DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amended claims filed on 2/12/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are currently pending.
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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the newly amended claim contains the term “the a steering-by wire steering system”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Discenzo (US 6,097,286) in further view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0185368).
As to claim 1 Discenzo discloses a method comprising;
detecting a steering command entered via a steering handle (22)
generating, from the detected steering command (thought the encoder #24, see column 2 lines 20-25), a control signal for a steering gear actuator (28) mechanically decoupled from the steering handle (shown in the figure 1)
Discenzo discloses a system that will counter vibration of the steering handle, but is silent to determining at least one natural frequency of the steering handle.
Kim discloses determining at least one natural frequency of the steering handle
The specification of the application does not disclose exactly what the term natural frequency means the following is from the application.
“A preferred method for this purpose is to detect the body vibrations of the vehicle body resulting from disturbances on the road side and/or the vehicle body side and to determine the excitation frequencies on which the body vibrations are based and to determine such excitation frequencies which lie in the range of the natural frequencies of the steering handle determined in advance.”)
From the above it is assumed the natural frequency is one that would start in the body and cause the steering wheel to vibrate. According to this interpretation Kim paragraph 0008 and 0009 discloses removing the judder which is the natural frequency of the steering wheel. That judder is based on the frequency starting in the body and brakes.
generating an actuation signal for an excitation of a force-feedback actuator assigned to the steering handle (paragraph 0057); and
applying, with the force-feedback actuator (MOPS, see paragraph 0057), haptic feedback signals to the steering handle, wherein the haptic feedback signals result in application of oscillations having a phase opposite to a phase (see figure 4B) and of the determined al least one natural frequency (preventing vibration paragraph 0057). it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the control program of Kim in the steering system of Discenzo as it would offer more driver comfort as disclosed by Kim in paragraph 0058
As to claim 2 Discenzo as modified by Kim further discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising;
Detecting disturbance excitations on the road side and/or on the vehicle body side (motor current is on the vehicle body side, paragraph 0022) and the resulting body vibrations of the vehicle body (Motor current on paragraph 0022 can only travel though the vehicle body to the steering wheel as the motor is not directly connected to the steering wheel)
Determining the excitation frequencies on which the body vibrations are based (paragraph 0022), and
Determining such excitation frequencies which lie in the range of the natural frequency of the steering wheel, are determined (determined and used to remove the original vibration, paragraph 0023).
As to claim 3 Discenzo as modified by Kim further discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising;
Filtering out the determined excitation frequencies so that they are not taken into account when generating the actuation signal for the excitation of the force feedback actuator 9filtered out according to paragraph 00011).
As to claim 5 Discenzo as modified by Kim further discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising;
Detecting the road-side and/or vehicle body-side disturbance excitations of the vehicle body are detected by sensors (paragraph 0047).
As to claim 6 Discenzo discloses steer-by-wire steering system (figure 1) for a motor vehicle, comprising a steering handle; (22),
a steering sensor (26) for detecting a steering command provided at the steering handle; (column 2 lines 20-25)
a steering gear actuator (28) mechanically decoupled from the steering handle; (22),
a force feedback actuator (38) associated with the steering handle; (22) and
a regulation/control device (encoder and road feel computer), configured to perform the method of claim 1 (see the response to claim 1 above and figure 1 #40 of the art to Discenzo).
As to claim 7 Discenzo discloses a motor vehicle, comprising the steer-by-wire steering system of claim 6 (Discenzo figure 1 #40) and Kim discloses the at least one sensor (paragraph 0047) configured to detect disturbance excitations of the motor vehicle body on the road side and/or on the vehicle body side, (see the response to claim 6 as per prior art to Kim above).
As to claim 8 Discenzo as modified by Kim further discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the sensor is an acceleration sensor (paragraph 0009).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the prior art does not result in the application of oscillations having a phase opposite to the natural frequency see the newly amended argument above disclosing this in the prior art figure 4.
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 SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 est.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights