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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 27th, 2026 has been entered. Amended claims 1-9, and new claims 10-19 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the reaction actuator” in line 23 of the claim is likely intended to read “the reaction force actuator”, and the limitation “the second position setting processing” in line 23 is likely intended to read “the second neutral position setting processing”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12-16, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2021 206684 A1 to Kurz et al., hereinafter Kurz.
Regarding Claim 1, Kurz teaches a steer-by-wire system for a vehicle, comprising:
a reaction force actuator (“feedback actuator” 60, Fig. 1b, Description of the Embodiment (hereinafter Description), Para. 2) to which an operation member (“steering handle” 58, Fig. 1, Description, Para. 2) is connected such that the reaction force actuator is moved by the operation member (as depicted in Fig. 2, Abstract), the reaction force actuator (60) including a power source (as being an electrically powered actuator) by which the reaction force actuator (60) applies an operation reaction force to the operation member (58, Description, Para. 2);
a steering actuator (28, Fig. 2, Description, Para. 3) to which a wheel (10, Fig. 1b) is connected, the steering actuator including a power source (as being an electrically powered actuator) by which the steering actuator steers the wheel (Description, Para 3); and
a controller (“control device” 46 with “computing unit” 48, Fig. 1b, Description, Para. 4) configured to control the reaction force actuator (60) and the steering actuator (28, Description, Para. 4),
wherein the controller (46) is configured to execute, for at least one of the reaction force (60) actuator or the steering actuator (28), a neutral position setting processing of setting a neutral position (“third evaluation routine” 80, Fig. 3, Description, Para. 24-25) of the at least one of the reaction force actuator (60) or the steering actuator (28) in a motion range (as determined from the neutral position, Description, Para. 19) and a motion position hold processing of holding a motion position (“adjustment routine” 82 as a response to 80, Fig. 3, Description, Paras. 5, 24-25) of the at least one of the reaction force actuator (60) or the steering actuator (28) at the neutral position by the power source of the at least one of the reaction force actuator or the steering actuator (as being a power source as discussed above).
Regarding Claim 2, Kurz further teaches wherein the controller (46) is configured to execute the neutral position setting processing (80) and the motion position hold processing (82) for each of the reaction force actuator (60) and the steering actuator (28, operative connection between elements described in Description, Paras. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Kurz further teaches wherein the neutral position is the motion position to be maintained when the vehicle travels straight (Disclosure of Invention, Paras. 6-12).
Regarding Claim 5, Kurz further teaches:
wherein the power source is an electric motor (for both 28 and 60, as a powered actuator), and
wherein, in the motion position hold processing (82), a current for holding the motion position at the neutral position is kept supplied to the electric motor (Disclosure of Invention, Para. 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Kurz further teaches:
wherein the controller (46) executes the neutral position setting processing (80) and the motion position hold processing (82) for the reaction force actuator (60, Description, Paras. 2-3), and
wherein the controller (46) is configured to be capable of executing the motion position hold processing (82) in an initial process of connecting the operation member (58) to the reaction force actuator (60) during assembly of the steer-by-wire steering system (Disclosure of Invention, Para. 1 – “…initial factory setting…”).
Regarding Claim 7, Kurz further teaches:
wherein the controller (46) executes the neutral position setting processing (80) and the motion position hold processing (82) for the steering actuator (28), and
wherein the controller (46) is configured to be capable of executing the motion position hold processing (82) during an initial process of adjusting alignment of the wheel (10) connected to the steering actuator during assembly of the steer-by-wire steering system (Disclosure of Invention, Para. 1 – “…initial factory setting…”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kurz teaches a steer-by-wire steering system for a vehicle, comprising:
a reaction force actuator (60) to which an operation member (58) is connected such that the reaction force actuator is moved by the operation member (as depicted in Fig. 2, Abstract), the reaction force actuator including a first power source (as being an electrically powered actuator) by which the reaction force actuator applies an operation reaction force to the operation member (Description, Para. 2), the reaction force actuator including a first movable member (“steering input unit” 56, Fig. 1b, Description, Para. 2);
a steering actuator (28) to which a wheel (10) is connected, the steering actuator including a second power source (as being an electrically powered actuator) by which the steering actuator steers the wheel, the steering actuator including a second movable member (“steering control element” 24, Fig. 2, Abstract); and
a controller (46) configured to control the reaction force actuator (60) and the steering actuator (28, Description, Para. 4),
wherein the controller (46) is configured to execute:
(i) a first neutral position setting processing, for the reaction force actuator, in which the first movable member of the reaction force actuator is positioned at a first neutral position at which a straight traveling state of the vehicle is maintained, and a first motion hold processing, for the reaction force actuator, in which the first movable member of the reaction force actuator is held at the first neutral position by the first power source;
(ii) a second neutral position setting processing (80), for the steering actuator (28), in which the second movable member (24) of the steering actuator is positioned at a second neutral position at which the straight traveling state of the vehicle is maintained ([0049-0050]), and a second motion position holding processing (82), for the steering actuator, in which the second movable member of the steering actuator is held at the second neutral position by the second power source (Description – Paras. 26-28, by adjusting motion of the “coupling section” 32, which is a part of “steering actuator” 28 and is moved by 28); or
(iii) the first neutral position setting processing and the first motion position hold processing for the reaction actuator, and the second position setting processing and the second motion position hold processing for the steering actuator.
NOTE: Regarding sections (i) and (iii), note that they are recited in the alternative through alternative conjunction “OR”. Although listed above for clarity and completeness, the scope of the claim is understood to extend to any one of the alternative sections/processes (i), (ii), or (iii). Therefore, because Kurz anticipates the section/process (ii), Claim 10 is fully anticipated by Kurz without requiring disclosures related to sections/processes (i) or (iii).
Furthermore, see related comments regarding additional limitations recited in several dependent claims below, further pertaining to sections (i) or (iii), which – though considered – do not change patentability considerations given that Kurz fully anticipates alternative section/process (ii).
Regarding Claim 12, Kurz further teaches
wherein the steering actuator (28) includes a pair of second stoppers (present on “steering adjustment element” 24, steering rack indentations A1, Diagram 1 below) configured to stop the second movable member (24) to define one end and the other end of a motion range of the second movable member (24),
wherein, in the second neutral position setting processing (80),
the controller (46) obtains a motion position corresponding to the one end of the motion range and a motion position corresponding to the other end of the motion range by moving the second movable member (24) by the second power source such that the movable member is stopped by the pair of second stoppers (process described in Para. 20, Description, particularly the determination of the “axial absolute position”), and
the controller (46) sets a position middle between the motion positions as the second neutral position. (Description, Para. 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram 1 - Annotated inset of Kurz – Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations regarding “the first power source”, “the first motion position hold processing”, “the first movable member”, and “the first neutral position”, are understood to refer to the alternative section/process (i) of parent Claim 10. Because (i) is an alternative limitation and Kurz fully anticipates Claim 10 without requiring section/process (i) or its features at all for patentability purposes, Kurz additionally anticipates Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, similar considerations apply, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 13 above: the limitation “the first motion position hold processing” refers to the (i) embodiment from anticipated Claim 10, therefore, Claim 14 is anticipated by Kurz.
Regarding Claim 15, Kurz further teaches:
wherein the controller (46) executes the second neutral position setting processing (80) and the second motion position hold processing (82) for the steering actuator (28) when an initial process of adjusting alignment of the wheel is connected to the steering actuator during assembly of the steer-by-wire steering system is performed (Description Para. 15 – “previously applied factory setting” for “operating variable” 34, which is a variable for processes 80 and 82, additionally Disclosure, Para. 1).
Regarding Claims 16 and 18, similar considerations apply, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 13 above, the limitations “the first neutral position setting processing” and “the first motion position hold processing” refer to the (i) embodiment from anticipated Claim 10, therefore, Claims 16 and 18 are anticipated by Kurz.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4, 8-9, 11, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz in view of US Pub. 2023/0064903A1 to Wunderlich et al., hereinafter Wunderlich.
Regarding Claim 4, Kurz teaches the steer-by-wire steering system according to Claim 1,
wherein at least one of the reaction force actuator (60) or the steering actuator (28) include a movable member (“steering input unit” 56, Fig. 1b, Description, Para. 2, or “steering control element” 24, Fig. 2, Abstract, respectively), that is movable in accordance with the motion position (Description, Para. 2, Abstract), but does not teach a pair of stoppers configured to stop the movable member, or that the controller uses these stoppers to define a motion range, setting the neutral position as the middle position between the stoppers as the neutral position.
In the same field of endeavor as steer-by-wire steering systems, Wunderlich teaches a steer-by-wire system comprising an analogous reaction force actuator (“feedback actuator” 46, [0018]) having an analogous movable member (“steering actuation element” 14, [0021]) including a pair of stoppers (“mechanical terminal detents” 16, 24) configured to stop the movable member to define one end and the other end of the motion range ([0022]), and
wherein, in the neutral position setting processing ([0006-0008], analogous to Kurz – 80),
the controller (“control apparatus” 36, analogous to Kurz – 46) obtains a motion position corresponding to the one end of the motion range ([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… 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 by the power source (46, analogous to the powered actuator of Kurz) such that the movable member is stopped by the pair of stoppers ([0022], entire paragraph), and
the controller (36) sets a position middle between the motion positions as the neutral position ([0007-0008], analogous to Kurz – 82).
Wunderlich further teaches wherein, in a state in which an operation terminal (“computer unit” 38) is connected to the controller (36, [0025], analogous to Kurz – 46), the controller executes the neutral position setting processing ([0006-0008], analogous to Kurz – 82) and the motion hold processing ([0022], analogous to Kurz – 82) based on a signal from the operation terminal (38, [0025]).
Wunderlich further teaches wherein when the motion position hold processing ([0022], analogous to Kurz – 82) is being executed, the controller (36, analogous to Kurz – 46) transmits, to the operation terminal (38), a signal indicating that the motion position hold processing is being executed ([0025] – “…open-loop control routine…”, including implicit two-way communicative signals).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the stoppers and neutral position determination using the stoppers, and the operation terminal and its indication signal of Wunderlich with the steering system of Kurz, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would have recognized the benefit of using the mechanical detents to delimit the movement of the steering actuation element and to define the maximum steering deflection as to compensate for manufacturing defects (Wunderlich – [0002, 0004]).
Regarding Claim 8, similar considerations apply, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 4 above (full analysis not repeated herein for brevity purposes).
Kurz as modified by Wunderlich above already teaches wherein in a state in which an operation terminal (“computer unit” 38) is connected to the controller (36, [0025], analogous to Kurz – 46), the controller executes the neutral position setting processing ([0006-0008], analogous to Kurz – 82) and the motion hold processing ([0022], analogous to Kurz – 82) based on a signal from the operation terminal ([0025] – “…open-loop control routine…”, including implicit two-way communicative signals).
Regarding Claim 9, Kurz as modified by Wunderlich above already teaches wherein when the motion position hold processing ([0022], analogous to Kurz – 82) is being executed, the controller (36) transmits, to the operation terminal (38), a signal indicating that the motion position hold processing is being executed ([0025] – “…open-loop control routine…”, including implicit two-way communicative signals).
Regarding Claim 11, similar considerations apply, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 4 above (full analysis not repeated herein for brevity purposes).
Kurz as modified by Wunderlich above further teaches:
wherein the reaction force actuator includes a pair of stoppers (Wunderlich – “mechanical terminal detents” 16, 24) configured to stop the first movable member (“steering actuation element” 14, [0021]) to define one end and the other end of a motion range of the first movable member,
wherein, in the first neutral positing setting processing ([0006-0008]),
the controller (36, Kurz – 46) obtains a motion position corresponding to the one end of the motion range ([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… The second terminal detent 20 here, proceeding from the neutral position, defines a maximum deflection of the steering input element 12…”) and a motion position corresponding to the other end of the motion range by moving the first movable member by the first power source such that the first movable member is stopped by the pair of first stoppers ([0022], entire paragraph), and
the controller (36, Kurz – 46) sets a position middle between the motion positions as the first neutral position ([0007-0008], analogous to Kurz – 82).
Regarding Claim 17, similar considerations apply, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 4 above (full analysis not repeated herein for brevity purposes).
Kurz as modified by Wunderlich above already teaches:
wherein, in a state in which an operation terminal (Wunderlich – “computer unit” 38) is connected to the controller (36, [0025], analogous to Kurz – 46), the controller executes the second neutral position setting processing ([0006-0008]), analogous to Kurz – 80) and the second motion position hold processing ([0022], analogous to Kurz – 82) based on a signal from the operation terminal ([0025]).
Regarding Claim 19, Kurz as modified by Wunderlich above already teaches:
wherein, when the second motion position hold processing ([0022], analogous to Kurz – 82) is being executed, the controller (36, analogous to Kurz – 46) transmits, to the operation terminal (Wunderlich – “computer unit” 38), a signal indicating that the second motion position hold processing is being executed ([0025] – “…open-loop control routine…”, implying two-way communicative signals).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed April 27th, 2026, with respect to claims 6-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 6-7 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendment .
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is presented as necessitated by the amendment, i.e. Kurz, which is now interpreted as to anticipate the amended independent claim 1 and new independent claim 10 (details above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights