Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/018,543

DEVICE FOR AND METHOD OF REDUCING VIBRATION IN STEERING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 13, 2025
Examiner
BRAUCH, CHARLES JOSEPH
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
968 granted / 1185 resolved
+11.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1217
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1185 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 102 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) 1-2, 7-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Naik reference (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0308661). 4. Regarding claim 1, the Naik reference discloses: a device (300) for reducing vibration in a steering system [Abstract], the device (300) comprising: a filter (326) configured to be positioned at an input terminal (FIG. 3) of a boost circuit (320) and filter an input torque input (302 via 318) to the input terminal of the boost circuit (320) (FIG. 3); a speed sensor (308); and a processor (612) configured to control an operation of the filter (326) to reduce vibration [Abstract] and vary a type of the filter based on vehicle speed measured by the speed sensor (Claim 1). 5. Regarding claim 2, the Naik reference further discloses: wherein the filter includes an nth-order filter or a frequency filter for external resonance [Paragraph 0038]. 6. Regarding claim 7, the Naik reference further discloses: wherein the input torque includes vibration components generated from at least one of driver torque [Paragraph 0013] and disturbances transmitted through a shaft transmission system [Paragraph 0017]. 7. Regarding claim 8, the Naik reference further discloses: a method of reducing vibration in a steering system of a vehicle (FIG. 3), the method comprising: varying (Claim 1), by a processor (612), a type of a filter (326) positioned at an input terminal (FIG. 3) of a boost circuit (320) based on vehicle speed (Claim 1) measured by a speed sensor (308); and filtering (326), by the processor (612), an input torque input to the input terminal of the boost circuit using the filter (326) (FIG. 3). 8. Regarding claim 13, the Naik reference further discloses: wherein the input torque includes vibration components generated from at least one of driver torque [Paragraph 0013] and disturbances transmitted through a shaft transmission system [Paragraph 0017]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 9. 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. 10. Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Naik reference. 11. Regarding claim 3, the Naik reference further discloses: wherein the processor (612) is configured to use the nth-order filter [Paragraph 0038] to reduce ripple-related order vibration components from the input torque (FIG. 3). The Naik reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Naik reference fails to disclose when determining that the vehicle is stationary based on the vehicle speed measured by the speed sensor. This would be obvious to try. The vehicle would either be stationary or moving which is two finite possibilities with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, this claim is obvious over the prior art reference. 12. Regarding claim 5, the Naik reference further discloses: wherein the processor (612) is configured to use the frequency filter [Paragraph 0040] to reduce resonant vibration components in an external transmission system from the input torque (FIG. 3). The Naik reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Naik reference fails to disclose when determining that the vehicle is in motion based on the vehicle speed measured by the speed sensor. This would be obvious to try. The vehicle would either be stationary or moving which is two finite possibilities with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, this claim is obvious over the prior art reference. 13. Regarding claim 6, the Naik reference further discloses: and use the frequency filter for external resonance [Paragraph 0040]. The Naik reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Naik reference fails to disclose configured to determine that the vehicle is in motion at creep speeds when the vehicle speed is greater than 0 km/h and less than or equal to 10 km/h. This would be obvious to try. The vehicle would either be travelling at these speeds or not which is two finite possibilities with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, this claim is obvious over the prior art reference. 14. Regarding claim 9, the Naik reference further discloses: wherein the filtering includes using an nth-order filter [Paragraph 0038] to reduce ripple-related order vibration components from the input torque (FIG. 3). The Naik reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Naik reference fails to disclose when determining, by the processor, whether the vehicle is stationary based on the vehicle speed measured by the speed sensor. This would be obvious to try. The vehicle would either be stationary or moving which is two finite possibilities with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, this claim is obvious over the prior art reference. 15. Regarding claim 11, the Naik reference further discloses: wherein the processor (612) is configured to use the frequency filter [Paragraph 0040] to reduce resonant vibration components in an external transmission system from the input torque (FIG. 3). The Naik reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Naik reference fails to disclose when determining that the vehicle is in motion based on the vehicle speed measured by the speed sensor. This would be obvious to try. The vehicle would either be stationary or moving which is two finite possibilities with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, this claim is obvious over the prior art reference. 16. Regarding claim 12, the Naik reference further discloses: and use the frequency filter for external resonance [Paragraph 0040]. The Naik reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed. However, the Naik reference fails to disclose configured to determine that the vehicle is in motion at creep speeds when the vehicle speed is greater than 0 km/h and less than or equal to 10 km/h. This would be obvious to try. The vehicle would either be travelling at these speeds or not which is two finite possibilities with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, this claim is obvious over the prior art reference. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 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. /CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/ Examiner Art Unit 3747 /LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 13, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600330
Sensor assembly for a vehicle and multi-circuit braking system
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600392
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600365
DETERMINATION OF VALUE REPRESENTATIVE OF AGGRESSIVENESS IN OPERATION OF A TRANSPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583512
CONTROL DEVICE, ELECTRIC POWER STEERING DEVICE, AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559107
RANGE PREDICTION FOR VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1185 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month