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 .
The Remarks filed December 16, 2025 has been entered and reviewed.
Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application.
v 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 9, 11 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakashita et al. (US 2022/0017082).
Regarding Claim 1:
Sakashita et al. teaches a vehicle (1) comprising: a steering system (40) comprising a user-operated steering control configured to steer the vehicle (Fig 1); and a controller (100) independent of the steering system and configured to: receive an indication that the steering system employs dynamic steering angle ratio adjustment of the steering control (via SW4, EPAS device 42, and microcomputer 500), and modify an operation of the controller based on the indication (via 500, which utilizes unit 119 which derives the steering amount to be adjusted).
Regarding Claim 2:
Sakashita et al. teaches the indication comprises a signal set to a first state or an information element set to a first value (paragraph 0038 describes output control signals based vehicle operation parameters, which is considered the first state).
Regarding Claim 3:
Sakashita et al. teaches the indication comprises a signal on a bus (837).
Regarding Claim 5:
Sakashita et al. teaches the indication comprises an information element exchanged by software (via 805, Fig 8).
Regarding Claim 6:
Sakashita et al. teaches the indication comprises an indicator set to a first state (see rejection of Claim 2 above), and wherein the modifying of the operation of the controller comprises selecting, by the controller, a first model of a plurality of different models to use based on the indicator set to the first state (the first model is shown in Fig 4 via SW7 in combination with units 113, 114, and 119; these store the sensed driver’s condition and adapts the machine to learn based on these values).
Regarding Claim 7:
Sakashita et al. teaches the controller is configured to select a second model of the plurality of different models in response to the indicator set to a second state different from the first state (the second model is shown in Fig 4 via units 120, 116, and 200, which stores the vehicle turning and steering angle requirements and trains the steering control actuator).
Regarding Claim 8:
Sakashita et al. teaches the first model is trained using training data comprising steering displacement values and steering angle ratios, and the second model is trained using training data comprising steering displacement values but without steering angle ratios (Fig 4, and see rejections of Claims 6 and 7).
Regarding Claim 9:
Sakashita et al. teaches the modifying of the operation of the controller comprises providing the indication as an input to a model that is able to produce outputs based on steering displacement values whether or not compensated by steering angle ratios (Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 11:
See rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
Sakashita et al. teaches the non-steering operation comprises a determination of an impairment of a driver of the vehicle (via SW7).
Regarding Claim 13:
Sakashita et al. teaches the non-steering operation comprises a determination of a malfunction of the vehicle (paragraph 0140 – 0152).
Regarding Claim 14:
Sakashita et al. teaches the non-steering operation is performed by software in the vehicle, and the modifying of the non-steering operation modifies an operation of the software (Figs 3 – 5, 7 – 9).
Regarding Claim 15:
Sakashita et al. teaches the indication comprises an indicator set to a first state, and wherein the software produces an output based on a displacement of the steering control and a steering angle ratio in response to the indicator being set to the first state (Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 16:
Sakashita et al. teaches the software produces an output based on a displacement of the steering control uncompensated by a steering angle ratio in response to the indicator being set to a second state different from the first state (Figs 1 – 7).
Regarding Claim 17:
Sakashita et al. teaches the non-steering operation produces an output that is indicative of an issue associated with the vehicle or a driver of the vehicle, and wherein the instructions upon execution cause the system to transmit the output to an entity to address the issue (Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 18:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 19:
See rejection of Claim 13 above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakashita et al. (US 2022/0017082).
Regarding Claim 4:
Sakashita et al. is silent to the indication comprises a signal according to a Connected Vehicle Systems Alliance (COVESA) Vehicle Signal Specification.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the COVESA signal type since network systems have been a well-established option for signals and transmitting information across multiple platforms and one skilled in the art would have made such an intended use signal for the purpose of sharing data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 8 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Sakashita et al. does not teach the limitation requiring “an indication that the steering system employs dynamic steering angle ratio adjustment of the steering control.” The Examiner disagrees and maintains the rejection. Sakashita et al. teaches a dynamic steering angle ratio adjustment via arithmetic unit 110 in paragraph 0042, which is a part of EPAS 500 and adjusts EPAS 42 to achieve a target steering amount. An adjustment of the target steering amount based on a detected steering angle is considered by the Examiner to equate to the steering angle ratio adjustment. In paragraphs 0127 – 0138, further calculations based on various driving factors additionally adjust the steering angle as required. This also addresses the Applicant’s argument on Page 9 of the controller being independent of the steering system. The controller 500 and calculation unit 100 are physically separate from the steering system, and used data not just from the steering angle to further amend the target steering angle and ratio.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747