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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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 7 and 16 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how .
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
The only recitation of the limitations is within the claims themselves. There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.) In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in determining which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
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, 3-5, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klier et al. (US 2012/0095649 A1) hereinafter Klier.
Claim 1:
Klier discloses a method for calculating a handwheel angle associated with operation of a steering system of a vehicle, the method comprising: calculating a plurality of handwheel angles using a plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques; outputting, as results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, the plurality of handwheel angles; obtaining, using the results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, a combined handwheel angle output; and controlling at least one function of the steering system of the vehicle using the combined handwheel angle output. [¶¶22-27; Fig. 2, Items "SA.sub.mod", 215-233]
Claim 3:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Klier also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes (i) obtaining respective weights for each of the results and (ii) calculating the combined handwheel angle output using the respective weights. [¶¶23-24]
Claim 4:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Klier also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes averaging the results. [¶¶23-24, weighted average is still an average]
Claim 5:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Klier also discloses wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on a yaw rate of the vehicle. [¶22; Fig 2, 215]
Claim 10:
Klier discloses a system for calculating a handwheel angle associated with operation of a steering system of a vehicle, the system comprising: a processor configured to execute instructions stored in memory, wherein executing the instructions causes the processor to calculate a plurality of handwheel angles using a plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, output, as results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, the plurality of handwheel angles, obtain, using the results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, a combined handwheel angle output, and control at least one function of the steering system of the vehicle using the combined handwheel angle output. [¶¶22-27; Fig. 2, Items "SA.sub.mod", 215-233]
Claim 12:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Klier also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes (i) obtaining respective weights for each of the results and (ii) calculating the combined handwheel angle output using the respective weights. [¶¶23-24]
Claim 13:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Klier also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes averaging the results. [¶¶23-24, weighted average is still an average]
Claim 14:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Klier also discloses wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on a yaw rate of the vehicle. [¶22; Fig 2, 215]
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) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klier as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Tarum et al. (US 2018/0099695 A1) hereinafter Tarum '695 and Miccinilli et al (US 2019/0092380 A1) hereinafter Miccinilli.
Claim 2:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques includes two or more of a straight line driving calculation, a vehicle wheel speed vectoring calculation, and a pinion torque profiling calculation.
However, Tarum ‘695 does disclose wherein the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques includes two or more of a straight line driving calculation, a vehicle wheel speed vectoring calculation [¶44].
Further Miccinilli discloses a pinion torque profiling calculation. [¶44]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the pinion torque and angle determination of Tarum '695 to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier and Tarum ‘695 with the pinion torque and angle determination of Miccinilli to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim 11:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of respective handwheel techniques includes two or more of a straight line driving calculation, a vehicle wheel speed vectoring calculation, and a pinion torque profiling calculation.
However, Tarum ‘695 does disclose wherein the plurality of respective handwheel techniques includes two or more of a straight line driving calculation, a vehicle wheel speed vectoring calculation [¶44].
Further Miccinilli discloses a pinion torque profiling calculation. [¶44]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the pinion torque and angle determination of Tarum '695 to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier and Tarum ‘695 with the pinion torque and angle determination of Miccinilli to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klier as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Polack et al. (The Kinematic Bicycle Model: a Consistent Model for Planning Feasible Trajectories for Autonomous Vehicles?) hereinafter Polack.
Claim 6:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on distance between a wheel and a center of gravity of the vehicle.
However, Polack does disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on distance between a wheel and a center of gravity of the vehicle. [Page 2; Section E: MPC using a kinematic bicycle model; specifically equation 2d which shows yaw can be determined from velocity, distance from wheel to center of gravity and slip angle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the yaw calculation of Polack to provide a variable which can be used to determine a handwheel angle.
Claim 15:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on distance between a wheel and a center of gravity of the vehicle.
However, Polack does disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on distance between a wheel and a center of gravity of the vehicle. [Page 2; Section E: MPC using a kinematic bicycle model; specifically equation 2d which shows yaw can be determined from velocity, distance from wheel to center of gravity and slip angle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the yaw calculation of Polack to provide a variable which can be used to determine a handwheel angle.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klier as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (Hand-wheel steering signal estimation and diagnosis approaches for ground vehicles) hereinafter Feng.
Claim 7:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on front steer rate of the vehicle.
However, Feng does disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on front steer rate of the vehicle. [Page 656; Section 2.2: Hand-wheel steering angle input observer; incorporates steering angle rate of change to determine an estimated vehicle hand wheel steering angle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the handwheel angle estimate of Feng to provide a variable which can be used to determine a handwheel angle.
Claim 16:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on front steer rate of the vehicle.
However, Feng does disclose wherein calculating the plurality of handwheel angles includes calculating at least a first handwheel angle of the plurality of handwheel angles based on front steer rate of the vehicle. [Page 656; Section 2.2: Hand-wheel steering angle input observer; incorporates steering angle rate of change to determine an estimated vehicle hand wheel steering angle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the handwheel angle estimate of Feng to provide a variable which can be used to determine a handwheel angle.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klier as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Tarum et al. (US 2016/0137225 A1) hereinafter Tarum ‘225.
Claim 8:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes obtaining the combined handwheel angle output based on an input from a motor sensor turns counter.
However, Tarum ‘225 does disclose wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes obtaining the combined handwheel angle output based on an input from a motor sensor turns counter. [¶¶25-27]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the handwheel angle calculation of Tarum '225 to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim 17:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes obtaining the combined handwheel angle output based on an input from a motor sensor turns counter.
However, Tarum ‘225 does disclose wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes obtaining the combined handwheel angle output based on an input from a motor sensor turns counter. [¶¶25-27]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the handwheel angle calculation of Tarum '225 to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klier as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Tarum et al. (US 2018/0099695 A1) hereinafter Tarum ‘695.
Claim 9:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one function of the steering system includes a driver assistance function.
However, Tarum ‘695 does disclose wherein the at least one function of the steering system includes a driver assistance function. [¶2]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the parking assist of Tarum '695 to utilize the electronic power steering to enhance driver comfort by making it easier to park a vehicle.
Claim 18:
Klier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one function of the steering system includes a driver assistance function.
However, Tarum ‘695 does disclose wherein the at least one function of the steering system includes a driver assistance function. [¶2]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the parking assist of Tarum '695 to utilize the electronic power steering to enhance driver comfort by making it easier to park a vehicle.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klier, Tarum '695, and Miccinilli.
Claim 19:
Klier discloses a system for calculating a handwheel angle associated with operation of a steering system of a vehicle, the system comprising: a handwheel actuator configured to calculate a plurality of handwheel angles using a plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, [¶¶16, 22-27; Fig. 2, Items "SA.sub.mod", 215-233] output, as results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, the plurality of handwheel angles,obtain, using the results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, a combined handwheel angle output by combining the results of the plurality of respective handwheel angle calculation techniques, and control at least one function of the steering system of the vehicle using the combined handwheel angle output. [¶¶16, 22-27; Fig. 2, Items "SA.sub.mod", 215-233]
Klier doesn’t explicitly disclose the respective handwheel angle calculation techniques including two or more of a straight line driving calculation, a vehicle wheel speed vectoring calculation, and a pinion torque profiling calculation.
However, Tarum ‘695 does disclose the respective handwheel angle calculation techniques including two or more of a straight line driving calculation, a vehicle wheel speed vectoring calculation [¶44].
Further, Miccinilli discloses a pinion torque profiling calculation [¶44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier with the pinion torque and angle determination of Tarum '695 to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handwheel determination of Klier and Tarum ‘695 with the pinion torque and angle determination of Miccinilli to provide an additional/redundant means of determining the angle based on available information thus reducing the need for an additional sensor while increasing reliability.
Claim 20:
Klier, Tarum ‘695, and Miccinilli as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 19.
Klier also discloses wherein obtaining the combined handwheel angle output includes at least one of averaging the results, calculating a weighted average of the results, and omitting one or more of the results. [¶¶23-24, the weights could be set to zero which would be the equivalent of omitting a result]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (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 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747