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 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“steering member” in claim 11 (because A – “member” is a nonce / placeholder term; B-“steering” and “configured to receive a steering operation” represent the function, and C-no structural limitations are recited, that may perform said function; in other words, the phrase is equivalent to “means for steering”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: “steering member” is therefore interpreted as an apparatus comprising a steering shaft and steering wheel or equivalent, per Para. [0033] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kluge (DE-102008043712-B3).
Regarding Claim 1, Kluge teaches a steering system for a vehicle (Abstract), comprising:
a steering mechanism (Steering Linkage Arrangement 1, Fig. 1) configured to steer wheels (Left 2.1 and Right 2.2 Wheel, Fig. 1);
a steering actuator (Electric Power Assisted Steering Motor 6, Fig. 1; hereafter “EPAS Motor 6”) configured to apply a driving force to the steering mechanism (EPAS Motor 6 being connected to Steering Linkage Arrangement 1, Para. [0002]); and
a controller (Electronic Stability Control System, Para. [0035]; hereafter “ESC System”) configured to control the steering actuator (ESC System controlling EPAS Motor 6, Para. [0035]),
wherein the steering mechanism includes a rack shaft (Center Tie Rod 7, Fig. 1) that is movable in a vehicle width direction (left/ right, Fig. 1) from a prescribed reference position (Para. [0039] teaches measuring translational movement of Center Tie Rod 7), and
the controller (ESC System) is configured to calculate an evaluation value (a measured Steering Acceleration, Para. [0010], hereafter “Steering Acceleration SA”) according to a use state of the steering actuator (6) and to determine a degradation level of the steering actuator (6) by comparing the evaluation value (SA) with at least one threshold (Maximum Acceleration Threshold Φ1,max, Table T) that is set based on a moving amount of the rack shaft (7) from the reference position and a vehicle speed (Maximum Acceleration Threshold Φ1,max being based on a specific Vehicle Speed V as taught in Table T and Para. [0012]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kluge further teaches that the at least one threshold (Φ1,max) comprises a plurality of thresholds (as taught in Table T and Para. [0017]), and
the controller (ESC System) is configured to determine the degradation level of the steering actuator (6) by comparing the evaluation value (SA) with the plurality of thresholds (as taught in Para. [0012]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kluge further teaches that the controller (ESC System) is configured to determine the degradation level of the steering actuator (6) higher in a case where the evaluation value (SA) is higher than the threshold (Φ1,max) than in a case where the evaluation value is equal to or lower than the threshold (Para. [0010] teaches that a signal is produced if Maximum Acceleration Threshold Φ1,max is exceeded), and
in a case where the vehicle speed is lower than a prescribed reference speed, the threshold (Φ1,max) is set to become higher as the moving amount of the rack shaft from the reference position increases (Para. [0010] teaches that the acceleration thresholds are narrowed as the vehicle speed increases- i.e. the threshold is higher at lower vehicle speeds).
Regarding Claim 5, Kluge further teaches that in a case where the vehicle speed is equal to or higher than the reference speed, the threshold (Φ1,max) is set to a constant value regardless of the moving amount of the rack shaft from the reference position (Table T and Para. [0017] teach a finite set of values, such that when the vehicle speed exceeds the highest value the corresponding Maximum Acceleration Threshold Φn,max would not change with increasing speed).
Regarding Claim 11, Kluge further teaches a steering member (Steering Shaft 9 and Steering Wheel 10, Fig. 1, where “steering member” is interpreted as an apparatus comprising a steering shaft and steering wheel or equivalent; see the corresponding 112f discussion above) configured to receive a steering operation,
wherein the steering mechanism (1) is mechanically separated from the steering member (the wheel actuating parts of Steering Linkage Arrangement 1, characterized by Left 5.1, Right 5.2, and Center 7 Tie Rods and EPAS Motor 6 being separated from Steering Shaft 9 and Steering Wheel 10 by Steering Gear Coupling 8, understood as a mechanical feature, the Steering Linkage Arrangement 1 is considered to be mechanically separated from Steering Shaft 9 and Steering Wheel 10).
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 3, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge in view of Sasaki (US-10625772-B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Kluge further teaches that the controller (ESC System) is configured to regularly determine the degradation level of the steering actuator and to output a signal (a signal being taught in Para. [0012]) indicating that the degradation level of the steering actuator (6) is equal to or higher than a prescribed level.
Kluge does not teach that the signal is output only after a prescribed number of times or periods has been reached.
Sasaki teaches, in another steering system (Abstract), a controller (Abnormality Detection Circuit 6i, Col. 15, Line 42) configured to regularly determine a degradation level (Change Amount dTt, Col. 15, Line 43) of a steering actuator (Apparatus 1, Col. 15, Line 48) and to output a signal (Col. 14, Lines 7- 15 teach a warning being output when Abnormality Detection Circuit 6i detects an abnormality) indicating that the degradation level of the steering actuator (1) is equal to or higher than a prescribed level only if determination that the degradation level of the steering actuator (1) is equal to or higher than the prescribed level is made in succession for a prescribed period or more or for a prescribed number of times or more (Col. 15, Line 55- Col. 16, Line 8 teaches a Counter CA being incremented when Abnormality Detection Circuit 6i detects a Change Amount dTt that exceeds a Predetermined Value dTt*, and when Counter CA reaches a Predetermined Value CA*, an abnormality is indicated), further teaching that using an accumulation of counts to determine abnormality advantageously can prevent incorrect detection of an abnormality due to, for example, a singly occurring road surface condition (Col. 15, Line 62- Col. 16, Line 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Kluge and Sasaki in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kluge’s steering system such that the signal is output only after a prescribed number of times or periods has been reached as suggested by Sasaki. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of preventing incorrect detection of an abnormality as taught by Sasaki and discussed above that would beneficially make a more accurate detection system.
Regarding Claim 6, Kluge does not teach suspending a degradation determination based on a speed of the rack shaft.
Sasaki teaches that in a case where a moving speed is equal to or more than a prescribed determination suspension speed, the controller (6i) suspends a determination of the degradation level of the steering actuator, further teaching that this advantageously increases the accuracy of abnormality detection by preventing incorrect detections (Col. 18, Lines 14- 34 teaches that Abnormality Detection Circuit 6i refrains from carrying out abnormality detection when a steering angular velocity signal exceeds a Predetermined Value α).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Kluge and Sasaki in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kluge’s steering system such that a degradation determination is suspended based on a speed of the steering actuator as suggested by Sasaki. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of increasing the accuracy of abnormality detection as taught by Sasaki and discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, Kluge further teaches that the controller (ESC System) is configured to determine the degradation level of the steering actuator (6) higher in a case where the evaluation value (SA) is higher than the threshold (Φ1,max) than in a case where the evaluation value is equal to or lower than the threshold (Para. [0010] teaches that a signal is produced if Maximum Acceleration Threshold Φ1,max is exceeded).
Kluge does not teach using a value of an electric current to determine the evaluation value.
Sasaki teaches a current control (Current Control Portion 6m, Col. 9, Lines 19-29) which detects a value of current flowing to a motor (Motor 31); further teaches a direct relationship between a motor current and a motor torque (Col. 8, Lines 47- 63 teach a Current Instruction Value I* is increased as a steering torque T is increased); and further teaches that an evaluation value (Counter CA) is determined using a torque value of the steering actuator (Col. 15, Line 55- Col. 16, Line 8 teaches Counter CA being incremented when Abnormality Detection Circuit 6i detects a Change Amount dTt that exceeds a Predetermined Value dTt*, where Change Amount dTt is calculated based on a Steering Torque T).
As discussed above, Sasaki teaches measuring a current, a relationship between said current and a steering torque, and determining an evaluation value based on a steering torque and is therefore understood to teach, or at least suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art, determining an evaluation value based on an electric current flowing to a steering actuator.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Kluge and Sasaki in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kluge’s steering system to use a value of an electric current to determine the evaluation value as suggested by Sasaki. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of using a readily available measurement, i.e. the current, as a monitoring variable that, in not requiring an extra sensor, i.e. a torque sensor or the like, that would beneficially make a simpler to construct and/ or less expensive system.
Regarding Claim 8, Kluge further teaches that the controller (ESC System) is configured to determine the degradation level of the steering actuator (6) higher in a case where the evaluation value (SA) is higher than the threshold (Φ1,max) than in a case where the evaluation value is equal to or lower than the threshold (Para. [0010] teaches that a signal is produced if Maximum Acceleration Threshold Φ1,max is exceeded).
Kluge does not teach a temperature sensor or using the temperature sensor to determine the evaluation value.
Sasaki teaches a temperature sensor (Col. 9, Lines 13- 18 teach detecting a temperature of Motor 31, a temperature sensor being implied) configured to detect a temperature of a steering actuator (31) or a controller, and further teaches outputting an abnormality signal if the temperature sensor detects overheating of the motor (Col. 9, Lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Kluge and Sasaki in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kluge’s steering system to include a temperature sensor and use the temperature sensor to determine an evaluation value as suggested by Sasaki. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of monitoring the temperature of an actuator when determining its degradation level that would beneficially improve the abnormality detection system’s effectiveness.
Regarding Claim 9, Kluge further teaches that the controller (ESC System) is configured to determine the degradation level of the steering actuator (6) higher in a case where the evaluation value (SA) is higher than the threshold (Φ1,max) than in a case where the evaluation value is equal to or lower than the threshold (Para. [0010] teaches that a signal is produced if Maximum Acceleration Threshold Φ1,max is exceeded).
Kluge does not teach a battery configured to supply electric power to the steering actuator or using the battery voltage to determine the evaluation value.
Sasaki teaches a battery configured to supply electric power to the steering actuator (Col. 4, Lines 58- 62 teach a battery supplying power to Motor 31).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Kluge and Sasaki in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kluge’s steering system to include a battery as suggested by Sasaki, and to further use the battery voltage to determine an evaluation value. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a direct source of power to a steering actuator and monitoring its charge that would beneficially make the steering system more versatile and reliable.
Regarding Claim 10, Kluge does not teach a torque utilization value.
Sasaki teaches that an evaluation value (Counter CA) is determined using a torque utilization value (Change Amount dTt), and the torque utilization value (dTt) is calculated based on outputted torque of the steering actuator (Col. 15, Line 55- Col. 16, Line 8 teaches Counter CA being incremented when Abnormality Detection Circuit 6i detects a Change Amount dTt that exceeds a Predetermined Value dTt*, where Change Amount dTt is calculated based on a Steering Torque T), further teaching that using a change in torque T advantageously allows for highly accurate abnormality detection (Col. 15, Lines 50-54).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Kluge and Sasaki in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kluge’s steering system to include a torque utilization value as suggested by Sasaki. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of increasing the accuracy of abnormality detection as taught by Sasaki and discussed above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge in view of ROHRMOSER (US-20190217886-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, alternately and in addition to the 102 rejection above, if an argument may be made that Kluge’s steering mechanism (1) and steering member (9 and 10) are not mechanically separated, ROHRMOSER teaches a steering member (Steering Wheel 3 and Steering Shaft 2, Fig. 1; where “steering member” is interpreted as an apparatus comprising a steering shaft and steering wheel or equivalent; see the corresponding 112f discussion above) configured to receive a steering operation (Para. [0032]), wherein a steering mechanism (characterized by Steering Adjuster 6, Fig. 1) is mechanically separated from the steering member (Steering Wheel 3 and Steering Shaft 2 being separated from Steering Adjuster 6 as illustrated in Fig. 1 and taught in Para. [0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Kluge and ROHRMOSER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kluge’s steering system such that the steering mechanism and steering member are mechanically separated as suggested by ROHRMOSER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of removing the mechanical link between a steering wheel and steering mechanism that would beneficially make a lighter and simpler steering system.
Conclusion
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/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611