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 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.
Claim(s) 1,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehr et al US 2024/0227916 in view of Reynolds et al US 2014/0100726 and further in view of Kelem et al US 6,118,869.
In Re 1, Fehr teaches
1. A turning system applied to a vehicle steering system (title), comprising:
a turning unit (fig 1) that operates to turn a turning wheel (4) of the vehicle, the vehicle steering system having a structure in which a power transmission path between the turning unit and a steering unit steered by a driver is cut off (steer by wire);
one or more processors (controller para 21, inherent to electronic control utilizing computer memory paras 6 and 23) that control the operation of the turning unit; and
a memory (memory paras 6 and 23) that stores control information (center position para 23 and calibration process with first and second end stops) that the one or more processors use to control (para 21) the operation of the turning unit,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute a mode setting process including setting a control mode in which the turning unit is operated to a setting mode (fig 2) or (optional) a normal control mode,
the setting mode is a mode that is settable in an in-factory (automatically or in workshop, workshop construed as end of factory) step before the turning unit is shipped to market, and is a mode in which setting work (step 8 calibrated) for setting the control information in the memory by operating the turning unit is performed,
the normal control mode (construed as adapted mode fig 3) is a mode that is settable after the in-factory step is gone through (paras 25-27), and is a mode in which the turning unit is controlled to operate using the control information (step 11 and para 27 “updated feedback actuator end stop position are then used”), and the mode setting process includes exclusively (taken as open ended due to open ended transitional phrase “comprising” see MPEP 2111.02) setting the setting mode or the normal control mode.
the turning unit includes a turning shaft that operates to turn the turning wheel, and a turning-side motor that generates motive power for operating the turning shaft (fig 1); and
the one or more processors are configured to execute an in-factory turning process (fig 2 includes turning wheel) involved in performing the setting work, and the in-factory turning process includes a process of setting the control information in the memory by making the turning shaft perform at least one specified operation that is specified beforehand through driving of the turning-side motor (fig 2 paras 22-24).
the setting work includes work for setting a reference value (end stops recorded) that is a value linked to a mechanical state of the turning unit in the memory as the control information (fig 2 paras 22-24); the reference value is a value indicating a moving-straight-forward state that is a turning state of the turning shaft when the vehicle moves straight forward (center position); the specified operations include a learning operation (calibration) of moving the turning shaft to a motion limit in each of a first direction and a second direction (end stops); and the in-factory turning process includes acquiring, during the learning operation, a limit position in each of the first and second directions that is a position of the turning shaft at the motion limit in each of the first and second directions, and setting the reference value based on the limit position acquired in each of the first and second directions (paras 22-24),
the in-factory turning process further includes setting, in the memory, of the reference value on a condition that the reference value has been set in the memory through the learning operation (calibration); and the mode setting process further includes setting the normal control mode when the completion information is set in the memory (step 11), and setting the setting mode when the completion information is not stored in the memory (step 9), and
the completion information, once set in the memory, is retained when power to the turning system is turned on and off (inherent to programmable electronic controller memory paras 14-23, e.g. non-volatile ROM memory), is retained when power (electrical power per para 3) to the turning system is turned on and off and is retained when a battery that serves as a power source for the turning system is replaced (inherent to on highway motor vehicles with a conventional 12 volt system and including high voltage electrical vehicles.
Fehr does not teach although Reynolds teaches completion information showing completion of setting (flag “true” para 35). Reynolds further teaches flag indicates calibration sequence is no longer required, para 35. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Reynold’s completion information showing completion of setting to Fehr’s vehicle to indicate sequence is no longer required.
Fehr does not teach although Kelem teaches, such that the completion information is not deletable or initializable after being set in the memory (col 2 ll 40-55, Kelem teaches non-rewritable, non-volatile, batteryless memory known in the art as PROM). Kelem further teaches enhanced security encryption with a permanent not deletable memory col 2 ll 40-55. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to modify Fehr’s completion information memory with Kelem’s permanent non-volatile not deletable memory to enhance security.
In Re 6, the method of claim 6 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Fehr in view of Reynolds and Kelem as described above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Fehr et al US 2024/0227916 in view of Reynolds et al US 2014/0100726 and further in view of Kelem et al US 6,118,869 and Rosol et al US 2014/0277893.
In Re 5, Fehr teaches the in-factory turning process further includes performing a holding operation of holding a state of the turning shaft and each time the specified operation is completed (para 23 “newly defined center position where it remains”).
Fehr does not teach however Rosol teaches at start of the process (paras 31,43,53 initial position). Rosol further teaches the front wheels remain in a certain position with initial position of steering wheel, para 31. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Rosol’s initial steering wheel position at start of process to have Fehr’s vehicle to have turning wheel in a certain position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious
wherein the in-factory turning process further includes determining that the turning shaft has reached the motion limit in each of the first direction and the second direction based on both: a determination that a load on the turning-side motor has increased based on currents flowing through the turning-side motor; and a determination that the turning shaft is stationary based on an angular speed of the turning shaft being smaller than an angular speed threshold value.
wherein the in-factory turning process further includes: calculating a midpoint value based on the limit position acquired in each of the first and second directions; determining whether the midpoint value is within a predetermined range between a lower threshold value and an upper threshold value; and repeating the learning operation when the midpoint value is determined not to be within the predetermined range, and setting the reference value based on the midpoint value when the midpoint value is determined to be within the predetermined range
in combination with the other claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg 7, filed 1/14/26, with respect to 35 USC 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs 7-9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 102 and 103 with primary reference Fehr have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fehr in view of Reynolds and Kelem as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kent US 6,671,804 teaches col 5 ll 1-12 a non volatile, read-only memory for permanent code storage (e.g., programmable read only memory (PROM)) 250; Straz US 9,558,602 teaches permanent nonvolatile memory as optical disks including CD-ROM, DVD, which is not deletable or initializable after being set in the memory and is retained without a power source.
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 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 CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747