DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
This objection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Narasimhan (U.S. Pat. No. 11,052,940).
Regarding claim 1, Narasimhan discloses a method to control a steer-by-wire steering system (fig. 4b) for a road vehicle, the steer-by-wire steering system including
a steering wheel (141), a road wheel actuator (154) to actuate road wheels (191), and a feedback actuator (144) to apply a feedback torque to the steering wheel, the method comprising: if an ingress situation is detected (820), switching on the feedback actuator and providing a resistance torque against rotation of the steering wheel in an ingress mode (830); and if a normal steering system shut down procedure is finished, activating an egress mode of the feedback actuator and providing the resistance torque against rotation of the steering wheel,
wherein the resistance torque is provided in a position control mode of the feedback actuator, the position control mode maintaining an initial position of the steering wheel by resisting against rotation of the steering wheel (col. 19, lines 4-20) when the ingress mode or the egress mode is activated (the 830 mode maintains the position by providing resistance torque).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Narasimhan discloses wherein the ingress mode and/or the egress mode is terminated due to at least one signal (194 in figure 8b, and col. 19, lines 21-23) and/or after a certain time period has elapsed (signal option addressed).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 3, Narasimhan discloses wherein the at least one signal is a detection of a decrease in grid voltage below a certain value (request option addressed) and/or a vehicle request signal (194 in figure 8b, and col. 19, lines 21-23 are states that are in response to a request).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 1, Narasimhan discloses wherein the feedback actuator is shut down when the egress mode is terminated (shown in fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Narasimhan discloses wherein the normal operation mode of the feedback actuator is started or the feedback torque actuation is ended when the ingress mode is terminated (col. 19, lines 21-30).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 1, Narasimhan discloses wherein the ingress situation is detected based on:
signals from a vehicle communication module (810);
a steering angle signal; and/or a steering torque signal (“other” option addressed); and/or other signals which represent a hands-on situation on the steering wheel (col. 19, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 1, Narasimhan discloses a steer-by-wire steering system for a road vehicle configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (fig. 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5-8 that the claims require that the steering wheel remain in place when forces are applied to it and that the cited reference does not. In reference to the 830 mode that the reference uses it states “As noted above, resistive torque 164 is used to counter the torque applied to steering wheel 141 by driver 190 and to prevent steering wheel 141 from rotating by driver 190. As such, driver 190 can use steering wheel 141 for support while entering or exiting vehicle 100.” The cited reference is making it clear that it is doing what the claim requires which is providing a torque such that the steering wheel will not move. Applicant argues that their application provides sufficient torque that nothing can move the steering wheel which is different than the citation but there are tolerances even on the applicants vehicle which will limit how much counter torque can be applied to stop the wheel from moving. The citation is construed as performing the same steps.
Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 that the cited reference does not maintain an “initial” position of the steering wheel. But the position that is maintained when 164 is applied is what is being construed as the “initial” position. If applicant is arguing that it is a same initial position every time the ingress or egress mode is activated that is not found in the claims.
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 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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747