DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on December 18, 2025. Upon further consideration the Non-Final Rejection mailed on September 19, 2025 has been withdrawn and a new Non-Final Rejection is presented below.
Claims 1-6 are pending in the application.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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 enough 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites enough 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting enough 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting enough structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“steering unit” and “turning unit” in claims 1, 4 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takashima et al. (US PG Pub No. 2015/0068833 A1), hereinafter “Takashima”.
Regarding claim 1, Takashima discloses a steering control device that is applied to a vehicle steering system having a structure in which a dynamic power transmission path between a steering unit and a turning unit is cut off (Abstract; paragraphs 7, 30), the steering unit being configured to be steered by a steering wheel of a vehicle (Abstract; paragraph 22), the turning unit being configured to operate so as to turn a turning wheel of the vehicle (Abstract; paragraphs 7, 30), the steering unit including a steering shaft coupled to the steering wheel (paragraphs 22, 23), a reaction force motor configured to give a motor torque to the steering shaft so as to give a steering reaction force to the steering wheel (Abstract; paragraphs 22, 28, 29), a stopper mechanism configured to regulate a rotation of the steering shaft in a right-left direction within a regulatory rotation amount (paragraphs 61, 64, 65), and an angle sensor configured to detect a rotation angle of the steering shaft (paragraphs 33, 36), the steering control device comprising a processor that controls the steering unit (paragraphs 38, 40, 41), the steering unit using the reaction force motor as a drive source (Abstract; paragraphs 22, 28, 29), the processor being configured to execute: an integrated rotation angle acquisition process of acquiring an integrated rotation angle based on a detection result of the angle sensor (paragraphs 40, 41-45), the integrated rotation angle being an integrated value of the rotation angle of the steering shaft (paragraphs 31-45); and an abnormality determination process of determining whether an abnormality condition is satisfied, based on the integrated rotation angle (Abstract; paragraphs 75-77), the abnormality condition being a condition for detecting an abnormality of the stopper mechanism (paragraphs 75-77, 99), wherein the abnormality determination process includes a process of determining that the abnormality condition is satisfied, when the processor is capable of determining that the integrated rotation angle is out of the regulatory rotation amount (paragraphs 41-45, 52-64, 75-77).
Regarding claim 6, Takashima discloses a steering control method that is applied to a vehicle steering system having a structure in which a dynamic power transmission path between a steering unit and a turning unit is cut off (Abstract; paragraphs 7, 30), the steering unit being configured to be steered by a steering wheel of a vehicle (Abstract; paragraph 22), the turning unit being configured to operate so as to turn a turning wheel of the vehicle (Abstract; paragraphs 7, 30), the steering control method comprising controlling the steering unit by a processor (paragraphs 38, 40, 41), the steering unit using a reaction force motor as a drive source (Abstract; paragraphs 22, 28, 29), the reaction force motor being configured to give a motor torque to a steering shaft coupled to the steering wheel (Abstract; paragraphs 22, 28, 29), so as to give a steering reaction force to the steering wheel (Abstract; paragraphs 22, 28, 29), wherein the controlling the steering unit by the processor includes: acquiring an integrated rotation angle based on a detection result of an angle sensor configured to detect a rotation angle of the steering shaft (paragraphs 31-45), the integrated rotation angle being an integrated value of the rotation angle of the steering shaft (paragraphs 31-45); and determining whether an abnormality condition is satisfied, based on the integrated rotation angle (Abstract; paragraphs 75-77), the abnormality condition being a condition for detecting an abnormality of a stopper mechanism configured to regulate a rotation of the steering shaft in a right-left direction within a regulatory rotation amount (paragraphs 75-77, 99), the determining whether the abnormality condition is satisfied including determining that the abnormality condition is satisfied, when the processor is capable of determining that the integrated rotation angle is out of the regulatory rotation amount (paragraphs 41-45, 52-64, 75-77).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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
Applicants’ remarks filed on December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
With regard to the Drawings objection, Applicants remarks clarify the location of the different contended elements in the Drawings. Therefore, the Drawings objection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-5923. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. 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.
/O.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights