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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15 are pending in this application.
Claims 7 and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 12-13 are amended.
Claim 15 is newly added.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15 are presented for examination.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama (US Publication2015/0291210 A1) in view of Roeckner et al. (US Publications 2025/0033695 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kageyama teaches a method performed by a steering device control device in a traveling vehicle, the method comprising: (a) transmitting a steering angle of a driver from a steering wheel actuator to a road wheel actuator (Kageyama: Para. 63, 65; steering angle input to the steering wheel by the driver; steering reaction force actuator is configured so that a gear that rotates integrally with a motor shaft is engaged with a gear formed on a part of the input-side steering shaft, and applies the reaction force with respect to the rotation of the input-side steering shaft based on the steering wheel); (b) transmitting a feedback torque from the road wheel actuator to the driver based on a rack force (Kageyama: Para. 75, 182; motor current controller performs a feedback control; tie rod shaft force sensors output the detected shaft force of the tie rods to the control/drive circuit unit); determining micro-buckling of a tie-rod during the (a) and (b) to obtain a compensation amount for straight-forward driving of the traveling vehicle (Kageyama: Para. 110; as the caster angle is set to 0 degrees and the caster trail is set to 0 mm, there is a possibility that the influence on the straightness occurs in the suspension structure, but by setting the scrub radius to the positive scrub, the influence is reduced); …… ; and providing the control signal to a traveling vehicle system (Kageyama: Para. 110, 521; the straightness is secured in parallel to the control through the turning actuator; if at least one of the turning wheels is fit in a wheel track or passes on a manhole cover so that at least one of the turning wheels is turned or a yaw angle is generated, the self aligning torque calculated by the straightness complementing section increases).
Kageyama doesn’t explicitly teach in response to determining of the micro-buckling, generating a control signal based on a comparison between the obtained compensation amount and a preset system allowable maximum compensation amount for the traveling vehicle, the control signal being a signal selected from a group which includes at least three different signals, the three different signals being (i) a signal to perform compensation with the obtained compensation amount, (ii) a signal to perform compensation with the preset system allowable maximum compensation amount and transmit a flag that the obtained compensation amount exceeds the preset system allowable maximum compensation amount, and (iii) a signal to perform compensation using an additional roll angle.
However Roeckner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to determining of the micro-buckling, generating a control signal based on a comparison between the obtained compensation amount and a preset system allowable maximum compensation amount for the traveling vehicle (Roeckner: Para. 11, 69; receive a request to cause the road wheel actuator to apply the overlay force; equilibrium between the overlay torque, a possible torque applied by a driver, and the feedback counter torque), the control signal being a signal selected from a group which includes at least three different signals, the three different signals being (i) a signal to perform compensation with the obtained compensation amount, (ii) a signal to perform compensation with the preset system allowable maximum compensation amount and transmit a flag that the obtained compensation amount exceeds the preset system allowable maximum compensation amount, and (iii) a signal to perform compensation using an additional roll angle (Roeckner: Para. 11; overlay torque to the steering wheel by means of the steering wheel actuator produces a steering wheel movement that results in an equilibrium between the overlay torque, a possible torque applied by a driver, and the feedback counter torque).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the self aligning torque (Kageyama: Para. 147) with an overlay torque (Roeckner: Para. 11) with a reasonable expectation of success because the balance between the overlay torque, the possible torque applied by a driver, and the feedback counter torque enables the vehicle reactions to have the same characteristics as in a conventional, mechanically coupled steering system (Roeckner: Para. 11).
Regarding claim 2, Kageyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the micro-buckling of the tie-rod further includes checking a wheel speed, a rack speed, and a vehicle rotation angle speed (Kageyama: Para. 78, 147; vehicle velocity and the rotational speed of each vehicle wheel; pinion angle detected by the pinion angle sensor, and a yaw rate detected by the yaw rate sensor).
Regarding claim 3, Kageyama teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the determining of the micro-buckling of the tie-rod further includes checking a rack target position, a rack position location, and the rack force (Kageyama: Para. 75, 363, 517; self aligning torque; the rack shaft is controlled to maintain the neutral position by the turning motor controlled by the actuator controller, so that the turning angles of the turning wheels 17FR and 17FL are controlled to become zero; target turning angle correction value δ*a obtained by adding the correction values δa and δta to the target turning angle δ* becomes zero; tie rod shaft force sensors output the detected shaft force).
Regarding claim 5, Kageyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the control signal further includes calculating information about the traveling vehicle (Kageyama: Para. 147; calculate a self aligning torque control value which is a straightness correcting value).
Regarding claim 8, Kageyama teaches a steering device control device for a traveling vehicle comprising: a processor; a network interface; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor (Kageyama: Para. 236; operation processing device such as a microcomputer, and the turning control process may be executed by the operation processing device); wherein the instructions include (a) an instruction for transmitting a steering angle of a driver from a steering wheel actuator to a road wheel actuator (Kageyama: Para. 63, 65; steering angle input to the steering wheel by the driver; steering reaction force actuator is configured so that a gear that rotates integrally with a motor shaft is engaged with a gear formed on a part of the input-side steering shaft, and applies the reaction force with respect to the rotation of the input-side steering shaft based on the steering wheel), (b) an instruction for transmitting a feedback torque from the road wheel actuator to the driver based on a rack force (Kageyama: Para. 75, 182; motor current controller performs a feedback control; tie rod shaft force sensors output the detected shaft force of the tie rods to the control/drive circuit unit), an instruction for determining micro-buckling of a tie-rod during the (a) and (b) instructions to obtain a compensation amount for straight-forward driving of the traveling vehicle (Kageyama: Para. 110; as the caster angle is set to 0 degrees and the caster trail is set to 0 mm, there is a possibility that the influence on the straightness occurs in the suspension structure, but by setting the scrub radius to the positive scrub, the influence is reduced), …… ; and an instruction for providing the control signal to a traveling vehicle system (Kageyama: Para. 110, 521; the straightness is secured in parallel to the control through the turning actuator; if at least one of the turning wheels is fit in a wheel track or passes on a manhole cover so that at least one of the turning wheels is turned or a yaw angle is generated, the self aligning torque calculated by the straightness complementing section increases).
Kageyama doesn’t explicitly teach an instruction for, in response to determining of the micro-buckling, generating a control signal based on a comparison between the obtained compensation amount and a preset system allowable maximum compensation amount for the traveling vehicle, the control signal being a signal selected from a group which includes at least three different signals, the three different signals being (i) a signal to perform compensation with the obtained compensation amount, (ii) a signal to perform compensation with the preset system allowable maximum compensation amount and transmit a flag that the obtained compensation amount exceeds the preset system allowable maximum compensation amount, and (iii) a signal to perform compensation using an additional roll angle.
However Roeckner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an instruction for, in response to determining of the micro-buckling, generating a control signal based on a comparison between the obtained compensation amount and a preset system allowable maximum compensation amount for the traveling vehicle (Roeckner: Para. 11; equilibrium between the overlay torque, a possible torque applied by a driver, and the feedback counter torque), the control signal being a signal selected from a group which includes at least three different signals, the three different signals being (i) a signal to perform compensation with the obtained compensation amount, (ii) a signal to perform compensation with the preset system allowable maximum compensation amount and transmit a flag that the obtained compensation amount exceeds the preset system allowable maximum compensation amount, and (iii) a signal to perform compensation using an additional roll angle (Roeckner: Para. 11; overlay torque to the steering wheel by means of the steering wheel actuator produces a steering wheel movement that results in an equilibrium between the overlay torque, a possible torque applied by a driver, and the feedback counter torque).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the self aligning torque (Kageyama: Para. 147) with an overlay torque (Roeckner: Para. 11) with a reasonable expectation of success because the balance between the overlay torque, the possible torque applied by a driver, and the feedback counter torque enables the vehicle reactions to have the same characteristics as in a conventional, mechanically coupled steering system (Roeckner: Para. 11).
Regarding claim 9 Kageyama teaches the steering device control device of claim 8, wherein the instruction for determining the micro-buckling of the tie-rod further includes an instruction for checking a wheel speed, a rack speed, and a vehicle rotation angle speed (Kageyama: Para. 78, 147; vehicle velocity and the rotational speed of each vehicle wheel; pinion angle detected by the pinion angle sensor, and a yaw rate detected by the yaw rate sensor).
Regarding claim 10, Kageyama teaches the steering device control device of claim 9, wherein the instruction for determining the micro-buckling of the tie-rod further includes an instruction for checking a rack target position, a rack position location, and the rack force (Kageyama: Para. 75, 363, 517; self aligning torque; the rack shaft is controlled to maintain the neutral position by the turning motor controlled by the actuator controller, so that the turning angles of the turning wheels 17FR and 17FL are controlled to become zero; target turning angle correction value δ*a obtained by adding the correction values δa and δta to the target turning angle δ* becomes zero; tie rod shaft force sensors output the detected shaft force).
Regarding claim 12, Kageyama teaches the steering device control device of claim 8, wherein the instruction for generating the control signal further includes an instruction for calculating information about the traveling vehicle (Kageyama: Para. 147; calculate a self aligning torque control value which is a straightness correcting value).
Regarding claim 15, Kageyama teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program that, when executed, performs the method of claim 1 (Kageyama: Para. 236; operation processing device such as a microcomputer, and the turning control process may be executed by the operation processing device).
Claims 4, 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama (US Publication2015/0291210 A1) in view of Roeckner et al. (US Publications 2025/0033695 A1) and in further view of Oblizajek et al. (US Publication 2014/0207336 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kageyama and Roeckner don’t explicitly teach wherein the determining of the micro-buckling of the tie-rod further includes setting a compensation amount in a straight-forward determination logic.
However Oblizajek, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the determining of the micro-buckling of the tie-rod further includes setting a compensation amount in a straight-forward determination logic (Oblizajek: Para. 40-41; determination is made as to whether a relatively long-term torque compensation is required; a relatively long-term torque compensation would be required for the functionality of the steering system (for example to correct for an alignment or tire issue with the vehicle); compensating torque comprises an amount of torque required to counteract any alignment or other issues with the vehicle that require sustained driver effort on a straight line roadway).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the self aligning torque (Kageyama: Para. 147) with an overlay torque (Roeckner: Para. 11) and the long term torque compensation requirement (Oblizajek: Para. 40) with a reasonable expectation of success because a long term torque compensation would be required for the functionality of the steering system to correct for an alignment or tire issue (Oblizajek: Para. 40).
Regarding claim 6, Kageyama and Roeckner don’t explicitly teach wherein when the micro-buckling is determined, the providing of the determination to the traveling vehicle system further includes checking a system allowable maximum compensation amount based on the information about the traveling vehicle.
However Oblizajek, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein when the micro-buckling is determined, the providing of the determination to the traveling vehicle system further includes checking a system allowable maximum compensation amount based on the information about the traveling vehicle (Oblizajek: Para. 41, 59; compensating torque comprises an amount of torque required to counteract any alignment or other issues; updating that amount of relatively long-torque compensation calculated, preferably based on an integral or equivalent control action).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the self aligning torque (Kageyama: Para. 147) with an overlay torque (Roeckner: Para. 11) and the long term torque compensation requirement (Oblizajek: Para. 40) with a reasonable expectation of success because a long term torque compensation would be required for the functionality of the steering system to correct for an alignment or tire issue (Oblizajek: Para. 40).
Regarding claim 11, Kageyama and Roeckner don’t explicitly teach wherein the instruction for determining the micro-buckling of the tie-rod further includes an instruction for setting a compensation amount in a straight-forward determination logic.
However Oblizajek, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instruction for determining the micro-buckling of the tie-rod further includes an instruction for setting a compensation amount in a straight-forward determination logic (Oblizajek: Para. 40-41; determination is made as to whether a relatively long-term torque compensation is required; a relatively long-term torque compensation would be required for the functionality of the steering system (for example to correct for an alignment or tire issue with the vehicle); compensating torque comprises an amount of torque required to counteract any alignment or other issues with the vehicle that require sustained driver effort on a straight line roadway).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the self aligning torque (Kageyama: Para. 147) with an overlay torque (Roeckner: Para. 11) and the long term torque compensation requirement (Oblizajek: Para. 40) with a reasonable expectation of success because a long term torque compensation would be required for the functionality of the steering system to correct for an alignment or tire issue (Oblizajek: Para. 40).
Regarding claim 13, Kageyama and Roeckner don’t explicitly teach wherein when the micro-buckling is determined, the instruction for providing the determination to the traveling vehicle system further includes an instruction for checking a system allowable maximum compensation amount based on the information about the traveling vehicle.
However Oblizajek, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein when the micro-buckling is determined, the instruction for providing the determination to the traveling vehicle system further includes an instruction for checking a system allowable maximum compensation amount based on the information about the traveling vehicle (Oblizajek: Para. 41, 59; compensating torque comprises an amount of torque required to counteract any alignment or other issues; updating that amount of relatively long-torque compensation calculated, preferably based on an integral or equivalent control action).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the self aligning torque (Kageyama: Para. 147) with an overlay torque (Roeckner: Para. 11) and the long term torque compensation requirement (Oblizajek: Para. 40) with a reasonable expectation of success because a long term torque compensation would be required for the functionality of the steering system to correct for an alignment or tire issue (Oblizajek: Para. 40).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights