,
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submissions
The preliminary amendment filed on March 27, 2025 has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 1-12 and new reissue claims 13-17 are subject to examination.
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
processor configured to calculate an absolute angular position… (claims 1, 7 and 13)
Examiner’s Construction:
For claims 1 and 13: a special-purpose, computer-implemented processor that executes a special Vernier algorithm to calculate an absolute angular position using phase difference of the angular positions of a rotor of a rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism and a rotor of a motor with different cycles, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
For claim 7: a special-purpose, computer-implemented processor that executes a special Vernier algorithm to calculate an absolute angular position using phase difference of the angular positions of a pinion and a motor with different cycles, and art-recognized equivalents hereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “processor” is a generic placeholder for structure (i.e., a special-purpose, computer-implemented processor that executes a special algorithm in order to perform the claimed calculation) and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed function since the claims do not recite a special-purpose processor or the required special algorithm. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked. For further explanation, see the USPTO guidance entitled “Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112”, 84 Fed. Reg. 57 (Jan. 7, 2019).
The specification identifies the corresponding structure as (i) an algorithm or look-up-table embodied in a programmed digital computer or a custom digital processor, (ii) a computing device including one or more processors configured to implement computer functionality and/or process computer program instructions that are stored in computer-readable memory or storage devices, and an operating system including modules and/or applications that are executable by the one or more processors, and (iii) a computer processor configured to perform the claimed calculation of an absolute angular position using a Vernier algorithm, wherein the Vernier algorithm determines the absolute angular position using either:
For claims 1 and 13: phase difference of the angular position of the rotor of the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism and the angular position of the rotor of the motor with different cycles.
For claim 7: phase difference of the angular position of the pinion and the angular position of the motor with different cycles.
Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on March 27, 2025 is defective because:
The name of the inventor differs from the inventor named in US Patent No. 11,613,238 B2, i.e., the patent for which reissue is sought. Applicant has not given any indication that the instant reissue application was filed in order to correct inventorship (and applicant has not complied with the requirements for doing so for the reasons explained below).
It fails to set forth the Domestic Benefit Information found on the cover page of US Patent No. 11,613,238 B2 and set forth in the amended first paragraph of the patent specification. That is, the priority claim to US Provisional Application 62/768,035 has been omitted from the ADS.
Correction of the ADS is required in response to this Office action.
As explained in section II of MPEP 601.05(a), a corrected ADS should be filed with a request for a corrected filing receipt unless accompanied by a request to take some other action, such as a request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c). Accordingly, when filing a corrected ADS, applicant should file a request for a corrected filing receipt in order to have corrected Inventor Information, Domestic Benefit Information, Applicant Information and/or Assignee Information entered by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP).
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The Reissue Application Declaration By The Inventor (Form PTO/AIA /05) filed on March 27, 2025 is defective because it fails to comply with MPEP 1412.04 and 1412.05 for correction of inventorship by reissue. As explained above, the ADS filed on March 27, 2025 names a different inventor than the inventor named in US Patent No. 11,613,238 B2. Likewise, the reissue declaration names a different inventor than the inventor named in US Patent No. 11,613,238 B2. The failure to name the correct inventive entity is an error in the patent which is correctable under 35 U.S.C. 251. In such a case, the reissue oath or declaration must state that the applicant believes the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid through error of a person being incorrectly named in an issued patent as the inventor. See MPEP 1412.04. Thus, the box must be checked indicating that the patent is believed to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid “by reason of other errors”, and the error statement must explain that a person was incorrectly named in the patent as the inventor. In situations where a reissue application seeks to correct inventorship in the patent and the inventors sign the reissue declaration for a broadening reissue application, the correct inventive entity must sign the reissue declaration. See MPEP 1412.05.
Correction of the reissue declaration is required in response to this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. See the explanation above.
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “…to calculate an absolute angular position associated with a position of the steering rack in a full-turn range associated with movement of the steering rack based on the sensed first rotor angle of the motor and the sensed second rotor angle of the second rotor of the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism…” (ll. 10-13). This subject matter is indefinite because:
It is unclear what is encompassed by or excluded from the broad phrase “associated with”. This phrase is subject to a wide range of differing interpretations such that it is impossible to ascertain the requirements of the claim with a reasonable degree of certainty.
The repetition of “associated with” in the same run-on clause creates confusion as to scope of the claim. Does the second occurrence of “associated with” set forth a limitation of the absolute angular position, or does it pertain to the position of the steering rack?
It is unclear whether the “based on…” phrase sets forth a limitation of the calculation or a limitation of the recited movement of the steering rack.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “…to calculate an absolute angular position…using ratio between rates at which the first rotor of the motor and the second rotor of the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism rotate” (ll. 10-14). This subject matter is indefinite because:
The phrase “using ratio between rates” is unconventional and confusing. It is unclear whether or not this is limited to one (a single) ratio since the article “a” does not appear before ratio.
The specification fails to provide any definition of either the claimed “ratio” or the claimed “rates”. Absent any definition of what this subject matter entails, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “a processor configured to calculate an absolute angular position…” (l. 10). As explained above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As also explained above, the corresponding structure includes a special Vernier algorithm to calculate an absolute angular position using phase difference of the angular positions of a rotor of a rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism and a rotor of a motor with different cycles. However, the specification fails to provide any specific description of such a special Vernier algorithm. Absent the required disclosure of the corresponding structure, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Claims 2 and 8 recite “the absolute angular position associated with the position of the steering rack in the full-turn range associated with the movement of the steering rack is an absolute angular position of the pinion in the full-turn range of rotation of the pinion.” This subject matter is indefinite for similar reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
In claims 2 and 8, the term “the full-turn range of rotation of the pinion” (ll. 3-4) lacks proper antecedent basis.
The subject matter of claims 3, 9 and 14 is indefinite for similar reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 3, 9 and 14 recite “…to calculate an absolute angular position…using a Vernier algorithm.” This subject matter is indefinite because:
Given the use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “using a Vernier algorithm”, the claim implies that the invention uses one of what could be many possible Vernier algorithms. The specification fails to provide any definition of the Vernier algorithm that is used by applicant to calculate the absolute angular position. Absent any definition of what this subject matter entails, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 state that the calculation is performed “using ratio between rates…”, but claims 3, 9 and 14 state that the calculation is performed “using a Vernier algorithm”. Claims 3, 9 and 14 fails to define how the recited Vernier algorithm relates to the ratio between rates required by claims 1, 7 and 13. Are claims 3, 9 and 14 further defining the ratio between rates limitation of claims 1, 7 and 13, or are claims 3, 9 and 14 setting forth a distinct limitation? If claims 3, 9 and 14 set forth a distinct limitation, then how is the calculation performed based on both the ratio between rates of claims 1, 7 and 13 and the Vernier algorithm of claims 3, 9 and 14?
The specification fails to explain how the known Vernier principle is adapted to the particular claimed application of calculating an absolute angular position using the “ratio between rates” required by claims 1, 7 and 13. Absent any definition of what this subject matter entails, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Claims 4 and 15 recite “the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism comprises a first gear configured to be rotated by the first rotor of the motor” (ll. 1-3). This subject matter encompasses a construction in which the claimed first gear is rotated (driven) directly by the first rotor of the motor. However, the specification only discloses an embodiment is which the claimed first gear is driven indirectly by the first rotor of the motor. Such inconsistency between the claim scope and the supporting disclosure renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 4 and 15 recite “the second rotor of the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism is a second gear rotatably connected to the first gear” (ll. 3-4). Normally, one gear is understood to mesh with another gear. It is unconventional to define one gear as “rotatably connected” to another gear. This does not appear to accurately characterize the relationship between the claimed gears.
In claims 4 and 15, the term “the angle of the second gear” (ll. 4-5) lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear what the relationship is between “the angle of the second gear” of claim 4 and “a second rotor angle” (claims 1 and 13, ll. 7-8). Claims 4 and 15 inaccurately require (or imply) that the angular position sensor is configured to sense two different angles (i.e., the angle of claims 1 and 13 and the angle of claims 4 and 15).
Claims 4 and 15 recite “the processor is configured to calculate the absolute angular position associated with the position of the steering rack in the full-turn range associated with the movement of the steering rack based on the sensed rotor angle of the motor and the sensed angle of the second gear of the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism” (ll. 5-9). This subject matter is indefinite for similar reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
In claims 4 and 15, the term “the sensed rotor angle of the motor” (l. 8) is indefinite because it is unclear what the relationship is between this term and “a first rotor angle of the motor” (claims 1 and 13, l. 3). Does the term in claims 4 and 15 refer to the term introduced in claims 1 and 13, or to a different rotor angle?
In claims 5, 12 and 16, the term “the single-turn range” (l. 1) is indefinite because claims 1, 7 and 13 require more than one single-turn range. It is unclear which of the ranges is being referred to in claims 5, 12 and 16.
In claims 5, 12 and 16, the recitation “the full-turn range corresponds to a movable range of the steering rack” is indefinite because the steering rack does not “turn”.
In claims 6 and 17, the recitation “comprises a ball-nut assembly” is inconsistent with the specification’s description of a ball-screw assembly that includes a ball nut. Such inconsistency between the claim scope and the supporting disclosure renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 7, the recitation “A vehicle steeling system” (l. 1) is inconsistent with the specification’s description of a vehicle steering system. Such inconsistency between the claim scope and the supporting disclosure renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “a processor configured to calculate an absolute angular position associated with a position of the steering rack in a full-turn range associated with movement of the steering rack based on the sensed pinion angle and the sensed rotor angle of the motor using ratio between rates at which the pinion and the rotor of the motor rotate” (ll. 7-10). This subject matter is indefinite for similar reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Asada”
US Publication No. 2004/0188170 A1
“Budaker et al.”
DE Publication No. 102 11 017 A1 (with translation)
“Haußmann et al.”
DE Publication No. 102 26 988 A1 (with translation)
“Kühnel et al.”
DE Publication No. 10 2009 039 764 A1 (with translation)
“Nakaura et al.”
JP Publication No. 2017-19443 A (with translation)
“Solyom et al.”
EP Publication No. 2 039 590 A1
“Sugawara et al.”
US Publication No. 2016/0362128 A1
“Tomita ‘061”
JP Publication No. 2006-290061 A (with translation)
“Tomita ‘366”
US Publication No. 2004/0210366 A1
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
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.
GROUND 3: Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Budaker et al.
With respect to claim 13, Budaker et al. discloses a vehicle steering system, comprising:
A motor assembly comprising an electric motor 28 having a first rotor 27 (driving a rotor shaft 3), and a motor position sensor 9 configured to sense a first rotor angle α of the motor in a single-turn range. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0025-0026, 0028.1
A rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism (including first, second and third gears 5, 6, 19 driving a ball nut 24 of a ball-screw mechanism 7) operably coupled between the motor’s rotor shaft 3 and a steering rack 25 to convert a rotational force of the motor 28 into a linear force for moving the steering rack 25, the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism comprising a second rotor 19 and/or 20 (or, alternatively, 6 and/or 24) operably coupled to the motor’s first rotor 27 (or rotor shaft 3) and an angular position sensor 21 (or, alternatively, 10) configured to sense a second rotor angle γ (or, alternatively, β) of the second rotor in a single-turn range. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0024-0028. While Budaker et al. identifies element 25 as a steering spindle, it constitutes a steering rack as broadly claimed.
A processor 15 configured to calculate an absolute angular position 16 of the ball nut 24 (which is associated with a position of the steering rack 25) in a full-turn range (of ±3600°) associated with movement of the steering rack 25 based on the sensed first rotor angle α and the sensed second rotor angle γ (or, alternatively, β) using ratio between rates at which the first rotor 27 (or rotor shaft 3) of the motor 28 and the second rotor 19 and/or 20 (or, alternatively, 6 and/or 24) of the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism rotate. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0006-0011, 0024-0029.
With respect to claim 14, the processor 15 calculates the absolute angular position using a Vernier algorithm. See ¶ 0007.
With respect to claim 15, the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism comprises a first gear 5 configured to be rotated by the first rotor 27 (or rotor shaft 3) of the motor 28, the second rotor of the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism is a second gear 19 (or, alternatively, 6) rotatably connected to the first gear 5, and the angular position sensor 21 (or, alternatively, 10) is configured to sense the angle of the second gear 19 (or, alternatively, 6) in a single-turn range. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0025-0028.
With respect to claim 16, the single-turn range is a 360° range, and the full-turn range corresponds to a movable range of the steering rack 25. See ¶¶ 0011, 0013, 0025, 0028, 0031.
With respect to claim 17, the rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism comprises the ball nut 24 (which is part of the ball-screw mechanism 7). See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0016, 0026.
GROUND 4: Claims 7, 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solyom et al.
With respect to claims 7 and 10, Solyom et al. discloses a vehicle steering system, comprising:
A steering wheel 1 operably coupled to a steering shaft 2, which is operably coupled to a pinion gear 5, which is operably coupled to a steering rack 6, and a first angle sensor 15 configured to sense a pinion angle ϕ1 of the pinion gear 5 (or, alternatively, of the steering shaft 2) in a single-turn range. See Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0008-0011, 0020, 0040-0041.
A motor assembly comprising an electric motor 8 having a rotor (driving a rotor shaft), and a motor position sensor 16 configured to sense a rotor angle ϕ2 of the motor in a single-turn range. See Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0010-0011, 0014-0016, 0020, 0040, 0042.
A rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism (i.e., gear mechanism) operably coupled between the motor’s rotor shaft and the steering rack 6 to convert a rotational force of the motor 8 into a linear force for moving the steering rack 6. See Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0015, 0040.
A processor 9 configured to calculate an absolute angular position δ of the steering wheel 1 (which is associated with a position of the steering rack 6) in a full-turn range associated with movement of the steering rack 6 based on the sensed pinion angle ϕ1 and the sensed rotor angle ϕ2 using a ratio C2/C1 between rates at which the pinion gear 5 (or steering shaft 2) and the rotor (or rotor shaft) of the motor 8 rotate. See Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0005-0007, 0009-0013, 0017, 0020-0028, 0043-0044.
With respect to claim 8, the absolute angular position δ of the steering wheel 1 is also the absolute angular position of the pinion gear 5 (and the steering shaft 2). See ¶¶ 0008-0009, 0011.
With respect to claim 12, the single-turn range is a 360° range, and the full-turn range corresponds to a movable range of the steering rack 6. See ¶¶ 0005, 0009, 0011, 0017, 0020, 0052, 0055.
GROUND 5: Claims 7, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asada.
With respect to claims 7, 8, 10 and 11, Asada discloses a vehicle steering system, comprising:
A steering wheel 21 operably coupled to a steering shaft 22, which is operably coupled to a pinion shaft 23, which is operably coupled to a pinion gear 23c, which is operably coupled to a steering rack 24, a first angle sensor 35 configured to sense a shaft angle θT1 of the steering shaft in a single-turn range, and a second angle sensor 37 configured to sense a pinion angle θT2 of the pinion gear 23c in a single-turn range (with the shaft angle θT1 and the pinion angle θT2 used to detect/calculate the steering angle θTm of the steering wheel 21). See Figs. 1-2 and 5-6; ¶¶ 0021-0025, 0031, 0033-0035.
A motor assembly comprising an electric motor 40 having a rotor shaft 43 (serving as a rotor), and a motor position sensor 44 configured to sense a rotor angle θMe of the motor in a single-turn range. See Figs. 1, 3 and 5-6; ¶¶ 0021, 0025, 0028.
A rotary-to-linear conversion mechanism in the form of a ball-screw mechanism 50 having a ball nut 52 operably coupled between the motor’s rotor shaft 43 and the steering rack 24 to convert a rotational force of the motor 40 into a linear force for moving the steering rack 24. See Figs. 1 and 3; ¶¶ 0026-0027.
A processor 61 configured to calculate an absolute angular position of the pinion gear 23c or the steering wheel 21 (which is associated with a position of the steering rack 24) in a full-turn range associated with movement of the steering rack 24 based on the sensed pinion angle θT2 and the sensed rotor angle θMe using a ratio Mrev between rates at which the pinion gear 23c (or steering wheel 21) and the rotor shaft 43 of the motor 40 rotate. See Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0008, 0029, 0035-0053, 0057.
With respect to claim 12, the single-turn range is a 360° range, and the full-turn range corresponds to a movable range of the steering rack 24. See Fig. 5; ¶¶ 0033-0038.
GROUND 6: Claims 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugawara et al.
With respect to claim 7, Sugawara et al. discloses a vehicle steering system, comprising:
A steering wheel 1 operably coupled to a steering shaft 2, which is operably coupled to a pinion (that is part of a rack and pinion mechanism 5), which is operably coupled to a steering rack (also part of the rack and pinion mechanism 5), and a first angle sensor 22 configured to sense a pinion angle As of the pinion (or, alternatively, of the steering shaft 2) in a single-turn range. See Figs. 1 and 3; ¶¶ 0003, 0017-0018, 0032, 0035.
A motor assembly comprising an electric motor 20 having a rotor (driving a rotor shaft), and a motor position sensor 21 configured to sense a rotor angle Am of the motor in a single-turn range. See Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0003, 0017-0018, 0032, 0035.
A reduction gear mechanism 3 operably coupled between the electric motor 20 and the steering shaft 2. See Figs. 1 and 3; ¶¶ 0003, 0032, 0035.
A processor (including a Vernier calculating section 100) configured to calculate an absolute angular position Sag of the steering wheel 1 (which is associated with a position of the steering rack) in a full-turn range associated with movement of the steering rack (which is part of the rack and pinion mechanism 5) based on the sensed pinion angle As and the sensed rotor angle Am using a ratio (see ¶¶ 0038) between rates at which the pinion (or steering shaft 2) and the rotor (or rotor shaft) of the motor 20 rotate. See Figs. 3-9; ¶¶ 0017-0018, 0032-0033, 0036-0057.
With respect to claim 8, the absolute angular position Sag of the steering wheel 1 is also the absolute angular position of the pinion (and the steering shaft 2).
With respect to claim 9, the Vernier calculating section 100 uses a Vernier algorithm to generate a reference angular position Av, which is used to calculate the absolute angular position Sag. See Figs. 3-9; ¶¶ 0017, 0020, 0032-0033, 0035, 0038-0053.
With respect to claim 12, the single-turn range of the motor position sensor 21 is a 360° range, and the full-turn range corresponds to a movable range of the steering rack (which is part of the rack and pinion mechanism 5). See ¶¶ 0008, 0038, 0055.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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.
GROUND 7: Claims 13-17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budaker et al. in view of Kühnel et al.
See the detailed discussion of the teachings of Budaker et al. in GROUND 3. In an alternative interpretation, Budaker et al. is considered to fail to fully teach the calculation of the absolute angular position using a Vernier algorithm based on a ratio between rotation rates of the pinion and the motor’s rotor.
Kühnel et al. teaches a vehicle steering system comprising: a steering angle sensor 22 configured to sense a steering angle of a steering shaft 2 in a single-turn range; a motor position sensor 21 configured to sense a rotor angle of an electric motor 6 in a single-turn range; a reduction gear mechanism 5 operably coupled between the electric motor 6 and the steering shaft 2; and a processor 15 configured to calculate an absolute angular position of the steering shaft 2 (which is associated with a position of a steering rack 17) using a Vernier algorithm based on a gear ratio of the reduction gear mechanism 5 (which defines a ratio between rotation rates of the steering shaft 2 and the rotor of the motor 6). See Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0003-0005, 0007, 0009, 0013-0018.
From the teachings of Kühnel et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Budaker et al. by calculating the absolute angular position using a Vernier algorithm based on a ratio between rotation rates of the pinion and the motor’s rotor because this provides for optimal, accurate, efficient and cost-effective calculation of the absolute angular position.
GROUND 8: Claims 1-12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budaker et al. in view of Solyom et al.
See the detailed discussion of the teachings of Budaker et al. in GROUND 3.
With respect to claim 1, Budaker et al. discloses a steer-by-wire steering system having no direct mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the steering rack. Thus, Budaker et al. fails to teach that the steering rack is operably coupled to a pinion (that is driven by a steering shaft coupled to the steering wheel).
As explained more fully in GROUND 4, Solyom et al. teaches a conventional system having a direct mechanical connection between a steering wheel 1 and a steering rack 6, with the steering wheel 1 operably coupled to a steering shaft 2, which is operably coupled to a pinion gear 5, which is operably coupled to the steering rack 6. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such a conventional steering system (with a direct mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the steering rack) has certain advantages over a steer-by-wire system, including less complexity, lower cost, and fail-safe manual operation in the case of electronic failure. For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Budaker et al. to include a pinion operably coupled to the steering rack, as taught by Solyom et al.
With respect to claims 2, 7 and 8, Budaker et al. additionally teaches:
A steering angle sensor (not shown) configured to sense a steering angle of a steering wheel (not shown). See ¶ 0024.
Grouping of the motor position sensor 9, the angular position sensor 10, and the angular position sensor 21 in three distinct pairs to provide redundancy in case one sensor fails. See ¶¶ 0009-0010, 0013, 0029-0030.
While Budaker et al. does not explicitly teach reliance on the steering angle sensor (not shown) for added redundancy, the skilled artisan would readily appreciate that this could be easily achieved and would be desirable in adding more redundancy/reliability. Further, the teachings of Solyom et al. would have led the skilled artisan to modify Budaker et al. in such a manner. As explained more fully in GROUND 4, Solyom et al. teaches: the first angle sensor 15 configured to sense a pinion angle ϕ1 of the pinion gear 5 (or, alternatively, of the steering shaft 2) in a single-turn range; and the processor 9 configured to calculate an absolute angular position δ of the steering wheel 1 (which is associated with a position of the steering rack 6) in a full-turn range associated with movement of the steering rack 6 based on the sensed pinion angle ϕ1 and the sensed rotor angle ϕ2 using a ratio C2/C1 between rates at which the pinion gear 5 (or steering shaft 2) and the rotor (or rotor shaft) of the motor 8 rotate. For these reasons, and based on the teachings of Solyom et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Budaker et al. to include a pinion angle sensor for sensing a pinion angle that is used to calculate the absolute angular position.
With respect to claims 3-6 and 9-12, see the explanation of the teachings of Budaker et al. in GROUND 3.
GROUND 9: Claims 1-12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budaker et al. in view of Solyom et al. (GROUND 8) and further in view of Kühnel et al.
See the detailed discussion of Budaker et al. in view of Solyom et al. in GROUND 8. In an alternative interpretation, Budaker et al. is considered to fail to fully teach the calculation of the absolute angular position using a Vernier algorithm based on a ratio between rotation rates of the pinion and the motor’s rotor.
See the detailed discussion of the teachings of Kühnel et al. in GROUND 7. From the teachings of Kühnel et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Budaker et al. by calculating the absolute angular position using a Vernier algorithm based on a ratio between rotation rates of the pinion and the motor’s rotor because this provides for optimal, accurate, efficient and cost-effective calculation of the absolute angular position.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Haußmann et al. teaches a vehicle steering system including: a sensor 45 for sensing a pinion angle; a sensor 41 for sensing a first motor rotor angle; a sensor 43 for sensing a second motor rotor angle; and a control unit 47 that calculates an absolute steering angle based on the input from the sensors 45, 41, 43.
Nakaura et al. teaches a vehicle steering system including: a sensor 32 for sensing a motor rotor angle; a sensor 34 for sensing a rotor angle of a component of a rotary-to-linear transmission 23; and a control unit 40 that calculates an absolute steering angle based on the input from the sensors 32, 34.
Tomita ‘061 teaches a vehicle steering system including: a sensor 74 for sensing a steering shaft angle; a sensor 76 for sensing a pinion angle; a sensor 36 for sensing a motor rotor angle; and a control unit 60 that calculates an absolute steering angle based on the input from the sensors 74, 76, 36.
Tomita ‘366 teaches a vehicle steering system including: sensors 14, 15 for sensing a steering shaft angle; a sensor 26 for sensing a motor rotor angle; and a control unit 30 that calculates an absolute steering angle based on the input from the sensors 14, 15, 26.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because: in claims 4 and 15, “motor and the second” (l. 3) should read “motor, and the second”.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
In col. 3, at ll. 23-24, “comprises a ball-nut assembly” is inconsistent with the specification’s description of a ball-screw assembly that includes a ball nut.
In col. 4, at l. 20, “rock assembly” should read “rack assembly”.
In col. 4, at l. 51, “knuckles 45” should read “knuckles 145”.
In col. 4, at l. 66, “any rotary that” is incomplete since “rotary” is not a noun.
In col. 6, at l. 27, “single-turn which” should read “single-turn range which”.
In col. 8, at ll. 9-10, “a full-turn range of movement of the steering rack 155” is inaccurate because the steering rack does not “turn”.
In col. 8, at ll. 13-14, “The full-turn range of the movement of the steering rack 155” is inaccurate because the steering rack does not “turn”.
In col. 8, at l. 38, “using ratio between rotation rates” is unconventional and confusing. It is unclear whether or not this is limited to one (a single) ratio since the article “a” does not appear before ratio.
In col. 8, at ll. 41-42, “By providing different rotation rate or speed…” is unconventional and confusing due to grammatical errors, etc.
In col. 8, at ll. 65-67, “by using phase difference of…with different cycles” is unconventional and confusing due to grammatical errors, etc. It is unclear what the recited “phase difference” is. It is also unclear what the “different cycles” are.
In col. 9, at ll. 25-26, “a full-turn range of movement of the steering rack 155” is inaccurate because the steering rack does not “turn”.
In col. 9, at ll. 30-31, “The full-turn range of the movement of the steering rack 155” is inaccurate because the steering rack does not “turn”.
In col. 9, at l. 55, “using ratio between rotation rates” is unconventional and confusing. It is unclear whether or not this is limited to one (a single) ratio since the article “a” does not appear before ratio.
In col. 9, at ll. 59-60, “By providing different rotation rate or speed…” is unconventional and confusing due to grammatical errors, etc.
In col. 10, at ll. 20-23, “by using phase difference of…with different cycles” is unconventional and confusing due to grammatical errors, etc. It is unclear what the recited “phase difference” is. It is also unclear what the “different cycles” are.
In col. 10, at l. 57, “memory 304” should read “memory 1004”.
In col. 11, at l. 25, “interface 306” should read “interface 1006”.
In col. 11, at l. 26, “interface 306” should read “interface 1006”.
In col. 11, at l. 28, “interface 506” should read “interface 1006”.
In col. 11, at l. 34, “may the network” is unconventional and confusing due to grammatical errors, etc.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: in Fig. 3, reference number 140 is inaccurate. Note that reference number 140 labels a tie rod in Fig. 1. The element labeled by reference number 140 in Fig. 3 appears to be the steering rack 155.
The objections to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center2: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail3 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 All citations are to the English translation.
2 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).
3 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights