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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/11/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, while a copy of Non-Patent Literature Document Cite No. 2 has been supplied by Applicant on 09/11/2025, the supplied copy is not in the English language, and no concise explanation of the relevance about the content of the information of the reference has been provided by Applicant.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim 2, as amended, now recites “transitioning the control device during the handshake communication from the insulation state into a second operating state in which the first and second actuator terminals are connected to the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules as negotiated via the handshake communication” in lines 2-7; however, Fig. 3 of Applicant’s drawings differently shows a transition from an insulation state S3 to a second operating state S4, where, in the second operating state S4, a first actuator terminal T3 and a second actuator terminal T4 are connected to a second converter U2 and a third converter U3 and are not connected to a first converter U1, as negotiated via handshake communication of the insulation state S3, and Applicant’s drawings fail to show a transition from the insulation state S3 to the second operating state S4, where, in the second operating state S4, the first and second actuator terminals T3, T4 are connected to the first, second, and third converters U1, U2, U3, as negotiated via the handshake communication of the insulation state S3.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2, as amended, now recites “transitioning the control device during the handshake communication from the insulation state into a second operating state in which the first and second actuator terminals are connected to the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules as negotiated via the handshake communication” in lines 2-7; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s specification discloses such a process step, as ¶ 0040 of Applicant’s specification discloses (and Fig. 3 of Applicant’s drawings shows) a transition from an insulation state S3 to a second operating state S4, where, in the second operating state S4, a first actuator terminal T3 and a second actuator terminal T4 are connected to a second converter U2 and a third converter U3 and are not connected to a first converter U1, as negotiated via handshake communication of the insulation state S3, and neither Applicant’s specification nor Applicant’s drawings discloses a transition from the insulation state S3 to the second operating state S4, where, in the second operating state S4, the first and second actuator terminals T3, T4 are connected to the first, second, and third converters U1, U2, U3, as negotiated via the handshake communication of the insulation state S3. Although ¶ 0045 of Applicant’s specification further states that “After completion of the handshake communication in the insulation state S3, the control device 10 then transitions from the insulation state S3 to a second operating state S4, in which the actuator terminals T3, T4 are connected to the converter or converters U1, U2, U3 of the converter modules 11, 12, 13 as negotiated by means of the handshake communication,” ¶ 0045 of Applicant’s specification goes on to clarify that “In the case shown in figure 3, the second and third converter modules 12, 13 are active in the second operating state. The converter U2 of the second converter module is connected to the second actuator output T4, and the converter U3 of the third converter module 13 is connected to the first actuator output T3. In this respect, the third converter module 13 in the second operating state S4 takes over the function which the first converter module 11 had in the first operating state,” which, in view of ¶ 0040-0044 of Applicant’s specification, indicates that the first converter module 11 is not active in the second operating state. Therefore, claim 2 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and thus fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, as amended, recites “A method for controlling a redundant actuator having two partial actuators, in particular a motor having two separate winding sets, via a control device” in lines 1-3. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “for controlling a redundant actuator having two partial actuators […] via a control device,” and the claim also recites “for controlling […] a motor having two separate winding sets, via a control device” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. Additionally, it is unclear from the phrasing of the claim whether the “two separate winding sets” are intended to be the narrow statement of the limitation “two partial actuators.”
Claim 1, as amended, introduces “a control device” in line 4; however, the claim also previously introduces “a control device” in line 3, and it is unclear whether the “control device” introduced in line 4 is intended to be the same as or different from the “control device” previously introduced in line 3. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, as amended, recites “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified, transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: […] a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” in lines 18-28; however, it is noted that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and it is unclear whether “transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: […] a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” would actually require the claimed method to include performing of “a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules,” such that it is further unclear whether “transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: […] a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” would actually require the claimed method to include performing of “negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs,” as “transitioning the control device to an insulation state” appears to merely require a change or shift from a first unspecified state to the insulation state, and inclusion of “…in which…” appears to define a situation in which each of “a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules” and “via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device” are intended to occur without necessarily requiring performing of “a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules” and/or “via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device” as a step of the claimed method. Thus, the intended scope of claim 1 is unclear.
Claims 2-13 and 16 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2-13 and 16 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 14 recites “An actuator system for a steer-by-wire system, having a redundant actuator having two partial actuators, in particular a motor having two separate winding sets” in lines 1-3. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “having a redundant actuator having two partial actuators,” and the claim also recites “having […] a motor having two separate winding sets” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim, especially given that claim 15, which depends from claim 14, differently requires “the redundant actuator is an actuator on a tie rod of a steer-by-wire system.”
Claim 15 depends from claim 14, such that claim 15 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 14 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 14 is rejected.
Claim 15, as amended, introduces “a steer-by-wire system” in lines 2-3; however, claim 15 is dependent from claim 14, and claim 14 also previously introduces “a steer-by-wire system” in line 1, and it is unclear whether the “steer-by-wire system” introduced in lines 2-3 of claim 15 is intended to be the same as or different from the “steer-by-wire system” previously introduced in line 1 of claim 14. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “a request step” in “wherein the handshake communication comprises a request step in which the first, second and third converter modules each check whether a request message has been received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules” in lines 2-5 of claim 5 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Specifically, claim 5 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites “providing a control device comprising: a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, a first converter module having a first converter, a second converter module having a second converter, and a third converter module having a third converter” in lines 4-13, and claim 5 fails to set forth structure to perform each of the recited functions of “the first, second and third converter modules each check whether a request message has been received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules.” Although claim 5 establishes, via claim 1, that the “control device” includes structural elements of “a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, a first converter module having a first converter, a second converter module having a second converter, and a third converter module having a third converter,” neither claim 5 nor Applicant’s specification indicates that any of the “a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, […] a first converter, […] a second converter, and […] a third converter,” is structured to perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim, and none of the “a first converter module […], a second converter module […], and a third converter module” is claimed as having any additional structure which would perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim. Each of the terms “device” and “module” is non-structural (e.g., see: MPEP 2181_I_A), and although structural elements are set forth in the claim for each of the “control device” and the “a first converter module […], a second converter module […], and a third converter module” that are included by the “control device,” such that the “request step” in “a request step in which the first, second and third converter modules each check whether a request message has been received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules” does not appear to be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The examiner further notes that “wherein the handshake communication comprises a request step in which the first, second and third converter modules each check whether a request message has been received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules” does not actually necessarily recite a process step to be performed as part of the claimed method. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a status exchange step” in “wherein the handshake communication comprises a status exchange step in which the first, second and third converter modules each determine status information of their operational readiness and transmit the determined status information to the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules” in lines 2-5 of claim 6 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Specifically, claim 6 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites “providing a control device comprising: a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, a first converter module having a first converter, a second converter module having a second converter, and a third converter module having a third converter” in lines 4-13, and claim 6 fails to set forth structure to perform each of the recited functions of “the first, second and third converter modules each determine status information of their operational readiness and transmit the determined status information to the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules.” Although claim 6 establishes, via claim 1, that the “control device” includes structural elements of “a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, a first converter module having a first converter, a second converter module having a second converter, and a third converter module having a third converter,” neither claim 6 nor Applicant’s specification indicates that any of the “a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, […] a first converter, […] a second converter, and […] a third converter,” is structured to perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim, and none of the “a first converter module […], a second converter module […], and a third converter module” is claimed as having any additional structure which would perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim. Each of the terms “device” and “module” is non-structural (e.g., see: MPEP 2181_I_A), and although structural elements are set forth in the claim for each of the “control device” and the “a first converter module […], a second converter module […], and a third converter module” that are included by the “control device,” such that the “status exchange step” in “a status exchange step in which the first, second and third converter modules each determine status information of their operational readiness and transmit the determined status information to the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules” does not appear to be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The examiner further notes that “wherein the handshake communication comprises a status exchange step in which the first, second and third converter modules each determine status information of their operational readiness and transmit the determined status information to the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules” does not actually necessarily recite a process step to be performed as part of the claimed method. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a decision step” in “wherein the handshake communication comprises a decision step in which the first and second converter modules each determine a command for the third converter module based on status information received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and send it to the third converter module” in lines 1-5 of claim 7 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Specifically, claim 7 depends from claim 1 via claim 6, and claim 1 recites “providing a control device comprising: a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, a first converter module having a first converter, a second converter module having a second converter, and a third converter module having a third converter” in lines 4-13, and claim 7 fails to set forth structure to perform each of the recited functions of “the first and second converter modules each determine a command for the third converter module based on status information received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and send it to the third converter module.” Although claim 7 establishes, via claim 1, that the “control device” includes structural elements of “a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, a first converter module having a first converter, a second converter module having a second converter, and a third converter module having a third converter,” neither claim 7 nor Applicant’s specification indicates that any of the “a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, […] a first converter, […] a second converter, and […] a third converter,” is structured to perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim, and none of the “a first converter module […], a second converter module […], and a third converter module” is claimed as having any additional structure which would perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim. Each of the terms “device” and “module” is non-structural (e.g., see: MPEP 2181_I_A), and although structural elements are set forth in the claim for each of the “control device” and the “a first converter module […], a second converter module […], and a third converter module” that are included by the “control device,” such that the “decision step” in “a decision step in which the first and second converter modules each determine a command for the third converter module based on status information received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and send it to the third converter module” does not appear to be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The examiner further notes that “wherein the handshake communication comprises a decision step in which the first and second converter modules each determine a command for the third converter module based on status information received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and send it to the third converter module” does not actually necessarily recite a process step to be performed as part of the claimed method. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a confirmation step” in “wherein the handshake communication comprises a confirmation step in which the third converter module sends a confirmation message to the first and second converter modules” in lines 1-4 of claim 8 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Specifically, claim 8 depends from claim 1 via claims 6 and 7, and claim 1 recites “providing a control device comprising: a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, a first converter module having a first converter, a second converter module having a second converter, and a third converter module having a third converter” in lines 4-13, and claim 8 fails to set forth structure to perform each of the recited functions of “the third converter module sends a confirmation message to the first and second converter modules.” Although claim 8 establishes, via claim 1, that the “control device” includes structural elements of “a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, a first converter module having a first converter, a second converter module having a second converter, and a third converter module having a third converter,” neither claim 8 nor Applicant’s specification indicates that any of the “a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators, a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators, […] a first converter, […] a second converter, and […] a third converter,” is structured to perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim, and none of the “a first converter module […], a second converter module […], and a third converter module” is claimed as having any additional structure which would perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim. Each of the terms “device” and “module” is non-structural (e.g., see: MPEP 2181_I_A), and although structural elements are set forth in the claim for each of the “control device” and the “a first converter module […], a second converter module […], and a third converter module” that are included by the “control device,” such that the “confirmation step” in “a confirmation step in which the third converter module sends a confirmation message to the first and second converter modules” does not appear to be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The examiner further notes that “wherein the handshake communication comprises a confirmation step in which the third converter module sends a confirmation message to the first and second converter modules” does not actually necessarily recite a process step to be performed as part of the claimed method. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “control device” as used in claim 14 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Specifically, claim 14 recites “a control device for controlling the redundant actuator, and the control device comprises a first, a second and a third converter module, each having a respective first, second, and third converter” in lines 3-6 before further reciting each of “wherein the control device is configured: in a first operating state, to connect: i) a first actuator terminal to the first converter of the first converter module, and ii) a second actuator terminal to the second converter of the second converter module” in lines 6-9, “wherein the control device is configured: […] to identify a malfunction in the first converter module and to transition to an insulation state in which the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters of the first, second and third converter modules” in lines 6-13, and “wherein the control device is configured: […] in the insulation state, to carry out a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules of the control device, wherein via means of the handshake communication it is negotiated which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are connected to the first and second actuator terminals” in lines 6-19, and claim 14 fails to set forth structure to perform each of the recited functions of “connect: i) a first actuator terminal to the first converter of the first converter module, and ii) a second actuator terminal to the second converter of the second converter module,” “identify a malfunction in the first converter module,” “transition to an insulation state in which the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters of the first, second and third converter modules,” and “carry out a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules of the control device, wherein via means of the handshake communication it is negotiated which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are connected to the first and second actuator terminals.” Although claim 14 establishes that the “control device” includes structural elements of “a first, a second and a third converter module, each having a respective first, second, and third converter,” neither claim 14 nor Applicant’s specification indicates that any of the “respective first, second, and third converter” is structured to perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim, and none of the “a first, a second and a third converter module” is claimed as having any additional structure which would perform any of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim. Each of the terms “device” and “module” is non-structural (e.g., see: MPEP 2181_I_A), and although structural elements (i.e., the “respective first, second, and third converter”) are set forth in the claim for each of the “control device” and the “a first, a second and a third converter module” that are included by the “control device,” the lack of recited structure to perform each of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim is suggestive of “a control device […] configured […] to” being a non-structural generic placeholder for something like “means for” (or “control means for”) with respect to each of the aforementioned functions recited by the claim. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, Applicant must clarify whether these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding Applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14, such that claim 15 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 14 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 14 is rejected.
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 (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 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)(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 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2024/057728 A1 to Sakashita et al. (hereinafter: “Sakashita”).
With respect to claim 1, Sakashita teaches a method for controlling a redundant actuator (e.g., 220) having two partial actuators (e.g., 224, 226), in particular a motor (e.g., 220) having two separate winding sets (e.g., 224, 226), via a control device (e.g., 240), the method comprising: providing a control device (e.g., 240) comprising: a first actuator terminal connected to a first one of the two partial actuators [it is apparent from at least Figs. 2-4 that one of a U-phase drive line 242U, a V-phase drive line 242V, and a W-phase drive line 242W connects an apparent definable “first actuator terminal” of the steering control device 240 to a respective one of a U-phase coil 224U, a V-phase coil 224V, and a W-phase coil 224W of the first motor 224 (e.g., “first one of the two partial actuators”)], a second actuator terminal connected to a second one of the two partial actuators [it is apparent from at least Figs. 2-4 that one of a U-phase drive line 244U, a V-phase drive line 244V, and a W-phase drive line 244W connects an apparent definable “second actuator terminal” of the steering control device 240 to a respective one of a U-phase coil 226U, a V-phase coil 226V, and a W-phase coil 226W of the second motor 226 (e.g., “second one of the two partial actuators”)], a first converter module (e.g., 242) having a first converter (e.g., 242B2), a second converter module (e.g., 244) having a second converter (e.g., 244B2), and a third converter module (e.g., 246) having a third converter (e.g., 246B2), connecting, in a first operating state: i) the first actuator terminal to the first converter, and ii) the second actuator terminal to the second converter (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4; for example: “The steering control device 240 includes a first control device 242 that can drive and control the first motor 224, a second control device 244 that can drive and control the second motor 226, and a first control device 244 that can drive and control the first motor 224 or the second motor 224. and a third control device 246 that can selectively drive and control the motor 226 of. Therefore, the first controller 242 is connected to the first motor 224, the second controller 244 is connected to the second motor 226, and the third controller 246 is connected to the first motor 224. and a second motor 226, respectively. Here, when a failure occurs in either the first control device 242 or the second control device 244, the third control device 246 controls the first motor 224 or the second motor 226 in their place. Provides drive control and backup functions.”), and when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified, transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: i) the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters and ii) a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs [the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and because the step “transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: i) the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters and ii) a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” is contingent upon a condition “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified” that is not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., in a case where no malfunction in the “first converter module” is identified during performing of the claimed method, such as a case where no malfunction in the “first converter module” occurs during performing of the claimed method), “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified, transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: i) the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters and ii) a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation—to avoid future interpretation of “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified, transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: i) the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters and ii) a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” as a contingent limitation, one suggestion is to amend the method of claim 1 to further include a step of --identifying a malfunction in the first converter module-- on a line of the claim preceding “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified…” and to amend “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified” to instead recite --when [[a]] the malfunction in the first converter module is identified--].
With respect to claim 2, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising transitioning the control device during the handshake communication from the insulation state into a second operating state in which the first and second actuator terminals are connected to the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules as negotiated via the handshake communication [because the step “transitioning the control device during the handshake communication from the insulation state into a second operating state in which the first and second actuator terminals are connected to the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules as negotiated via the handshake communication” is contingent upon performing the contingent limitation “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified, transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: i) the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters and ii) a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” of claim 1, “transitioning the control device during the handshake communication from the insulation state into a second operating state in which the first and second actuator terminals are connected to the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules as negotiated via the handshake communication” is also not necessarily performed as part of the claimed method and therefore also does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 3, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the malfunction in the first converter module is identified by the first converter module [because the recitation “wherein the malfunction in the first converter module is identified by the first converter module” only further defines the condition “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified” of claim 1 which, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, is not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method, “wherein the malfunction in the first converter module is identified by the first converter module,” which is not a process step, also does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); also, note that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “wherein the malfunction in the first converter module is identified by the first converter module” recites a process step or necessarily further defines a previously introduced process step of the claimed method].
With respect to claim 4, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein each one of the first, second, and third converter modules monitors the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and identifies the malfunction in the first converter [because the recitation “wherein each one of the first, second, and third converter modules monitors the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and identifies the malfunction in the first converter” only further defines the condition “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified” of claim 1 which, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, is not necessarily met during performing of the claimed method, “wherein each one of the first, second, and third converter modules monitors the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and identifies the malfunction in the first converter,” which is not a process step, also does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); also, note that no part of “wherein each one of the first, second, and third converter modules monitors the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and identifies the malfunction in the first converter” recites a process step or necessarily further defines a previously introduced process step of the claimed method (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 3)].
With respect to claim 5, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the handshake communication comprises a request step in which the first, second and third converter modules each check whether a request message has been received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules [because the recitation “wherein the handshake communication comprises a request step in which the first, second and third converter modules each check whether a request message has been received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules” is contingent upon performing the contingent limitation “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified, transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: i) the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters and ii) a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” of claim 1, “wherein the handshake communication comprises a request step in which the first, second and third converter modules each check whether a request message has been received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules,” which is not a process step, is also not necessarily performed as part of the claimed method and therefore also does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 6, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the handshake communication comprises a status exchange step in which the first, second and third converter modules each determine status information of their operational readiness and transmit the determined status information to the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules [because the recitation “wherein the handshake communication comprises a status exchange step in which the first, second and third converter modules each determine status information of their operational readiness and transmit the determined status information to the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules” is contingent upon performing the contingent limitation “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified, transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: i) the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters and ii) a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” of claim 1, “wherein the handshake communication comprises a status exchange step in which the first, second and third converter modules each determine status information of their operational readiness and transmit the determined status information to the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules,” which is not a process step, is also not necessarily performed as part of the claimed method and therefore also does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 7, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the handshake communication comprises a decision step in which the first and second converter modules each determine a command for the third converter module based on status information received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and send it to the third converter module [because the recitation “wherein the handshake communication comprises a decision step in which the first and second converter modules each determine a command for the third converter module based on status information received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and send it to the third converter module” is contingent upon performing the contingent limitation “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified, transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: i) the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters and ii) a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” of claim 1, “wherein the handshake communication comprises a decision step in which the first and second converter modules each determine a command for the third converter module based on status information received from the respective other of the first, second, and third converter modules and send it to the third converter module,” which is not a process step, is also not necessarily performed as part of the claimed method and therefore also does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 8, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the handshake communication comprises a confirmation step in which the third converter module sends a confirmation message to the first and second converter modules [because the recitation “wherein the handshake communication comprises a confirmation step in which the third converter module sends a confirmation message to the first and second converter modules” is contingent upon performing the contingent limitation “when a malfunction in the first converter module is identified, transitioning the control device to an insulation state in which: i) the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters and ii) a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules occurs, such that via the handshake communication, negotiation of which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are to be connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device occurs” of claim 1, “wherein the handshake communication comprises a confirmation step in which the third converter module sends a confirmation message to the first and second converter modules,” which is not a process step, is also not necessarily performed as part of the claimed method and therefore also does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1)].
With respect to claim 9, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in the first operating state, the first and second actuator terminals of the control device are insulated from the third converter of the third converter module (by selective disconnection via 246C & 246D; apparent from at least Fig. 4; for example: “When a failure occurs in the drive circuit 242B of the first control device 242, the MCU 242A of the first control device 242 turns off the motor relay 242C to cut off the drive circuit 242B and the first motor 224. The third control device 246 is notified of the occurrence of the failure. The MCU 246A of the third control device 246, which has been notified of the failure occurrence by the first control device 242, turns on the first motor relay 246C to connect the drive circuit 246B and the first motor 224. Therefore, when a failure occurs in the first control device 242, the third control device 246 replaces the first control device 242 and can control the drive by supplying alternating current to the first motor 224. When a failure occurs in the drive circuit 244B of the second control device 244, the MCU 244A of the second control device 244 turns off the motor relay 244C to cut off the drive circuit 244B and the second motor 226, and the third control device 246 of the occurrence of the failure. The MCU 246A of the third control device 246, which has been notified of the failure occurrence by the second control device 244, turns on the second motor relay 246D to connect the drive circuit 246B and the second motor 226. Therefore, if a failure occurs in the second control device 244, the third control device 246 can replace the second control device 244 and supply alternating current to the second motor 226 to control its drive.”).
With respect to claim 10, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first and second partial actuators act on a common drive shaft (e.g., 266) (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2).
With respect to claim 11, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first, second and third converter modules each have a logic unit (e.g., 242A, 244A, 246A) for controlling the respective first, second, and third converters (apparent from at least Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 12, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the control device has two supply network terminals (e.g., PT, MT) (apparent from at least Figs. 3 & 4).
With respect to claim 13, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first converter module and the second converter module are identical (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4; “The configurations of the first control device 242 and the second control device 244 are the same”).
With respect to claim 16, Sakashita teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a handshake logic of the first converter module is identical to a handshake logic of the second converter module (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4; “The configurations of the first control device 242 and the second control device 244 are the same”).
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over the Prior Art
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
With respect to independent claim 14, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, neither taught nor suggested an actuator system including “the control device is configured: […] to identify a malfunction in the first converter module and to transition to an insulation state in which the first actuator terminal and the second actuator terminal are insulated from the first, second, and third converters of the first, second and third converter modules, and in the insulation state, to carry out a handshake communication between the first, second and third converter modules of the control device, wherein by-via means of the handshake communication it is negotiated which of the first, second, and third converters of the first, second, and third converter modules is or are connected to the first and second actuator terminals of the control device” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Claim 15 depends from claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights