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 § 103
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 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) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapis et al. WO 2019185462 A1 (hereinafter Lapis) and Hultén et al. US 20190047618 A1 (hereinafter Hultén) and Bergmann US 20230311981 A1 (hereinafter Bergmann).
Regarding claims 1 and 11,
Lapis teaches
A steering system for a vehicle (Abstract “vehicle”), comprising:
a steering angle actuator configured to detect a steering request (hand wheel actuator assembly shown in Figure 1; see also ¶ 0047 regarding assembly components and detecting user input);
and a steering actuator configured to move steered wheels of the vehicle (road wheel actuator assembly shown in Figure 1; see also ¶ 0047 regarding assembly components and steering control),
wherein, in response to a failure of the steering actuator (¶ 0062 discloses steering control in event of front wheel steering failure), the steering system is configured to:
provide lateral control of the vehicle via at least one of a brake (¶ 0064 discloses adjusting rear wheel braking to provide steering), a drive (¶ 0064 discloses adjusting rear wheel drive force to provide steering), and a rear axle steering system of the vehicle (¶ 0061 discloses performing independent rear wheel steering on the rear axle); and
detecting a deviation between the steering request and a steering movement achieved by the lateral control (¶ 0064 discloses determining if the actual yaw rate is smaller or greater than the target yaw rate and adjusting steering in relation to the difference).
Lapis does not teach
reporting the deviation back to a driver via the steering angle actuator.
Hultén teaches
detecting a deviation between the steering request and a steering movement achieved by the lateral control (¶ 0103 discloses determining a yaw deviation and a lateral state deviation); and
reporting the deviation back to a driver via the steering angle actuator (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque to the driver based on the deviations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Lapis to incorporate the teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a yaw rate deviation of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Lapis does not teach that
the steering angle actuator being movable up to an end stop, the method further comprising:
reporting reaching the end stop back to the driver with an end stop torque set via the steering angle actuator, the end stop torque being adjusting depending on the deviation.
Bergmann teaches
the steering angle actuator being movable up to an end stop (¶ 0021 discloses the steering wheel position approaching a virtual end stop), the method further comprising:
reporting reaching the end stop back to the driver with an end stop torque set via the steering angle actuator (¶ 0011 discloses providing an end stop damping torque; see also Abstract), the end stop torque being adjusting depending on the deviation (¶ 0047 discloses end stop torque is dependent on degree of oversteering).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the teachings of Bergmann such that an end stop torque can be provided based on a degree of oversteer detected as taught by Bergmann. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to avoid oversteer caused by operator steering as disclosed in Bergmann (¶ 0021).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches that
the carrying out the lateral control of the vehicle is based on sensor information that describes driving dynamics of the vehicle (¶ 0028 disclose measuring actual yaw rate implying existence of a sensor to perform this measurement indirectly or directly; see ¶ 0058-0065 regarding control based on actual yaw rate).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 2 and 12 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches that
the sensor information that describes the driving dynamics of the vehicle is based on a yaw rate (¶ 0028 disclose measuring actual yaw rate) and/or a lateral acceleration.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the detecting the deviation includes detecting at least one of (i) a first deviation between a target yaw rate of the vehicle defined by the steering request and a yaw rate achieved by the lateral control and/or (ii) a second deviation between a target lateral acceleration of the vehicle defined by the steering request and a lateral acceleration achieved by the lateral control.
Hultén further teaches that
the detecting the deviation includes detecting a first deviation between a target yaw rate of the vehicle defined by the steering request and a yaw rate achieved by the lateral control (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque based on deviation between actual and target yaw; see also ¶ 0105 where yaw data includes yaw rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that determination of steering deviation such as oversteer can be fed back to the driver based on a yaw deviation determination as taught by Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the reporting the deviation back to the driver includes feeding back the deviation to the steering angle actuator via a first artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator.
Hultén further teaches that
the reporting the deviation back to the driver includes feeding back the deviation to the steering angle actuator via a first artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque to the driver based on the deviations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a yaw rate deviation of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claims 7 and 17 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the first artificial excitation is a vibration of the steering angle actuator.
Hultén further teaches that
the first artificial excitation is a vibration of the steering angle actuator (¶ 130 discloses feedback is a vibration signal added to steering wheel torque).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a yaw rate deviation of Lapis, vibration steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches
The vehicle comprising:
the steering system according to claim 11 (Abstract and Figures 1-2);
the steered wheels (road wheel actuator assembly shown in Figure 1); and
the at least one of the brake (¶ 0064 discloses rear wheel braking), the drive (¶ 0064 discloses rear wheel drive force to provide steering), and the rear axle steering system of the vehicle (¶ 0061 discloses independent rear wheel steering on the rear axle).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapis, Hultén, and Bergmann as applied to claims 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Allan et al. US 12509138 B2 (hereinafter Allan).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claim 7 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches that
the steering actuator comprises a rack for moving the steered wheels (Figure 1 rack 13; see also ¶ 0047 regarding steering with the rack), and a steering movement provided by the steering actuator is fed back by a second artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (¶ 0047 discloses feedback to the operator to simulate road feedback based on driving behavior of the vehicle).
Lapis does not teach
a steering movement provided by the steering actuator is fed back by a second artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator, which is determined depending on a variable of a rack force or a rack torque provided by the steering actuator.
Allan teaches
a steering movement provided by the steering actuator is fed back by a second artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (Abstract discloses providing a feedback signal to the steering wheel; see also col. 5 lines 25-32 regarding example feedback including steering wheel vibration), which is determined depending on a variable of a rack force or a rack torque provided by the steering actuator (col. 5 lines 21-24 disclose feedback parameters include rack force).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the teachings of Allan such that during normal, faultless, operation of Lapis, a rack force can be utilized for applying a steering wheel feedback in accordance with Allan. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an increased steering and performance feel for the driver as disclosed in Allan (col. 5 lines 33-46).
Lapis does not teach
in response to the failure of the steering actuator, determining a replacement variable for the variable as a function of sensor information which describes driving dynamics of the vehicle;
and determining the first artificial excitation as a function of the replacement variable.
Hultén further teaches
in response to the failure of the steering actuator (¶ 0031 discloses that appropriate steering feedback is required in intervention control such as an intervention for oversteering; examiner understands this condition as one example of a failure condition), determining a replacement variable for the variable as a function of sensor information which describes driving dynamics of the vehicle (Figure 2 shows determining lateral state deviation 260 based on sensor data 210 and feeding that into a steering feedback controller 280; see also ¶ 0103);
and determining the first artificial excitation as a function of the replacement variable (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque based on determined deviation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a front steering failure of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claim 9 as detailed above.
Lapis does not teach that
the determining of the replacement variable for the variable is based on a yaw rate and/or a lateral acceleration.
Hultén further teaches that
the determining of the replacement variable for the variable is based on a yaw rate (¶ 103 discloses determining steering feedback based on yaw deviation; see also ¶ 0105 wherein yaw data includes yaw rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a front steering failure of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Lapis reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lapis further teaches that
the steering actuator comprises a rack for moving the steered wheels (Figure 1 rack 13; see also ¶ 0047 regarding steering with the rack),
the steering system is further configured to report back a steering movement provided by the steering actuator via an artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (¶ 0047 discloses feedback to the operator to simulate road feedback based on driving behavior of the vehicle)
Lapis does not teach that
the steering system is further configured to report back a steering movement provided by the steering actuator via an artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator which is determined as a function of a variable of a rack force or a rack torque provided by the steering actuator.
Allan teaches that
the steering system is further configured to report back a steering movement provided by the steering actuator via an artificial excitation of the steering angle actuator (Abstract discloses providing a feedback signal to the steering wheel; see also col. 5 lines 25-32 regarding example feedback including steering wheel vibration) which is determined as a function of a variable of a rack force or a rack torque provided by the steering actuator (col. 5 lines 21-24 disclose feedback parameters include rack force).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the teachings of Allan such that during normal, faultless, operation of Lapis, a rack force can be utilized for applying a steering wheel feedback in accordance with Allan. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an increased steering and performance feel for the driver as disclosed in Allan (col. 5 lines 33-46).
Lapis does not teach that
in response to the failure of the steering actuator, the steering system is further configured to determine a replacement variable for the variable as a function of sensor information describing driving dynamics of the vehicle and to determine the artificial excitation as a function of the replacement variable.
Hultén further teaches that
in response to the failure of the steering actuator (¶ 0031 discloses that appropriate steering feedback is required in intervention control such as an intervention for oversteering; examiner understands this condition as one example of a failure condition), the steering system is further configured to determine a replacement variable for the variable as a function of sensor information describing driving dynamics of the vehicle (Figure 2 shows determining lateral state deviation 260 based on sensor data 210 and feeding that into a steering feedback controller 280; see also ¶ 0103) and to determine the artificial excitation as a function of the replacement variable (¶ 0103 discloses providing steering feedback torque based on determined deviation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lapis to incorporate the further teachings of Hultén such that following the determination of a front steering failure of Lapis, steering feedback can be provided to the operator as detailed in Hultén. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good feedback to a driver during a steering intervention to improve driver awareness of the intervention as disclosed by Hultén (¶ 0031 and 0035).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6 and 16 contain the allowable subject matter detailed in Office Action dated 4/27/2026.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 7/23/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/27/2026. These/this objections and rejections have/has been withdrawn.
Specification amendments filed 7/23/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the title objection of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/27/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Drawing amendments filed 7/23/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/27/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 in view of Lapis and Hultén have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lapis as modified by Hultén and Bergmann.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bergmann does not make up for the deficiencies in Lapis and Hultén in teaching “the end stop torque being adjusting depending on the deviation” as amended in at least claim 1. Specifically, applicant argues that “Bergmann's "degree of oversteering" is not analogous to the recited "deviation," i.e., a deviation between the steering request and a steering movement achieved by the lateral control carried out in response to a failure of the steering actuator. Particularly, as best understood, Bergmann defines "oversteering" as a steering angle beyond the maximum steering angle, i.e., the driver attempting to deflect the steering wheel past the end stop”. While examiner partially agrees in the fact that Bergmann primarily utilizes oversteering to mean an oversteering beyond a maximum steering angle, examiner contends that Bergmann contemplates oversteering to mean significantly more than just steering past an end stop. For example, ¶ 0012 of Bergmann reads as follows:
“Because oversteering is prevented, transmission ratio errors between the steering angle of the steering wheel and the wheel steering angle are avoided. The maximum steering angle corresponds here to a maximum deflection of a servomotor on the front axle. Oversteering beyond the maximum steering angle is disadvantageous in particular because undesired reactions can occur, for example the absence of a steering reaction of the front axle.”
Thus, Bergmann contemplates the results of oversteering to also include transmission ratio errors and steering reaction failures. ¶ 0047 of Bergmann also reads as follows:
“For example, a steering wheel velocity, a steering wheel acceleration, a vehicle velocity and/or a steering angle or possibly the degree of oversteering are incorporated in the determination of the end stop torque MEnd_stop.”
The recitation of degree of oversteering as being specifically separate and distinct from a measured steering angle appears to contemplate oversteering as measurable beyond means of determining that a steering angle is greater than a maximum steering angle. Given at least the explicit teachings and contemplations of Bergmann, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the degree of oversteering of Bergmann to be analogous to the claimed deviation, although not teaching the deviation completely as claimed, following consideration of the contemplations of Bergmann. Further, considering that Lapis specifically performs its feedback system in order to counteract oversteering as well (¶ 0006) by measuring a yaw rate difference (¶ 0064), one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing viewing both pieces of prior art would be motivated to perform the combination of Lapis with Bergmann such that an end stop torque can be applied to a steering wheel in response to a degree of oversteering as taught by Bergmann wherein said degree of oversteering can be detected and measured based on a yaw rate deviation as taught by Lapis for the explicit purpose of preventing oversteer as taught by Bergmann. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Menjak US 20030146037 A1 discloses a variable end stop whose position changes based on detected oversteer.
"Modification of Vehicle Handling Characteristics via Steer-by-Wire" by P. Yih and J. Gerdes discloses modifying a torque applied to a steering wheel based on measured errors between commanded an actual steering.
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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights