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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 04/23/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 5-9, and 11-15 have been amended; claims 3, 4, and 10 have been canceled; claims 16-19 have been added; no claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-19 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to claims 3, 4, and 11 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claim 11 and the cancellation of claims 3 and 4.
The previous rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been partially withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims and the cancellation of claims 3, 4, and 10. Remaining rejections of claims 5, 11, and 15 [and any claim(s) dependent therefrom] were neither addressed by amendment nor argument and have been maintained.
Applicant asserts on pages 1-2 of the remarks that the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “A Robust Electric Power-Steering-Angle Controller for Autonomous Vehicles with Disturbance Rejection” to Khasawneh et al. cannot be maintained in view of the amendments to the claim because:
PNG
media_image1.png
104
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
156
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
242
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., the subject matter of the first full paragraph of page 2 of the remarks, as reproduced directly above) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Next, Khasawneh expressly discloses that “In this model, the EPS lumped parameters, equivalent moment of inertia 𝐽, equivalent viscous damping 𝑏, and Coulomb friction constant 𝐹 are identified by recursive least squares. For the sake of brevity, details of the estimation method are omitted here.” (emphasis added), such that it is clear that Khasawneh expressly discloses determining (estimating) the Coulomb friction torque (Coulomb friction constant F) with the slider mode observer model. The examiner further notes that ¶ 0030-0032 of Applicant’s specification, as identified by Applicant’s remarks, (as well as the remainder of Applicant’s specification and drawings) omits details of how the “Coulomb friction constant (F)” is to be estimated, and at least ¶ 0008 of Applicant’s specification appears to indicate that the “Coulomb friction constant (F)” is the intended to be the same as the “Coulomb friction torque” via disclosure that “F is the Coulomb friction torque.”
Therefore, Khasawneh fully teaches the method of amended claim 1. Thus, the rejection has been maintained and updated in order to sufficiently address the amendments to the claim. Amended independent claim 11 includes overlapping subject matter, and Applicant makes arguments against the prior art rejection of claim 11 that are similar to the aforementioned arguments against the prior art rejection of claim 1 (see pages 2-3 of the remarks). Therefore, also Khasawneh fully teaches the method of amended claim 11, and the rejection has been maintained and updated in order to sufficiently address the amendments to the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the state vector” in lines 13-14, which should be amended to instead recite --the estimated state vector-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “an estimated state vector” in line 2 of claim 2.
Claim 5 recites “E[s]” in the last line of the claim, which should be amended to instead recite --E(s)-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “E(s)” in line 1 of claim 6 (also, see at least ¶ 0039 of Applicant’s specification).
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 16-19 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.
New claim 16 recites “applying a sliding mode observer model to the EPS system and using the sliding mode observer model to simultaneously estimate: (a) parameters of a linear part representing nominal steering system behavior, and including at least an equivalent moment of inertia and an EPS system damping value; and (b) a nonlinear part including an unknown nonlinear torque component defined as a difference between an actual, measured EPS system response and a response estimated by the linear part, wherein the unknown nonlinear torque component comprises at least a Coulomb friction torque and a self-aligning moment” in lines 4-13; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s specification provides sufficient disclosure of simultaneously estimating at least all of an equivalent moment of inertia, an EPS system damping value, and an unknown nonlinear torque component including at least a Coulomb friction torque and a self-aligning moment, as Applicant’s specification appears to be silent to such a feature, and Applicant’s drawings do not appear to show such steps of the newly claimed method. Also, it is noted that Applicant’s remarks filed 04/23/2026 neither point out where or how the specification provides disclosure of the newly-added recitations of claim 16 nor assert that no “new matter” has been added by the amendments to the claims. Thus, new claim 16 improper introduces “new matter” to the claims, such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 17-19 are dependent from claim 16, such that claims 17-19 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 16 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 16 is rejected.
New claim 17 recites “wherein the linear part represents a linear approximation of steering dynamics of the EPS system” in lines 1-2; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s specification provides sufficient disclosure of “wherein the linear part represents a linear approximation of steering dynamics of the EPS system,” as Applicant’s specification appears to be silent to such a feature, and Applicant’s drawings fail to show such a feature. Also, it is noted that Applicant’s remarks filed 04/23/2026 neither point out where or how the specification provides disclosure of the newly-added recitations of claim 17 nor assert that no “new matter” has been added by the amendments to the claims. Thus, new claim 17 improper introduces “new matter” to the claims, such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 18 and 19 are dependent from claim 17, such that claims 18 and 19 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 17 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 17 is rejected.
New claim 18 recites “wherein the sliding mode observer model determines the Coulomb friction torque and the self-aligning moment by reconstructing unknown nonlinear dynamics of the EPS system, wherein the linear part of the sliding mode observer model includes an estimated linear dynamic model that uses the pinion angle, the pinion angular velocity, and the pinion torque, wherein an output estimation error is computed as a difference between the actual EPS system response and the response predicted by the estimated linear dynamic model, wherein a sliding mode correction factor is determined as a function of the output estimation error, a sliding mode gain, and a stability based weighting derived from an observer stability condition, wherein the sliding mode correction factor is processed through an averaging or filtering operation to reconstruct an estimate of an unknown nonlinear term representing the reconstructed nonlinear dynamics, and wherein the reconstructed nonlinear dynamics correspond to the Coulomb friction torque and the self-aligning moment acting on the EPS system” in lines 1-13; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s specification provides sufficient disclosure of the aforementioned statements of lines 1-13 of new claim 18, as Applicant’s specification appears to be silent to such statements of the new claim, and Applicant’s drawings fail to show statements of the new claim. Also, it is noted that Applicant’s remarks filed 04/23/2026 neither point out where or how the specification provides disclosure of the newly-added recitations of claim 17 nor assert that no “new matter” has been added by the amendments to the claims. Thus, new claim 17 improper introduces “new matter” to the claims, such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 19 is dependent from claim 18, such that claim 19 also includes the “new matter” recited by claim 18 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 18 is rejected.
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, 2, 5-9 and 11-15 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, as amended, now recites “commanding the steering actuator to provide an output torque as a function of the determined self-aligning moment as a function of the Coulomb friction torque” in lines 8-9; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by inclusion of “as a function of the Coulomb friction torque” in the context of “commanding the steering actuator to provide an output torque as a function of the determined self-aligning moment as a function of the Coulomb friction torque,” as it is unclear whether “as a function of the determined self-aligning moment as a function of the Coulomb friction torque” is a misstating of one of --as a function of the determined self-aligning moment and the Coulomb friction torque-- or --as a function of the determined self-aligning moment and as a function of the Coulomb friction torque--, or whether “as a function of the Coulomb friction torque” is intended to modify “as a function of the determined self-aligning moment,” or whether a different meaning is intended for “as a function of the Coulomb friction torque” in the context of “commanding the steering actuator to provide an output torque as a function of the determined self-aligning moment as a function of the Coulomb friction torque” in the claim.
Claims 2 and 5-9 are dependent from claim 1, such that claims 2 and 5-9 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 5, as amended, now refers to “the aligning moment” in line 5; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 2, and none of claims 1, 2, and 5 previously introduces “an aligning moment,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the aligning moment” in line 5 of claim 5. Claim 1 does, however, previously introduce “a self-aligning moment” in line 4, and it is unclear whether the “aligning moment” referred to in line 5 of claim 5 is intended to be the same as or different from the “self-aligning moment” previously introduced in line 4 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, as amended, now refers to “the equivalent moment of inertia” in line 5; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 2, and none of claims 1, 2, and 5 previously introduces “an equivalent moment of inertia,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the equivalent moment of inertia” in line 5 of claim 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, as amended, now refers to “the equivalent damping” in lines 5-6; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 2, and none of claims 1, 2, and 5 previously introduces “an equivalent damping,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the equivalent damping” in lines 5-6 of claim 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, as amended, now refers to “the Coulomb friction constant” in line 6; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 2, and none of claims 1, 2, and 5 previously introduces “a Coulomb friction constant,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the Coulomb friction constant” in line 6 of claim 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, as amended, now refers to “the control input” in lines 6-7; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 2, and none of claims 1, 2, and 5 previously introduces “a control input,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the control input” in lines 6-7 of claim 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, as originally-filed and as amended, introduces a symbol “E[s]” as part of a mathematical expression in the last line of the claim; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 2, and none of claims 1, 2, and 5 previously defines the symbol “E[s],” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by the mathematical expression in the last line of claim 5. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend claim 5 to include the subject matter of claim 6.
Claim 6 is dependent from claim 5, such that claim 6 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 5 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 5 is rejected.
Claim 11, as originally filed and as amended, introduces each of symbols “x” and “u” as part of a mathematical expression in line 9, and later uses each of the symbols “x” and “u” as part of mathematical expressions in each of line 10, lines 13-14 (five times), lines 18-19 (four times), line 20, and line 23 (twice); however, the claim fails to previously define either of the symbols “x” and “u,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by each of the mathematical expressions in lines 10, 13-14, 18-20, and 23 of the claim.
Claim 11, as originally filed and as amended, introduces a symbol “C” as part of an equation in line 18, and later uses the symbol “C” as part of equations in each of line 19, line 21, and line 22; however, the claim fails to previously define the symbol “C,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by each of the equations in lines 18, 19, 21, and 22 of the claim.
Claim 11, as originally filed and as amended, introduces a symbol “y” as part of an equation in line 21, and later uses the symbol “y” as part of an equation in line 22; however, the claim fails to previously define the symbol “y,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by each of the equations in lines 21 and 22 of the claim.
Claim 11, as originally filed and as amended, introduces a symbol “E[s]” as part of a mathematical expression in the last line of the claim; however, the claim fails to previously define the symbol “E[s],” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by the mathematical expression in the last line of the claim.
Claims 12-15 are dependent from claim 11, such that claims 12-15 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 11 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 11 is rejected.
Claim 15, as originally filed and as amended, refers to “the steering model” in line 1; however, claim 15 is dependent from claim 11, and neither claim previously introduces “a steering model,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the steering model” in claim 15. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “A Robust Electric Power-Steering-Angle Controller for Autonomous Vehicles with Disturbance Rejection” to Khasawneh et al. (hereinafter: “Khasawneh”).
With respect to claim 1, Khasawneh teaches a method for controlling a steering actuator in a vehicle, comprising: determining a pinion angle, a pinion angular velocity and a pinion torque (as discussed by at least: Section 2, page 5, second paragraph; and Section 3, page 5, third paragraph); using a sliding mode observer model to determine a self-aligning moment as a function of the pinion angle, the pinion angular velocity and the pinion torque (as discussed by at least: Abstract, Section 1, page 4, last two paragraphs; Section 2, page 5; Section 3, pages 5-7; and Section 7, pages 15-16); determining a Coulomb friction torque with the slider mode observer model [as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least: Section 1, pages 1-4; Section 2, page 5, fourth paragraph; Section 3, page 5, third paragraph; Section 6, pages 13-15; and Section 7, pages 15-16; the torque command is determined based, in part, on a Coulomb friction constant (e.g., “Coulomb friction torque”) estimated using the sliding mode observer]; and commanding a steering actuator to provide an output torque as a function of the determined self-aligning moment as a function of the Coulomb friction torque [as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least: Abstract, Section 1, pages 1-4; Section 2, page 5, fourth paragraph; Section 3, page 5, third paragraph; Section 6, pages 13-15; and Section 7, pages 15-16; a torque command (e.g., “commanding…”) is sent to an electric power steering (EPS) system (e.g., “actuator”) of a vehicle to control a steering torque (motor torque) (e.g., “output torque”) by the EPS system based, in part, on a self-aligning moment (e.g., “determined self-aligning moment”) estimated using a sliding mode observer (e.g., “sliding mode observer model”) and the Coulomb friction constant].
With respect to claim 2, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the sliding mode observer model also determines an estimated state vector, and the output torque is determined as a function of the estimated state vector [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “wherein the sliding mode observer model also determines an estimated state vector, and the output torque is determined as a function of the estimated state vector” positively recites step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines any previously-introduced step of the claimed method, such that no part of “wherein the sliding mode observer model also determines an estimated state vector, and the output torque is determined as a function of the estimated state vector” necessarily further limits the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least: Section 1, pages 1-4; Section 2, page 5, fourth paragraph; Section 3, page 5, third paragraph; Section 6, pages 13-15; and Section 7, pages 15-16; the torque command is determined based, in part, on a state vector (e.g., “estimated state vector”) estimated using the sliding mode observer].
With respect to claim 5, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 2 wherein the sliding mode observer model includes
PNG
media_image4.png
338
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(as discussed by at least: Section 2, page 5; and Section 3, page 5);
PNG
media_image5.png
364
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(as discussed by at least: Section 2, page 5; Section 3, pages 5-7; and Section 7, pages 15-16);
PNG
media_image6.png
82
590
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(as discussed by at least: Section 3, page 6, Step 1);
PNG
media_image7.png
98
598
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(as discussed by at least: Section 3, page 5, first paragraph – page 6, Proof);
PNG
media_image8.png
100
592
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(as discussed by at least: Section 3, page 6, Preliminary Assumptions & Step 2);
PNG
media_image9.png
71
535
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(as discussed by at least: Section 3, page 7, Step 3);
PNG
media_image10.png
29
433
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(as discussed by at least: Section 3, page 5, third paragraph);
PNG
media_image11.png
26
570
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(as discussed by at least: Section 3, page 7, third-to-last paragraph);
PNG
media_image12.png
31
275
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(as discussed by at least: Section 3, page 7, last paragraph).
With respect to claim 6, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 5 wherein
PNG
media_image13.png
46
108
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, where τ is a scalar time parameter (as discussed by at least: Section 3, page 7, last paragraph).
With respect to claim 7, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the steering actuator is operable to change a steering angle of tires of the vehicle (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least: Section 1, pages 1-4), and wherein parameters regarding the tires of the vehicle are not known (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least: Abstract, Section 1, page 2, last paragraph – page 3, first full paragraph & page 4, last paragraph; Section 2, page 5; and Section 7, pages 15-16).
With respect to claim 8, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 7 wherein the parameters include one or more of an equivalent moment of inertia, an equivalent damping, and a Coulomb friction constant (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least: Section 2, page 5; because an equivalent moment of inertia, an equivalent damping, and the Coulomb friction constant are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 9, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 7 wherein the parameters include an equivalent moment of inertia, an equivalent damping, and a Coulomb friction constant (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least: Section 2, page 5).
With respect to claim 11, Khasawneh teaches a method for controlling a steering actuator in a vehicle, comprising: determining a pinion angle, a pinion angular velocity and a pinion torque (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); using a sliding mode observer model to determine: a) a self-aligning moment; b) an estimated state vector; and c) a Coulomb friction torque, as a function of the pinion angle, the pinion angular velocity and the pinion torque (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); and commanding the steering actuator to provide an output torque as a function of the determined self-aligning moment (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1), wherein the sliding mode observer model includes:
PNG
media_image14.png
284
598
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
350
594
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 2, and 5).
With respect to claim 12, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the steering actuator is operable to change a steering angle of tires of the vehicle, and wherein parameters regarding the tires of the vehicle are not known (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 7).
With respect to claim 13, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 12 wherein the parameters include one or more of an equivalent moment of inertia, an equivalent damping, and a Coulomb friction constant (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 8).
With respect to claim 14, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 12 wherein the parameters include an equivalent moment of inertia, an equivalent damping, and a Coulomb friction constant (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 9).
With respect to claim 15, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the steering model includes a linear part represented by:
PNG
media_image16.png
288
646
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 5).
With respect to claim 16, Khasawneh teaches a method for controlling a steering actuator in an electric power steering (EPS) system of a vehicle, comprising: determining a pinion angle, a pinion angular velocity and a pinion torque (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 11); applying a sliding mode observer model to the EPS system and using the sliding mode observer model to simultaneously estimate: (a) parameters of a linear part representing nominal steering system behavior, and including at least an equivalent moment of inertia and an EPS system damping value; and a nonlinear part including an unknown nonlinear torque component defined as a difference between an actual, measured EPS system response and a response estimated by the linear part, wherein the unknown nonlinear torque component comprises at least a Coulomb friction torque and a self-aligning moment (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, and 11); and commanding the steering actuator to provide an output torque as a function of the estimated parameters of the linear part, the estimated nonlinear torque component, and an estimated state vector (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, and 11).
With respect to claim 17, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the linear part represents a linear approximation of steering dynamics of the EPS system and is a function of the pinion angle, the pinion angle velocity, and the pinion torque, and includes parameters corresponding to the equivalent moment of inertia and the EPS system damping value that are estimated by the sliding mode observer model (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 11, and 16).
With respect to claim 18, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 17 wherein the sliding mode observer model determines the Coulomb friction torque and the self-aligning moment by reconstructing unknown nonlinear dynamics of the EPS system, wherein the linear part of the sliding mode observer model includes an estimated linear dynamic model that uses the pinion angle, the pinion angular velocity, and the pinion torque, wherein an output estimation error is computed as a difference between the actual EPS system response and the response predicted by the estimated linear dynamic model, wherein a sliding mode correction factor is determined as a function of the output estimation error, a sliding mode gain, and a stability based weighting derived from an observer stability condition, wherein the sliding mode correction factor is processed through an averaging or filtering operation to reconstruct an estimate of an unknown nonlinear term representing the reconstructed nonlinear dynamics, and wherein the reconstructed nonlinear dynamics correspond to the Coulomb friction torque and the self-aligning moment acting on the EPS system [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “wherein the sliding mode observer model determines the Coulomb friction torque and the self-aligning moment by reconstructing unknown nonlinear dynamics of the EPS system, wherein the linear part of the sliding mode observer model includes an estimated linear dynamic model that uses the pinion angle, the pinion angular velocity, and the pinion torque, wherein an output estimation error is computed as a difference between the actual EPS system response and the response predicted by the estimated linear dynamic model, wherein a sliding mode correction factor is determined as a function of the output estimation error, a sliding mode gain, and a stability based weighting derived from an observer stability condition, wherein the sliding mode correction factor is processed through an averaging or filtering operation to reconstruct an estimate of an unknown nonlinear term representing the reconstructed nonlinear dynamics, and wherein the reconstructed nonlinear dynamics correspond to the Coulomb friction torque and the self-aligning moment acting on the EPS system” positively recites step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines any previously-introduced step of the claimed method, such that no part of “wherein the sliding mode observer model determines the Coulomb friction torque and the self-aligning moment by reconstructing unknown nonlinear dynamics of the EPS system, wherein the linear part of the sliding mode observer model includes an estimated linear dynamic model that uses the pinion angle, the pinion angular velocity, and the pinion torque, wherein an output estimation error is computed as a difference between the actual EPS system response and the response predicted by the estimated linear dynamic model, wherein a sliding mode correction factor is determined as a function of the output estimation error, a sliding mode gain, and a stability based weighting derived from an observer stability condition, wherein the sliding mode correction factor is processed through an averaging or filtering operation to reconstruct an estimate of an unknown nonlinear term representing the reconstructed nonlinear dynamics, and wherein the reconstructed nonlinear dynamics correspond to the Coulomb friction torque and the self-aligning moment acting on the EPS system” necessarily further limits the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation].
With respect to claim 19, Khasawneh teaches the method of claim 18 wherein the sliding mode gain is determined using a Kalman-Bucy filter [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “wherein the sliding mode gain is determined using a Kalman-Bucy filter” positively recites step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines any previously-introduced step of the claimed method, such that no part of “wherein the sliding mode gain is determined using a Kalman-Bucy filter” necessarily further limits the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation].
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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights