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 .
Claims 1 – 17 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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 sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control element” and “actuating mechanism” in claim 1
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 § 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 contains the phrase “a control element that can be actuated” in line 2 that is considered indefinite. A positive recitation of whether the control element is configured to or not is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will understand the phrase to mean any structure such as a steering wheel that is used to control a steering angle.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the target value" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the maximum settable nominal wheel setting angle" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Correction is required.
Claims 2 – 17 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 – 16, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanimoto et al. (US 20112/0215406).
Regarding Claim 1:
Tanimoto et al. teaches a steer-by-wire steering system (paragraph 0042) for a vehicle (12), having a control element (14) that can be actuated by a driver for inputting a steering angle, an actuating mechanism (16) for setting a wheel setting angle, and a control unit (40) that is configured to output a characteristic map for the target value of a position of the actuating mechanism based on a steering angle (via 42) of the control element and a vehicle speed (via 44), wherein a nominal wheel setting angle (via 58, paragraphs 0058 – 0060) that can be set by the actuating mechanism depends on a set steering angle and on a vehicle speed, wherein the maximum settable nominal wheel setting angle is limited depending on the vehicle speed (paragraph 0060, and via 58-1 and 58-N), and wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a vehicle trajectory based on a vehicle speed and a wheel setting angle and, if an actual vehicle trajectory deviates from the calculated vehicle trajectory, to adjust the maximum settable nominal wheel setting angle based on the deviation (Fig 2, paragraphs 0021 – 0023).
Regarding Claim 2:
Tanimoto et al. teaches the steering system comprises a yaw rate sensor (46) and the control unit is configured to detect the measured yaw rate and calculate a yaw rate acting on the vehicle, and to compare the calculated yaw rate with the yaw rate measured by the yaw rate sensor, wherein a deviation of the actual vehicle trajectory from the calculated vehicle trajectory can be determined based on a deviation of the calculated yaw rate from the measured yaw rate (via 40, figs 1 – 2, paragraphs 0016 – 0023).
Regarding Claim 3:
Tanimoto et al. teaches a deviation factor is determined based on the deviation of the actual yaw rate from the calculated yaw rate, in particular wherein the deviation factor for different deviations is stored in a lookup table (via 40).
Regarding Claim 4:
Tanimoto et al. teaches the deviation of the actual vehicle trajectory from the measured vehicle trajectory based on steering-internal variables can be determined by comparing a rack force calculated using a linear single-track model with a rack force determined using a steering model that includes steering-internal measured variables (Figs 1 - 2, via 40).
Regarding Claim 5:
Tanimoto et al. teaches the steering angle and/or information for determining the driving situation can be determined using a sensor or a control device outside the steering system (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Tanimoto et al. teaches he control unit is configured to set an upper limit value and a lower limit value of the maximum settable wheel setting angle based on the vehicle speed, wherein the maximum settable nominal wheel setting angle lies between the upper limit value and the lower limit value (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 7:
Tanimoto et al. teaches the control unit determines an adjusted maximum settable wheel setting angle based on the deviation factor, which angle lies between the upper limit value and the lower limit value of the wheel setting angle (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 8:
Tanimoto et al. teaches both the upper limit value and the lower limit value of the maximum settable wheel setting angle are dependent on the vehicle speed (Figs 1 – 2).
Regarding Claim 9:
Tanimoto et al. teaches the difference between the upper limit value and the lower limit value increases with increasing deflection of the control element (Figs 1 – 2).
Regarding Claim 10:
Tanimoto et al. teaches at least two, in particular at least five, vehicle speed support points are stored in the control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a course of the ratio between a deflection of the control element and the nominal wheel setting angle set by the actuating mechanism via the steering angle for the vehicle speed support points (Figs 1 – 2).
Regarding Claim 11:
Tanimoto et al. teaches the actuating mechanism comprises a rack (Fig 1) or at least one electromotive actuator.
Regarding Claim 12:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13:
See rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 14:
See rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 15:
See rejection of Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 16:
See rejection of Claim 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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