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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) is/are:
a steering input device
a steering operation input member
a steering device
a steering member
a control device
a vehicle speed acquisition unit
a reaction force actuator control unit
a steering actuator control unit
a deviation recognition unit
a reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit
in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, "the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit changes, in accordance with the vehicle speed of the vehicle, a threshold for determining whether the deviation increases." It is unclear what threshold is being referenced as claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, simply indicates if the deviation is increasing. Therefore, adding a threshold to this indication would negate the determination step in claim 1. In other words, claim 1 is looking for a change in the amount of deviation while claim 6 appears to be looking at a magnitude of deviation which are not compatible. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit determines when the amount of deviation increases above zero.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakimoto et al. (US 2020/0307680 A1) hereinafter Kakimoto and Namikawa et al. (US 2020/0298908) hereinafter Namikawa.
Claim 1:
Kakimoto discloses a steer-by-wire type steering apparatus that is attached to a vehicle, the steer-by-wire type steering apparatus comprising: a steering input device [4] including a steering operation input member [3], and a reaction force actuator [12] configured to apply given steering reaction force to the steering operation input member [¶23]; a steering device [6] including a steering member [24], and a steering actuator [31] configured to cause steered road wheels [5] to be steered through the steering member [¶25]; and a control device including a vehicle speed acquisition unit [41] configured to acquire vehicle speed information of the vehicle [¶28], a reaction force actuator control unit [52] configured to control an output amount of the reaction force actuator [¶29], a steering actuator control unit [57] configured to control the steering actuator in response to an operation on the steering operation input member [¶30], a deviation recognition unit configured to recognize a deviation [Δθx] between an operation amount of the steering operation input member [θp] and a steering amount of the steering member [96, θh; ¶59].
Kakimoto doesn’t explicitly disclose a reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit configured to decrease the output amount of the reaction force actuator when the deviation recognized by the deviation recognition unit increases and vehicle speed of the vehicle increases, the output amount being controlled by the reaction force actuator control unit.
However, Namikawa discloses a reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit configured to decrease the output amount of the reaction force actuator when the deviation recognized by the deviation recognition unit increases and vehicle speed of the vehicle increases, the output amount being controlled by the reaction force actuator control unit. [¶¶67-72]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Kakimoto with the obstacle feedback to the driver reduction operation of Namikawa to prevent unnecessary feedback to the driver when they are in a situation where they would be unable to respond such as hitting a curb at a high vehicle speed [¶72].
Claim 6:
Kakimoto and Namikawa, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Kakimoto doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit changes, in accordance with the vehicle speed of the vehicle, a threshold for determining whether the deviation increases.
However, Namikawa does disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit changes, in accordance with the vehicle speed of the vehicle, a threshold for determining whether the deviation increases. [¶¶67-72]
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakimoto and Namikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asai et al. (JP2006298223A) hereinafter Asai.
Claim 2:
Kakimoto and Namikawa, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Kakimoto doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit further decreases the output amount of the reaction force actuator when the deviation recognized by the deviation recognition unit increases and speed of steering by the steering device increases, the output amount being controlled by the reaction force actuator control unit.
However, Asai does disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit further decreases the output amount of the reaction force actuator when the deviation recognized by the deviation recognition unit increases and speed of steering by the steering device increases, the output amount being controlled by the reaction force actuator control unit. [¶¶21, 22-38, 43-45]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Kakimoto and Namikawa with the reaction force application determination apparatus of Asai to reduce unnecessary steering regulation in a situation where there is no external force applied on the wheels like when striking a curb and to reduce friction in the steering wheel/system when steering speed is high [¶¶39-42].
Claim 3:
Kakimoto and Namikawa, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Kakimoto doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit further decreases the output amount of the reaction force actuator when the deviation recognized by the deviation recognition unit increases and operation speed of the steering operation input member increases, the output amount being controlled by the reaction force actuator control unit.
However, Asai does disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit further decreases the output amount of the reaction force actuator when the deviation recognized by the deviation recognition unit increases and operation speed of the steering operation input member increases, the output amount being controlled by the reaction force actuator control unit. [¶¶19, 22-38]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Kakimoto and Namikawa with the reaction force application determination apparatus of Asai to reduce unnecessary steering regulation in a situation where there is no external force applied on the wheels like when striking a curb and to reduce friction in the steering wheel/system when steering speed is high [¶¶39-42].
Claim 4:
Kakimoto, Namikawa, and Asai as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 2.
Kakimoto doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit detects the speed of steering by the steering device on a basis of displacement speed of the steering member.
However, Namikawa does disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit detects the speed of steering by the steering device on a basis of displacement speed of the steering member. [¶¶67-70; differentiation of displacement is speed]
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakimoto, Namikawa, and Asai as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Miyajima et al. (US 2007/0205037 A1) hereinafter Miyajima.
Kakimoto, Namikawa, and Asai as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 2.
Kakimoto doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit detects the speed of steering by the steering device on a basis of a difference between wheel speeds of the left and right steered road wheels.
However Miyajima does disclose wherein the reaction force actuator output amount decrease unit detects the speed of steering by the steering device on a basis of a difference between wheel speeds of the left and right steered road wheels. [¶¶13, 62]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Kakimoto, Namikawa, and Asai with the speed determination of Miyajima to provide a known means of determining the speed of a steering device based on known methods and available information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747