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 boost circuit (320—includes the boost module 322 and 324 and filter 326 and product block so can be interpreted as boost circuit) including an input terminal (FIG. 3—leaving 318) and an output terminal (329);
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),
wherein the boost circuit (320) is configured to boost (328) the filtered input torque (302) based on boosting logic [Paragraph 0037] and output a boosted torque (328) at the output terminal (329).
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): and
boosting, by the boost circuit (320), the filtered input torque (302) based on boosting logic [Paragraph 0037], and outputting a boosted torque (328) at an output terminal (329) of the boost circuit (320).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that item 320 of the cited reference is not a boost circuit. The Office is free to interpret the cited references in a logical manner. The item 320 includes parts such as 322 the boost module which could indicate that naming it a boost circuit is appropriate. The rest of the rejection follows from there as highlighted in the above rejections. Accordingly, all claims are finally rejected.
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 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
Prosecution Insights