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 .
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) 1-4,6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al US 20200047764 in view of Meyer et al US 2022/0340118.
In Re 1, Yamashita teaches
1. A steering system (title) comprising:
An operating unit (device 62 fig 1 paras 89-92 includes feedback actuator 102 and steering wheel 60 and control unit 110A/B) including at least one feedback actuator (102 fig 1) configured to generate a steering resistance (“reaction force applying device” abstract) and/or a restoring torque (optional) to a steering handle (60 fig 1) and at least one feedback control unit (110A/B) configured to control operation of the at least one feedback actuator (abstract);
at least one wheel steering angle adjuster (64 steering device para 98 and items 96ab,68b108ab) mechanically separated (fig 1 steer by wire abstract) from an operating unit (steering wheel) the at least one wheel steering angle adjuster including at least one steering actuator (68) configured to change a wheel steering angle of at least one vehicle wheel (12)and at least one steering control unit (108A, 108B) configured to control operation of the at least one steering actuator; and
a transmission unit (bus abstract, fig 3 the connecting wires/buses, e.g. 120a) configured to at least communicatively connect the operating unit and the at least one wheel steering angle adjuster to each other (figs 3,4e,5f),
wherein the at least one feedback control unit is configured, in at least one fault operating state (figs 4e,5f, abstract) in which a fault (optional) and/or failure (“failure” paras 3-4) of the at least one steering control unit occurs, the at least one steering actuator.
Yamashita does not teach however Meyer teaches a control unit (24) is configured to control another control unit (26), when one of the two control units fail (not explicitly claimed but presented for clarity of rejection)(see Meyer paras 47-58,101,102, abstract, especially para 52). Meyer further teaches redundancy of control units for reliability during failure, paras 7-8. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to modify Yamashita’s system with Meyer’s redundant electronic control unit operation embodied that Yamashita’s feedback control unit can control the steering actuator in case of failure of steering control unit, in order to make a desirably reliable system.
In Re 2-4,6-7, Yamashita further teaches:
2. The steering system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one feedback control unit is configured to adjust a control of the at least one feedback actuator (controlling the actuator is adjusting it).
3. The steering system according to claim 1 further comprising: at least one switching unit (para 15 switches) configured to electrically connect the at least one feedback control unit to the at least one steering actuator, wherein the at least one switching unit is integrated ( Yamashita para 15) into the operating unit and is arranged in terms of circuitry (control units are circuitry) between a power electronic system (power supply unit para 15) of the at least one feedback control unit and a transmission unit (wires/bus/wires connected to bus/electrical connections).
4. The steering system according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one wheel steering angle adjuster includes at least one detection sensor system (R_SA, R_SB) configured to detect at least one operating variable (theta 98) of the at least one steering actuator; the at least one detection sensor system is configured to transmit the at least one operating variable at least in the at least one fault operating state to the at least one feedback control unit (110A,B); and the at least one feedback control unit is configured to control the at least one steering actuator (see in re 1 Yamashita as modified by Meyer) in the at least one fault operating state as a function of the at least one operating variable.
6. The steering system according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one steering actuator includes at least two independent steering sub-machines (68A and 68B) and the at least one steering control unit includes at least two independent steering control electronic systems (108A and 108B), one of the at least two independent steering control electronic systems being associated with each of the at least two independent steering sub-machines; and
the at least one feedback control unit is configured, in the at least one fault operating state, to replace at least one of the at least two independent steering control electronic systems or both of the at least two independent steering control electronic systems (see in re 1 Yamashita in view of Meyer).
7. The steering system according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one feedback actuator includes at least two independent feedback sub-machines (102A and 102B) and the at least one feedback control unit includes at least two independent feedback control electronic systems (110A and 110B), one of the at least two independent feedback control electronic systems being assigned to each of the at least two independent feedback sub-machines; and at least one of the at least two independent feedback control electronic systems is configured, in the at least one fault operating state, to replace at least one portion of the at least one steering control unit or an entirety of the at least one steering control unit (see in re 1 Yamashita in view of Meyer).
In Re 8, the motor vehicle of claim 8 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Yamashita in view of Meyer as described above, note both prior art inventions are motor vehicles.
In Re 9,10 the method of claims 9,10 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Yamashita in view of Meyer as described above, Yamashita fig 1 abstract “steer by wire”.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al US 20200047764 in view of Meyer et al US 2022/0340118 and Zhao et al US 2021/0269087.
In Re 5, Yamashita in view of Meyer teaches wherein the at least one feedback control unit is configured to take control of the at least one steering actuator in the at least one fault operating state (in re 1).
Yamashita does not teach although Zhao teaches within a predefined fault tolerance time (fault diagnosis unit in real time, paras 1,7,9,35-37,62,70-72,93).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al US 2020/0047764 [Yamashita 2020] in view of Meyer et al US 2022/0340118 and Yamashita US 2011/0054742 [Yamashita 2011].
In Re 11, Yamashita 2020 teaches the at least one feedback control unit is configured to control the at least one feedback actuator as in re 1 above.
Yamashita 2020 does not teach although Yamashita 2011 teaches in a reduced power fault operating state (para 147 “during the failed state of the main electric power source 100, the upper-limit electric power Pmax is reduced by the unit reduction amount .DELTA.P0”). Yamashita 2011 further teaches reduced power allows operator to sense failed state, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of inventive filing to modify Yamashita 2020’s unit with Yamashita’s 2011 reduced power to allow operator to sense failed state.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues pg 8 that Yamashita does not teach an “operating unit” nor a “transmission unit.” However, examiner finds Yamashita teaches both a unit, device 62 including a control unit 110A/B; and buses/wires transmit communicatively electronic control signals.
Applicant argues pg 10, their own unique combination of prior art not used in the examiner’s rejection of the claimed invention. In response to applicant's argument that use steering feedback as fallback, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant further argues pg 10 third paragraph “claim 1 uses fewer controllers than the combination of Yamashita and Meyer”. However, examiner finds claim 1 recites open ended plural structures such as “at least one feedback control unit” and “at least one steering control unit.”
Applicant argues pg 11 against claim 3 rejection. However, examiner finds Yamashita in view of Meyer, the control units are electrically connected to each other.
Applicant argues pgs 11-12 that claim 4 prior art combination would be inoperable. However, examiner finds prior art combination would work in redundant state.
Applicant argues pgs 12-13 against claims 8,9,5 rejections which depend on above previously refuted arguments and are therefore moot.
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 CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights