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 § 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim includes several “and/or” phrases, but some of the combinations do not seem possible based on the specification. For example, the limitation “wherein a control method for control of the motor is adapted when the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit fails” states that both sensors may fail at the same time. Then, later in the claim, the limitation “adding a damping component or a low-pass filter to a signal of the second sensor unit”. This is all in conjunction with the first sensor failing as well. Appropriate action is required.
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, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 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.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, 11, and 12, the Examiner asserts that some of the combinations do not allow the system to function as claimed. Furthermore, in some instances, it is unclear which limitations are parsed out by the “and/or” phrase.
Regarding claim 2, the use of several “and/or” phrases creates an issue where the claim could be read as “The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the second sensor [is] arranged on the controller”. The phrasing is confusing and unclear as to what is actually being claimed. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 3, the use of several “and/or” phrases creates an issue where it is unclear what is being claimed. For example, the phrase “a Hall sensor; and/or a rotation angle sensor, and/or” is vague and unclear and renders the claim as indefinite. The phrasing is confusing and unclear as to what is actually being claimed. Furthermore, if the sensors are to be different, there are situations where the language of the claim allows for the sensors to be of the same type and have the same method of detection. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "a first control unit" and "a second control unit" repeatedly throughout the claim. It is unclear whether or not these are the same or different control units. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "potentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a control rod" in line 2. It is unclear whether or not this is the same control rod as disclosed in claim 1. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “highly automated” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly automated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 11, the use of several “and/or” phrases creates an issue where the claim could be read as “The method according to claim 9, wherein the determination of the position of the control rod is carried out via an offset between measured values of the first sensor unit and the measured values of the second sensor unit parallel to the primary determining of the position of the control rod in order to provide a determination of the position of the control rod with only one sensor unit in the case of a failure of one of the first or second sensor units”. The phrasing is confusing and unclear as to what is actually being claimed. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what the phrase “to provide a determination of the position of the control rod with only one sensor unit in the case of a failure of one of the first or second sensor units” means. Is the “only one sensor unit” the same or different than the failed sensor unit? Appropriate action is required.
The term “higher-level” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher-level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokumoto et al US 2003/0217607 in view of Nakatsu US 2010/0004823 and Lindenmayr et al US 2022/0355863.
Regarding claim 1, Tokumoto et al discloses a drive unit (see FIG. 2) for a wheel actuator of a steer-by-wire system 1 for a vehicle, the drive unit comprising: a motor 24 to provide drive power to a control rod 13 of the wheel actuator (see FIG. 2); a sensor (A-F) to determine a position of the control rod, the sensor having a first sensor unit C and at least one second sensor unit D, the first sensor unit designed to detect an angle of a rotor shaft of the motor, and the second sensor unit designed to detect an angle of an auxiliary shaft that is arranged in a mechanical operative connection to the rotor shaft (see paragraphs [0051]-[0061]); and a controller (10, 17, 19, and 22) to actuate the sensor and/or to determine a position of the control rod of the wheel actuator. See FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0072]-[0088].
Tokumoto et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Nakatsu discloses a transmission 20 to provide a mechanical operative connection between the rotor shaft and the auxiliary shaft. See FIG. 1 and 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a transmission as disclosed by Nakatsu in the system of Tokumoto et al as transmissions are well-known, typical, and conventionally used in the art.
Tokumoto et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Lindenmayr et al discloses wherein the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit use different measuring principles. See at least paragraph [0004] and claims 11 and 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include inductive sensors as disclosed by Lindenmayr et al in the system of Tokumoto et al as the different sensors are well-known, typical, and conventionally used in the art and it is merely design choice on which types of sensors to use in the application.
Regarding claim 2, Tokumoto et al discloses wherein the first sensor unit has a first signal generator that is connected to the rotor shaft in a rotationally fixed manner, and has a first sensor that, when viewed axially, is arranged on a face end in front of the rotor shaft and opposite the first signal generator, and/or wherein the second sensor unit has a second signal generator that is connected to the auxiliary shaft in a rotationally fixed manner, and has a second sensor that, when viewed axially, is arranged on the face end in front of the auxiliary shaft and opposite the second signal generator, and/or wherein the first sensor and/or the second sensor are arranged on the controller. See FIG. 2.
Regarding claim 3, Tokumoto et al discloses wherein the first sensor unit has a higher resolution and/or signal quality than the second sensor unit, and/or wherein the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit each have at least one of the following sensors: an inductive sensor; a magnetoresistive sensor; a Hall sensor; and/or a rotation angle sensor, and/or wherein the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit each use at least one of the following measuring principles: electromechanical; magnetic; inductive; and/or optical. See paragraphs [0051]-[0061].
Regarding claim 4, Tokumoto et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Nakatsu discloses wherein the transmission has a main transmission element in the form of a gear (27, 36, 40), which is connected to the rotor shaft in a rotationally fixed manner and to which the first signal generator is attached, and/or wherein the transmission has at least one auxiliary transmission element in the form of a gear, which is connected to the auxiliary shaft in a rotationally fixed manner and to which the second signal generator is attached. See FIG. 1-3.
Regarding claim 5, Tokumoto et al discloses wherein the controller has a first control unit and a second control unit, and/or wherein the first sensor unit has at least one channel to a first control unit and at least one channel to a second control unit, and/or wherein the second sensor unit has at least one channel to a first control unit and potentially a channel to a second control unit. See FIG. 1.
Regarding claim 6, Tokumoto et al discloses a wheel actuator for a steer-by-wire system of a vehicle, comprising: a control rod to implement a steering command; and the drive unit according to claim 1 to provide drive power to the control rod in order to implement the steering command. See FIG. 2 and paragraphs [0086]-[0095].
Regarding claim 7, Tokumoto et al discloses a steer-by-wire system for a vehicle with a wheel actuator according to claim 6. See FIG. 2 and paragraphs [0086]-[0095].
Regarding claim 8, Tokumoto et al discloses vehicle, in particular a highly automated and/or autonomously driven vehicle, with a steer-by-wire system according to claim 7. See FIG. 2 and paragraphs [0086]-[0095].
Regarding claim 9, Tokumoto et al discloses method to determine a position of a control rod of a wheel actuator via a drive unit according to claim 1, the method comprising: detecting, via the first sensor unit, the angle of the rotor shaft of the motor (see paragraphs [0039]-[0044]); detecting, via the second sensor unit, the angle of the auxiliary shaft (see paragraphs [0052]-[0056]); and determining a position of the control rod of the wheel actuator via measured values from the first sensor unit and/or with via measured values from the second sensor unit. See FIG. 5.
Regarding claim 10, Tokumoto et al discloses wherein the measured values from the first sensor unit are used to validate the measured values from the second sensor unit. See FIG. 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 11, Tokumoto et al discloses wherein available measured values from the first sensor unit and/or available measured values from the second sensor unit are combined in order to determine the position of the control rod of the wheel actuator, and/or wherein an offset between measured values of the first sensor unit and the measured values of the second sensor unit are determined at a startup of the vehicle in order to be able to continue to carry out a determination of the position of the control rod with only one sensor unit in the case of a failure of one of the first or second sensor unit, and/or wherein the determination of the position of the control rod is carried out via an offset between measured values of the first sensor unit and the measured values of the second sensor unit parallel to the primary determining of the position of the control rod in order to provide a determination of the position of the control rod with only one sensor unit in the case of a failure of one of the first or second sensor units. See claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, Tokumoto et al discloses wherein a control method for control of the motor is adapted when the first sensor unit and/or the second sensor unit fails, wherein at least one of the following actions is carried out when the first sensor unit fails: reduction of a dynamic response for a higher-level control or a control of the position of the control rod; adding a damping component or a low-pass filter to a signal of the second sensor unit; limiting gradients and/or amplitudes of a signal for a target position of the control rod; and/or adapting control parameters for control of the motor and/or for control of the position of the control rod. See FIG. 5 and 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J DALLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4844. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-7pm ET M-Th.
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.
/JOSEPH J DALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747