation element, at least one steering-direction-dependent correction factor is taken into account. The correction factor here advantageously has two different values for the two steering directions…”, and in relation to the neutral position, Paragraph [0008] – “The two different values here can… be variable and, proceeding from the neutral position, have a linear an exponential and/or a logarithmic profile…”) and a motion position hold processing of holding a motion position at the neutral position by the power source (Paragraph [0008] – “…the correction factor for the first steering direction has a fixed first value, and for the second steering direction has a fixed second value… The correction factor is thus preferably fixed and is initially applied once for the two steering directions.”, and the power source is the actuators 46 and 34-48 assembly).
Regarding Claim 2, Wunderlich further teaches the steer-by-wire steering system according to Claim 1, wherein the controller (36) is configured to execute the neutral position setting processing and the motion hold position processing for each of the reaction force actuator (46) and the steering actuator (36 and 34 operative connection, provided by Paragraph [0024] – “The control apparatus 36 is provided for actuating the steering actuator 34…” and “The control apparatus 36 is furthermore provided for actuating the feedback actuator 46…”).
Regarding Claim 3, Wunderlich further teaches the steer-by-wire system according to Claim 1, wherein the neutral position is the motion position to be maintained when the vehicle travels straight (Paragraph [0002] – “…a neutral position, in which the vehicle travels in a straight line…”).
Regarding Claim 4, Wunderlich further teaches the steer-by-wire steering system according to Claim 1,
wherein the reaction force actuator (46, also operably connected to steering input element 12), the steering actuator (34 and 48 assembly), or both the reaction force actuator and the steering actuator include a movable member (“steering actuation element” 14) that is movable in accordance with the motion position (element 14, connected to the steering actuator 34, additionally to show movement of 14 via input, Paragraph [0021] – “Proceeding from a neutral position… a deflection and/or movement of the steering input element 12 in a first steering direction 24 causes a deflection and/or movement of the steering actuation element 14…”), and a pair of stoppers configured to stop the movable member to define one end and the other end of the motion range (Paragraph [0022] – “The wheel steering angle actuator 48 moreover comprises two mechanical terminal detents 16, 24 mechanically delimiting a movement of the steering actuation element 14…” and “The first terminal detent 16 here, proceeding from the neutral position, defines a maximum deflection of the steering input element 12…”, note again that 12 is operably connected to movable member/”steering actuation element” 14), and
wherein, in the neutral position setting processing,
the controller (36) obtains a motion position corresponding to the one end of the motion range (Paragraph [0022] – “The first terminal detent 16 here, proceeding from the neutral position, defines a maximum deflection of the steering input element 12 in the first steering direction 24…”) and a motion position corresponding to the other end of the motion range (Paragraph [0022] – “The second terminal detent 20 here, proceeding from the neutral position, defines a maximum deflection of the steering input element 12…”) by moving the movable member (14, operably connected to 12) by the power source (Paragraph [0023] – “The steering actuator 14 is configured as an electric motor, in the present case in particular as a permanently excited synchronous motor.”) such that the movable member (14) is stopped by a pair of stoppers (terminal detents 16 and 20), and
the controller (36) sets a position middle between the motion positions as the neutral position (Paragraph [0007] – “…when determining the target position of the steering actuation element, at least one steering-direction-dependent correction factor is taken into account. The correction factor here advantageously has two different values for the two steering directions…”, and in relation to the neutral position as a reference, Paragraph [0008] – “The two different values here can… be variable and, proceeding from the neutral position, have a linear an exponential and/or a logarithmic profile…”).
Regarding Claim 5, Wunderlich further teaches the steer-by-wire steering system according to Claim 1,
wherein the power source is an electric motor (Paragraph [0023] – “The steering actuator 14 is configured as an electric motor…”) and
wherein, in the motion position hold processing, a current for holding the motion position at the neutral position is kept supplied to the electric motor (Paragraph [0023] – “…in the present case in particular as a permanently excited synchronous motor.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Wunderlich further teaches the steer-by-wire steering system according to Claim 1,
wherein the controller (36) executes the neutral position setting processing and the motion position hold processing (Paragraphs [0006] and [0007] as discussed in the rejection of Claim 1 above) for the reaction force actuator (46), and
wherein the controller is configured to be capable of executing the motion position hold processing in a connecting work of connecting (Paragraph [0027] – “In the production of the steering system 10, the steering system 10 now is typically adjusted in such a manner that the vehicle 40 drives straight ahead…” Additionally, “However, by virtue of manufacturing tolerances, the steering actuation element 14 in this case is not inevitably situated in a central position 32 so that an offset… exists.” For adjusting this offset, Paragraph [0028] – “In the present case, the computer unit 38…” (which operates with controller 32) “… is in particular provided for carrying out the method…”) the operation member (44 and connected steering input element 12 and actuation element 14) to the reaction force actuator (46).
Regarding Claim 8, Wunderlich further teaches the steer-by-wire steering system according to Claim 1, wherein, in a state in which an operation terminal (“computer unit” 38) is connected to the controller (Paragraph [0025] – “To this end, the control apparatus 36 comprises a computer unit 38.”) the controller executes the neutral position setting processing and the motion hold processing based on a signal from the operation terminal (Paragraph [0025] – “Moreover, the computer unit 38 comprises at least one operating program which is stored in the operating memory and has at least one open-loop control routine, at least one closed-loop control routine…”).
Regarding Claim 9, Wunderlich further teaches the steer-by-wire steering system according to Claim 8, wherein, when the motion hold position hold processing is being executed, the controller (36) transmits, to the operation terminal (38) the neutral position setting processing and the motion position hold processing based on a signal (Paragraph [0026] – “Furthermore, the control apparatus 36 comprises a closed-loop control unit 52. The closed-control unit 52 is configured as a closed-loop steering control. The closed-loop control unit 52 has an operative connection to the computer unit 38.”) indicating that the motion position hold processing is being executed.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderlich in view of Kurz et al., hereinafter referred to as Kurz – DE102021206684A1.
Regarding Claim 7, Wunderlich teaches the steer-by-wire system according to Claim 1, but does not teach that the controller is configured to be capable of executing the motion position hold processing in an adjusting work of adjusting alignment of the wheel connected to the steering actuator.
Kurz, disclosed in a method for adjusting the toe of a vehicle wheel by means of a steering angle adjusting device integrated into a steer-by-wire system, teaches a controller (Kurz – “control unit” 46 with included “computing unit” 48) with electrical connection to wheel steering angle adjusters (Paragraph [0024] – “Control unit 46 has an electrical connection to wheel steering angle adjusters 50, 52.”) that adjust the steering angle of the wheels (Paragraph [0024] – “Each of the wheel steering angle adjusters 50, 52 includes a wheel steering angle adjusting device 16, 18. Each of the wheel steering angle adjusting devices 16, 18 includes a steering mechanism 20, 22 with a steering adjusting element 24, 26 and a steering actuator 28, 30 that interacts with the steering adjusting element 24, 26.”) with a motion control/hold process in addition to a standalone adjustment process for adjusting the alignment (specifically, the toe angle) of a wheel (Paragraph [0026] – “In addition, processing unit 48 includes at least one operating program stored in the operating memory with… at least one control routine… at least one adjustment routine 82…” and Paragraph [0048] – “Adjustment routine 82 is provided for readjusting the toe of vehicle wheel 10… by using steering actuator 28 to vary an operating position and/or rest position of steering control element 24.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of steer-by-wire steering system design, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the steer-by-wire system of Wunderlich with the steering system-integrated wheel alignment method of Kurz, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would have appreciated utilizing the independent steering actuators in a steer-by-wire system to maintain toe alignment of the wheels without having to use specialized alignment lifts and other equipment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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 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.
/Mitchell James Price/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611