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 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: “assist torque command value calculation unit,” “axial force torque calculation unit” and “limiting processing unit” introduced 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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation(s): assist torque command value calculation unit 82 and axial force torque calculation unit 83 correspond to a controller or one or more hardware circuits either with one or more processors and a memory [see specification paragraphs 0039, 0044-0045 and Figures 2-3] and limiting processing unit 66 corresponds to another controller or a separate one or more hardware circuits either with one or more processors and a memory [see specification paragraphs 0039, 0044-0045, 0050, as shown in Figure 2].
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 2-4 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 2 recites the limitation "the limiting process" in line 6. Claim 2 recites “a limiting process…the limiting process includes a plurality of limiting processes.” Thus, it is unclear if “the limiting process” of line 6 is referring to all of the plurality of limiting processes or one of the plurality of limiting processes. For example, in the first interpretation switching the limiting process may include switching to a process without different modes for the first state variable whereas the second interpretation involves switching to a process having different options or modes for limiting the first state variable. For the purposes of examination, claim 2 is being interpreted such that it reads “the limiting processing unit is configured to switch one of the plurality of limiting processes to be executed according to a content of the event.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0283059) in view of Ogawa (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0211618).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kodera discloses a steering control device, comprising:
an assist torque command value calculation unit (81);
an axial force torque calculation unit (82);
a calculator (83), wherein:
the steering control device (1) is configured to control electric power supply to a reaction force motor (13) configured to generate a steering reaction force applied to a steering wheel (3) in which power transmission to turning wheels (5) of a vehicle is separated, based on a reaction force torque command value (Ts*) calculated according to a steering state of the steering wheel [0003: “A steer-by-wire steering system in which power transmission to and from a steering unit that is steered by a driver is separated from power transmission to and from a steered unit that steers steered wheels according to the steering operation by the driver is known as a type of steering system. In such a steering system, a road surface reaction force…applied to the steered wheels is not mechanically transmitted to the steering wheel. Accordingly, some steering control devices that control this type of steering system transmit road surface information to the driver by applying a steering reaction force generated in consideration of the road surface reaction force…from a steering-side actuator to the steering wheel”] [0024: “The steering-side motor 13 is a driving source…the steering-side motor 13 applies its motor torque as the steering reaction force”] [0029: “The torque sensor 41 detects steering torque Th applied to the steering shaft 11,” as shown in Figure 1 the steering torque Th is a first state variable reflecting the steering state of the steering wheel] [0039: “The target reaction torque calculation unit 62 receives the steering torque Th…The target reaction torque calculation unit 62 calculates the target reaction torque Ts* based on these state quantities as described later and outputs the calculated target reaction torque Ts* to the steering-side motor control signal calculation unit 63”];
control electric power supply to a turning motor (32) configured to generate a turning force for turning the turning wheels, based on a turning torque command value (Tt*) calculated according to the steering state of the steering wheel [0026, 0037: “The steered unit 6 further includes a steered-side actuator 31 that applies to the rack shaft 22 a steered force that steers the steered wheels 5…the steered-side motor 32 applies its motor torque as the steered force,” as shown in Figure 2 the turning torque command value is calculated according to at least the steering angle ϴh of the steering wheel 3],
the assist torque command value calculation unit is configured to calculate an assist torque command value (Tb) that is a torque in the same direction as a steering direction of the steering wheel based on a first state variable (Th) reflecting the steering state of the steering wheel, wherein the first state variable is a steering torque applied to the steering wheel [0027: “in the steering system 2, steering torque Th necessary to steer the steering wheel 3 is changed by the steering reaction force”] [0050-0051: “The input torque basic component calculation unit 81 calculates an input torque basic component Tb that is a force for rotating the steering wheel 3 in the direction of steering by the driver…the input torque basic component calculation unit 81 receives the steering torque Th. The input torque basic component calculation unit 81 calculates the input torque basic component Tb that has a larger absolute value as the absolute value of the steering torque Th increases”];
the axial force torque calculation unit is configured to calculate an axial force acting on a turning shaft (22) configured to turn the turning wheels based on a second state variable (Iqt or ϴp) reflecting a turning state of the turning wheels, and calculate an axial force torque (Fir) by converting the calculated axial force into a torque with respect to the steering wheel, wherein the second state variable is at least one of a current of the turning motor and a target rotation angle of a pinion shaft (21) that is rotated in conjunction with the turning shaft [0036: “The steering-side control unit 51 receives…a steered corresponding angle ϴp, and a q-axis current value Iqt. The steered corresponding angle ϴp is the rotation angle of the pinion shaft 21 described later. The q-axis current value Iqt is the drive current for the steered-side motor 32”] [0054: “The reaction force component calculation unit 82 includes an angle axial force calculation unit 91 that calculates an angle axial force Fib, and a current axial force calculation unit 92 that calculates a current axial force Fer. The angle axial force Fib and the current axial force Fer are calculated by the dimension of torque (N·m). The reaction force component calculation unit 82 further includes a distributed axial force calculation unit 93. The distributed axial force calculation unit 93 calculates, as the reaction force component Fir, a distributed axial force by adding the angle axial force Fib and the current axial force Fer at individually set distribution ratios such that an axial force applied from the road surface to the steered wheels 5, namely road surface information transmitted from the road surface, is reflected”];
the calculator is configured to calculate the reaction force torque command value by subtracting the axial force torque from the assist torque command value [0052-0053: “The reaction force component Fir thus calculated is output to the subtractor 83. The subtractor 83 subtracts the reaction force component Fir from the input torque basic component Tb, and the target reaction torque calculation unit 62 outputs the subtraction result as the target reaction torque Ts*”].
Kodera does not disclose a limiting processing unit, the limiting processing unit is configured to limit the first stage variable or the assist torque command value in a case where an event in which an output of the turning motor is limited occurs.
Ogawa discloses a steer-by-wire system (Title) comprising a limiting processing unit (20), the limiting processing unit is configured to increase an axial force torque (steering reaction force) in a case where an event in which an output of a turning motor (33) is limited occurs [0022: “it is checked at step S2 whether or not the drive electric current to the steering actuator 33 has been limited or restrained…When the answer at step S2 is YES because the drive electric current to the steering actuator 33 has been restrained, the steering reaction force is increased at step S3 by adding a predetermined additional force to the steering reaction force determined at step S1,” as shown in Figure 2].
By increasing the axial force torque, the calculator disclosed by Kodera reduces or limits the assist torque command value because the calculator subtracts the value of the axial force torque from the assist torque command value. Ogawa teaches that it is known in the art of steer-by-wire systems to limit the output of the turning motor to prevent overheating of the motor when the vehicle wheels are turned to an excessive degree where they can no longer be steered [0006]. Ogawa teaches that by increasing the axial force torque (steering reaction force) when the output of the turning motor is limited prevents the steering wheel from being turned excessively [0007-0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the limiting processing unit disclosed by Ogawa with the control device disclosed by Kodera so that the axial torque force is increased and the assist torque command value is reduced in the event that the output of the turning motor is limited to prevent the steering wheel from being turned excessively.
Claim(s) 2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0283059) in view of Ogawa (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0211618) and further in view of Mizutani (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0377347).
Regarding claim 2, Kodera, as modified by Ogawa, discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the limiting processing unit is configured to execute a limiting process of limiting the first state variable in a case where the event occurs; the limiting process includes a plurality of limiting processes having different limit modes for the first variable; and the limiting processing unit is configured to switch the limiting process to be executed according to a content of the event.
Mizutani discloses a steering control device comprising a limiting processing unit (6) configured to execute a limiting process of limiting the first state variable reflecting the steering state of the steering wheel (4) in a case where the event in which an output of a turning motor (51) is limited occurs [0063-0064: “When the estimated motor temperature t of the electric motor 51 is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature t0…the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to limit the available current I_max of the electric motor 51…Specifically, when not limiting the available current I_max of the electric motor 51, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to use a normal map shown in FIG. 8 as the performance map. When limiting the available current I_max of the electric motor 51, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to use first to third correction maps shown in FIGS. 9 to 11, in which output regions are updated differently from the normal map, as the performance map…In the first to third correction maps, the output regions are corrected such that the maximum value (upper limit) Tmax of the steering torque T_max on the output characteristic line is smaller than that in the normal map”];
the limiting process includes a plurality of limiting processes having different limit modes for the first state variable [0067: “When the available current I_max of the electric motor 51 is equal to or more than a first current I1_max, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to select the first correction map. When the available current I_max of the electric motor 51 is equal to or more than a second current I2_max and less than the first current I1_max, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to select the second correction map. When the available current I_max of the electric motor 51 is less than the second current I2_max, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to select the third correction map. The first current I1_max and the second current I2_max in FIG. 12 are examples”]; and
the limiting processing unit is configured to switch the limiting process to be executed according to a content of the event [0067].
Mizutani teaches that the “first, second, or third correction map in which the available current I_max decreases is selected such that an increase in the temperature of the electric motor 51 is significantly reduced or prevented, and hence it is possible to significantly reduce or prevent occurrence of a failure in the electric motor 51 due to high heat’ [0066].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the steering control device disclosed by Kodera, as modified by Ogawa, to limit the first state variable in response to limiting of the turning motor output in order to prevent an increase in the temperature of the turning motor that would cause failure due to excessive heat.
Regarding claim 5, Kodera, as modified by Ogawa, discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the turning motor is configured such that, in a case where the event occurs, the output of the turning motor is limited by limiting a current supplied to the turning motor by a predetermined limiting ratio and the limiting processing unit is configured to limit the assist torque command value by the same ratio as the predetermined limiting ratio in a case where the event occurs.
Mizutani discloses a steering control device comprising a limiting processing unit (6) and a turning motor (51), wherein the turning motor is configured such that, in a case where the event in which an output of the turning motor is limited occurs, the output of the turning motor is limited by limiting a current supplied to the turning motor by a predetermined limiting ratio. [0063-0064: “When the estimated motor temperature t of the electric motor 51 is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature t0…the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to limit the available current I_max of the electric motor 51…Specifically, when not limiting the available current I_max of the electric motor 51, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to use a normal map shown in FIG. 8 as the performance map. When limiting the available current I_max of the electric motor 51, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to use first to third correction maps shown in FIGS. 9 to 11, in which output regions are updated differently from the normal map, as the performance map…In the first to third correction maps, the output regions are corrected such that the maximum value (upper limit) Tmax of the steering torque T_max on the output characteristic line is smaller than that in the normal map”].
Kodera teaches that the first state variable is related to the assist torque command value by a directly proportional mathematical relationship [0051: “The input torque basic component calculation unit 81 calculates the input torque basic component Tb that has a larger absolute value as the absolute value of the steering torque Th increases”]. Furthermore, given that motor current is directly proportional to motor torque, the steering torque disclosed by Mizutani is limited by the same proportion as the output of the turning motor is limited.
Mizutani teaches that the “first, second, or third correction map in which the available current I_max decreases is selected such that an increase in the temperature of the electric motor 51 is significantly reduced or prevented, and hence it is possible to significantly reduce or prevent occurrence of a failure in the electric motor 51 due to high heat’ [0066].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the turning motor disclosed by Kodera to limit its output when the event occurs as disclosed by Ogawa, such that the assist torque command value is limited by the same predetermined limiting ratio as the turning motor output based on the inherent proportional relationship between the turning motor output and the steering torque and the proportional mapping disclosed by Kodera between the steering torque and the assist torque command value to prevent an increase in the temperature of the turning motor that would cause failure due to excessive heat.
Regarding claim 6, Kodera, as modified by Ogawa, discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the limiting processing unit is configured to, in a case where the event occurs, limit the assist torque command value based on a conversion map that specifies a relationship between the assist torque command value and the assist torque command value after the limiting.
Mizutani discloses a steering control device comprising a limiting processing unit (6) configured to execute a limiting process of limiting the first state variable reflecting the steering state of the steering wheel (4) in a case where the event in which an output of a turning motor (51) is limited occurs [0063-0064: “When the estimated motor temperature t of the electric motor 51 is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature t0…the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to limit the available current I_max of the electric motor 51…Specifically, when not limiting the available current I_max of the electric motor 51, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to use a normal map shown in FIG. 8 as the performance map. When limiting the available current I_max of the electric motor 51, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to use first to third correction maps shown in FIGS. 9 to 11, in which output regions are updated differently from the normal map, as the performance map…In the first to third correction maps, the output regions are corrected such that the maximum value (upper limit) Tmax of the steering torque T_max on the output characteristic line is smaller than that in the normal map”].
Kodera teaches that the first state variable is related to the assist torque command value by a directly proportional mathematical relationship [0051: “The input torque basic component calculation unit 81 calculates the input torque basic component Tb that has a larger absolute value as the absolute value of the steering torque Th increases”].
Mizutani teaches that the “first, second, or third correction map in which the available current I_max decreases is selected such that an increase in the temperature of the electric motor 51 is significantly reduced or prevented, and hence it is possible to significantly reduce or prevent occurrence of a failure in the electric motor 51 due to high heat’ [0066].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the steering control device disclosed by Kodera to limit the first state variable when the event occurs as disclosed by Ogawa, such that the assist torque command value after the limiting is limited when compared to the value before the limiting according to the proportional mapping disclosed by Kodera to prevent an increase in the temperature of the turning motor that would cause failure due to excessive heat.
Regarding claim 7, Kodera, as modified by Ogawa, discloses the device of claim 1 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the limiting processing unit is configured to, in a case where the event occurs, limit the assist torque command value based on a conversion map that specifies a relationship between the first state variable and the assist torque command value after the limiting.
Mizutani discloses a steering control device comprising a limiting processing unit (6) configured to execute a limiting process of limiting the first state variable reflecting the steering state of the steering wheel (4) in a case where the event in which an output of a turning motor (51) is limited occurs [0063-0064: “When the estimated motor temperature t of the electric motor 51 is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature t0…the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to limit the available current I_max of the electric motor 51…Specifically, when not limiting the available current I_max of the electric motor 51, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to use a normal map shown in FIG. 8 as the performance map. When limiting the available current I_max of the electric motor 51, the ECU 6 is configured or programmed to use first to third correction maps shown in FIGS. 9 to 11, in which output regions are updated differently from the normal map, as the performance map…In the first to third correction maps, the output regions are corrected such that the maximum value (upper limit) Tmax of the steering torque T_max on the output characteristic line is smaller than that in the normal map”].
Kodera teaches that the first state variable is related to the assist torque command value by a directly proportional mathematical relationship [0051: “The input torque basic component calculation unit 81 calculates the input torque basic component Tb that has a larger absolute value as the absolute value of the steering torque Th increases”].
Mizutani teaches that the “first, second, or third correction map in which the available current I_max decreases is selected such that an increase in the temperature of the electric motor 51 is significantly reduced or prevented, and hence it is possible to significantly reduce or prevent occurrence of a failure in the electric motor 51 due to high heat’ [0066].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the steering control device disclosed by Kodera to limit the first state variable when the event occurs as disclosed by Ogawa, such that the assist torque command value is limited according to the proportional mapping disclosed by Kodera to prevent an increase in the temperature of the turning motor that would cause failure due to excessive heat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8215. The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571) 272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-
direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA CAMPBELL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747