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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/9/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
This objection specifically refers to the Foreign Patent Documents numbers “EP0853557B1 Roy Sebazco” and “EP1990257B1 Akihiko Nishimura”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 1, “GEN-D” is shown as reference number 28, when 28 is listed as “controller” in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 33, line 1: “Bluetooth (TM))” should be –Bluetooth (TM)--.
Para. 42, line 1: it is unclear if “can bus signal 42” is intended to mean “can bus 42” or “can bus 42 signal”. Please advise.
Para. 44, line 2: “controller 58” should be –controller 28--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 2, “powers” should be “power”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2161 states: “It is “not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” (emphasis added)
Claim 15 recites, “an application,” which is directed to controlling software that is only nominally disclosed and does not comply with the written description requirement in accordance with MPEP 2161.
Further, the claims (e.g., claim 1) recite, a “controller” that is functionally claimed such that the disclosure requires more than a mere general computer, e.g. a special computer requires disclosure of the structural components of both the computer and the algorithm. Therefore, the claimed “controller” requires an algorithm which is only nominally disclosed and does not comply with the written description requirement in accordance with MPEP 2161.
For example, the Specification is entirely devoid of any algorithm, steps, procedure, or flowchart which would detail the computer-implemented functionality required by either of the claims identified above. Therefore, “the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function are not described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed” (MPEP 2161(I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the driver,” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 15 contains the trademark/trade name “BLUETOOTH (TM)” in line 1 and 3. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe conformance with a continuously changing communications protocol set forth by the BLUETOOTH(TM) standard and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim was construed to refer to any of the various BLUETOOTH(TM) communication variants.
Regarding claim 12, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The phrase “ignition system” is commonly held to mean key/switch to turn an engine on/off. However, the Specification, in para. 39 and 42, recites an ignition line will extend from the controller to the electronic power steering system, the controller activates the backup modes and tries to wake up the electronic power steering system, controller disconnects the ignition out signal along line; but appears to otherwise lack any special or specific definition to redefine the phrasing. Therefore, it is unclear if Applicant is intending the phrase “ignition system”, as used in claim 12, to mean the commonly-understood definition of the phrasing; or if Applicant is intending to redefine the term.
For purpose of examination, the phrase “ignition system” is considered to mean an electrical connector that can be disconnected between the controller and the EPS for a period to reset the system.
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, 11, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being by Kodera (US 2015/0066303).
Regarding claim 1, Kodera discloses a steering assist system for a vehicle comprising, a steering column (21) connected to a steering wheel (20) of the vehicle (fig. 1), an assist motor (30) connected to the steering column (fig. 1) so as to provide torque to the steering column, an electronic power steering system (50) electrically connected (fig. 2) to said assist motor (30), and a controller (51) electrically connected (fig. 1 shows drive circuit 50 electrically connected to controller 5, which includes microcontroller 51 by fig. 2) to said electronic power steering system (50).
Regarding claim 11, Kodera discloses said controller being adjustable so as to vary a signal to the electronic powers steering system in relation to a desired torque to be applied by said assist motor to the steering column (Para. 10-13, controller computes the detected steering torque value and executes the current feedback so the matching assist force can be generated by motor)
Regarding claim 14, Kodera discloses controller (51) and said electronic power steering system (50) being digital (i.e., microcontrollers are digital).
Regarding claim 16, Kodera discloses a power supply electrically (53, 54) connected to (para. 32, lines 4-6) said electronic power steering system (50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera (US 2015/0066303), in view of Hong (US 2016/0101809).
Regarding claims 2-4, Kodera discloses a torque sensor (6) cooperative with the steering column so as to sense a torque of the steering column (21), but does not disclose the controller causes the electronic power steering system to continue to supply the current to the assist motor in a failure event, a torque sensor corporative with the steering column so as to sense a torque of said steering column, the failure event being a loss of power to or from said torque sensor, and torque sensor being electrically connected to controller to transmit torque information to controller.
Hong teaches the controller causes the electronic power steering system (Fig. 2) to continue to supply the current to the assist motor (224) in a failure event, a torque sensor (Fig. 2) cooperative with the steering column (212) so as to sense a torque of the steering column, the failure event being a loss of power to or from the torque sensor (Fig. 10, para. 33), the torque sensor being electrically connected to the controller so as to transmit torque information to the controller (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate the continuation of supplying the current in the event of failure as taught by Hong into the assist motor of Kodera for the advantage of continuously assisting the operator in steering the wheel even when the torque sensor is working improperly.
Claim 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera and Hong, in view of Lange at al. (US 2006/0015229).
Regarding claim 5 and 13, Kodera discloses electronic power steering system (50), but does not disclose a central area network electrically connected to electronic power steering system, the central area network monitoring systems of the vehicle, the failure event being an interruption of one of the systems of the vehicle; and the limitation of claim 13 the controller being a plug-and-play box connected to electronic power steering system.
Lange teaches a central area network electrically connected to electronic power steering system, the central area network monitoring systems of the vehicle, the failure event being an interruption of one of the systems of the vehicle, the controller being a plug-and-play box connected to electronic power steering system (Para. 30 the CAN bus provides plug-and-play capabilities, and further evidence that the technology of CAN system was old and well-known).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to include an old and well-known plug-and-play CAN bus as taught by Lange in the steering wheel as disclosed by Kodera, to allow components from various suppliers to be more easily integrated to the electronic power steering system.
Claim 6, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera, in view of Blackburn et al. (EP 3909830).
Regarding claim 6 and 9, Kodera discloses an electronic power steering system (50), a controller (51), a steering wheel (20) and a motor (30), but does not disclose a switch positioned in proximity to an operator of the vehicle, and switch being a pushbutton positioned adjacent to the steering wheel.
Blackburn teaches a switch positioned in proximity to an operator of the vehicle (handle 38), said switch being electrically connected to said controller (126), the switch being a pushbutton positioned adjacent to the steering wheel (Para. 35, 132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to include the pushbutton as taught by Blackburn in the steering wheel as disclosed by Kodera, for the expected benefit of increased user control and/or functionality. The remaining limitations of the respective claims flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
Regarding claim 15, Kodera discloses a controller (51), but does not disclose an application connected by BLUETOOTH (TM) to the BLUETOOTH (TM) transmitter/receiver, the application adapted to allow a user to remotely set said controller and to fix a torque of said assist motor.
Blackburn teaches an application connected by BLUETOOTH (TM) to the BLUETOOTH (TM) transmitter/receiver, the application adapted to allow a user to remotely set (external resources 214) said controller and to fix a torque of said assist motor (Para. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have incorporate the Bluetooth structure as taught by Blackburn into the system of Kodera, for the expected benefit of increased functional and/or adaptability.
Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera and Blackburn, in view of Gagnon et al. (US 2012/0179334).
Regarding claim 7 and 8, Kodera does not disclose the switch operative to allow the user to change from a normal steering assist to an enhanced steering assist, the enhanced steering assist causing the electronic power steering system to transmit additional current to said assist motor to reduce torque required in the rotation of said steering column by the steering wheel, and the normal steering assist being set by the original equipment manufacturer, the enhanced steering assist being between 10% and 50% of the torque of the normal steering assist.
Gagnon teaches the switch operative to allow the user to change from a normal steering assist to an enhanced steering assist (Para. 9), the enhanced steering assist causing the electronic power steering system to transmit additional current to said assist motor to reduce torque required in the rotation of said steering column by the steering wheel (Para 46), and the normal steering assist being set by the original equipment manufacturer, the enhanced steering assist being between 10% and 50% of the torque of the normal steering assist (Fig. 8A and 8B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the functionalities of the different modes of the steering system as taught by Gagnon in the steering wheel as disclosed by Kodera and Blackburn, in order to provide more options or controls to the user, a well-known advantage in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera and Hong, in view of Sasaki et al. (US 20180093703)
Regarding claim 10, Kodera discloses a controller (51), an assist motor (30) and a steering column (1), but does not disclose the controller adapted to cause said assist motor to supply torque to said steering column for at least 180 seconds following the failure event.
Sasaki teaches the controller adapted to supply for at least 180 seconds (i.e. at least 180 second includes continuous supply) following an abnormality (a fail-safe operation unit 77 supplies the power continuously by para. 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to program the controller as disclosed by Kodera to have the functionality as taught by Sasaki, for the expected benefit of allowing the driver to still be assisted by the steering motor even in the event of failure, and therefore increase user safety.
Claim 12 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera and Hong, in view of Naganathan (CN 107666423).
Regarding claim 12, Kodera discloses a controller (51) and an electronic power steering system (50), but does not disclose an ignition system connected to the controller and to electronic power steering system, the electronic power steering system adapted to switch off ignition system during the failure event.
Naganathan teaches the ignition system connected to the controller and to the electronic power steering system, the electronic power steering system adapted to switch off the ignition system during the failure evet (MCU, micro-controller unit, detects the fault and disconnect the electrical connector CAN bus line to the MCU, and MCU resets by para. 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the structure and functionality of Naganathan's electrical connector with the system as disclosed by Kodera, for the benefit of allowing the system to reset after a failure event, and therefore restore functionality.
Claim 17 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Kodera and Hong, in view of Hayashi et al. (US 20170072991)
Regarding claim 17, Kodera discloses controller (51) but does not disclose restarting the torque sensor after the failure event is sensed.
Hayashi teaches the controller adapted to restart the torque sensor after the failure event is sensed (if the sensor 31 is in a certain kind of abnormalities, the sensor is recovered by rebooting the sensor, leading it back to the detection of the steering torque Para. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Hayashi’s functionality of torque sensor restarts into the system of Kodera, for the benefit of increasing the resilience of the system against failure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasaki et. al (US 20180093703) teaches a controller adapted to supply for at least 180 seconds (i.e. at least 180 second includes continuous supply) following an abnormality (a fail-safe operation unit 77 supplies the power continuously by para. 39).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUHYUNG SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3030. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights