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 . Claims 1-7 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 1/24/25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the scanned elements of the figures are not legible, particularly in figures 3-5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the following element:
a connecting means for torque-transmittingly connecting the motor shaft and the steering shaft, which is defined as “The connecting means 40 is preferably designed as a belt. The connecting means 40 may be designed differently.” in Specification ¶41.
a measuring device for measuring a steering wheel angle, which is defined in the specification as having a first and second steering wheel sensor in Specification ¶29 and ¶37
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the following limitation:
wherein the feedback actuator has a motor having a motor shaft, which is torque-transmittingly connected to the steering shaft, and a printed circuit board, which is arranged on the motor and has a rotor position sensor for measuring a rotor position of the motor;
wherein the measuring device has a first steering wheel angle sensor, which is designed to measure a first rotation angle α of the steering shaft at a shaft end of the steering shaft, wherein the first steering wheel angle sensor is arranged on the printed circuit board, so that it is situated opposite the shaft end
It is unclear as to how the first steering wheel angle sensor is positioned and what specifically it is measuring. The feedback actuator has a motor which is torque-transmittingly connected to the steering shaft, with a printed circuit board arranged on the motor, where the first steering wheel angle sensor is arranged on the printed circuit board. So the first steering wheel angle sensor, which arranged on the printed circuit board which further is arranged on the motor that is part of the feedback actuator, is situated on the opposite (?) the shaft end from the shaft end which the sensor is designed to measure the rotation angle. It is unclear as to how specifically this configuration of elements is arranged and what specifically it is detecting. If the first steering wheel angle sensor is arranged on the PCB, which is arranged on the motor of the feedback actuator and is intended to detect the first rotation angle at the opposite end of the steering shaft from where it is located then this must explicitly be claimed in clear and concise language and how it is detecting the angle on the opposite end of the steering shaft or if the angle is the same at both ends of the steering shaft.
As currently written, the configuration of parts and what is being measured is not clearly defined.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 7 recites:
7. A motor vehicle having a steer-by-wire steering system according to claim 1.
Previously the elements “a motor vehicle” and “a steer-by-wire system” were used in preceding claim 1 and it is unclear whether these are the same elements or if they are different what the difference is. The first recitation of a feature should use “a” or “an” and when referring back to the same element should use “the” or “said.”
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 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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Naik et al. (US 2020/0114953).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Naik discloses a method for correcting a steering angle output in a steer-by-wire type steering device including a steer-by-wire steering system for a motor vehicle (Abstract and ¶6), comprising:
a steering wheel having a steering shaft; a feedback actuator (¶32 - The steering wheel 46 may be, e.g., a rigid ring fixedly attached to a steering column 48. The steering column 48 may be, e.g., a shaft connecting the steering wheel 46 to a feedback actuator 50.); and
a measuring device for measuring a steering wheel angle (¶32 – sensors including a position sensor positioned to detect the orientation of the steering wheel 46);
wherein the feedback actuator has a motor having a motor shaft, which is torque-transmittingly connected to the steering shaft, and a printed circuit board, which is arranged on the motor and has a rotor position sensor for measuring a rotor position of the motor (¶31-35 - feedback actuator 50 applies a torque to the steering column 48 corresponding to the recited steering/motor shaft to provide feedback to the operator. The feedback actuator 50 may be, e.g., an electric motor rotatably coupled to the steering column 48 and the sensors may be connected to the terminals of the steering motor or feedback actuator corresponding to the recited printed circuit board arranged on the motor for measuring the rotor position);
wherein the measuring device has a first steering wheel angle sensor, which is designed to measure a first rotation angle α of the steering shaft at a shaft end of the steering shaft, wherein the first steering wheel angle sensor is arranged on the printed circuit board, so that it is situated opposite the shaft end (¶31-35 and Fig. 2 – position and/or inertial sensors on components of the steering system such as the steering wheel 46, the steering column 48, the rack and pinion 56, or the steering rack 54 corresponding to the recited first steering wheel angle sensor to measure a first rotation angle of the steering shaft at the feedback actuator corresponding to the recited shaft end).
Regarding claim 2, Naik further discloses a computer unit, which is communicatively connected to the measuring device and is designed to compensate for a rotation angle error Δα of the first steering wheel angle sensor (¶36-38 - clear vision offset corresponding to the recited rotation angle error of the first steering wheel angle sensor which is used to correct the steering angle of the vehicle corresponding to the recited designed to compensate for a rotation angle error).
Regarding claim 4, Naik further discloses wherein the measuring device has a second steering wheel angle sensor, which is designed to measure a second rotation angle of the steering shaft at a periphery of the steering shaft (¶31-35 and Fig. 2 – position and/or inertial sensors on components of the steering system such as the steering wheel 46, the steering column 48, the rack and pinion 56, or the steering rack 54 where different locations of the sensors may detect a second rotation angle of the steering shaft at a periphery of the steering shaft such as at the steering rack).
Regarding claim 5, Naik further discloses a connecting means for torque-transmittingly connecting the motor shaft and the steering shaft, which connecting means is adapted to reduce a relative movement between the motor and the steering shaft (¶32 – steering column corresponding to the recited connecting means connects the steering wheel to the feedback actuator which is rigidly fixed to each other corresponding to the recited adapted to reduce relative movement between the motor and the steering shaft).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al. (US 2020/0114953), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Strieter et al. (US 2019/0245411).
Regarding claim 6, Naik does not explicitly disclose a tensioning system connecting the motor shaft and the steering shaft, however, Strieter discloses a steer-by-wire electromechanical actuator package including a connecting means for torque-transmittingly connecting the motor shaft and the steering shaft, which connecting means is adapted such that a tensioning movement between the motor and the steering shaft, which tensioning movement is required for the connecting means, is minimized (¶37-40 – actuator output 160 corresponding to the recited motor shaft may be indirectly coupled to the steering shaft via a drive belt to prevent or minimize rotational lash corresponding to the recited minimize a tensioning movement between the motor and the steering shaft).
Then combination of the method for correcting a steering angle output in a steer-by-wire type steering device of Naik with the explicit belt based steer-by-wire torque transmission arrangement of Strieter fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the method for correcting a steering angle output in a steer-by-wire type steering device of Naik with the explicit belt based steer-by-wire torque transmission arrangement of Strieter in order to improve mechanical efficiency as well as reduce the packaging size and mass [and] may reduce operational noise. (Strieter - ¶39).
Allowable Subject Matter and Additional References Cited
Claim 3 is 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:
Regarding claim 3, Koshimizu et al. (US 2023/0150578) discloses a method for correcting a steering angle output in a steer-by-wire type steering device including utilizing trigonometric waveform equations to deduce steering angle error for providing a steering angle correction utilizing the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where “A” represents the amplitude, “T” represents the cycle, “φ” represents the phase, and “D” represents the offset value. In the present example, the correcting system 20 optimizes at least one of “A”, “T”, “φ”, and “D”, which are parameters Pt of the error waveform St, so that the error waveform St becomes optimal, that is, so that the error waveform St approaches zero. (¶22-26)
Cao et al. (US 2003/0169003) discloses a method for position regulation of an electric drive in a steer-by-wire drive system for a motor vehicle including detecting steering angle setpoints and determining proper compensation adjustments for correcting the current setpoint of the steering system (¶40-43).
Yao et al. (US 2004/0138796) discloses a steer-by-wire control system for a motor vehicle including utilizing a feedback compensator to produce an adjustable steering wheel return rate based on steering wheel reference angles and reaction parameters (¶50-53).
Kreis et al. (US 2020/0262473) discloses a steer-by-wire steering system for a vehicle including utilizing detected torques and steering wheel angle speed-based information and derivations to determine a correcting value for the steering apparatus (¶50).
However, none of the art of record either alone or in combination explicitly discloses the rotation angle error equation as claimed below:
wherein the computer unit is designed to compensate for the rotation angle error Δα using α−A*cos(2*α+φ), where the rotation angle error Δα has an amplitude A and a phase shift φ.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
