Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 19/192,641

RECONFIGURABLE STEERING FEEL DESIGN METHOD AND CONTROL SYSTEM FOR STEER-BY-WIRE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 29, 2025
Examiner
UNDERWOOD, BAKARI
Art Unit
3663
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
137 granted / 196 resolved
+17.9% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
235
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§103
57.5%
+17.5% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 196 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Status of Claims This is a Non-Final Rejection office action in response to application Serial No. 19/192,641. Claim(s) 1, and 3-9 have been examined and fully considered. Claim(s) 2 and 10 are cancelled. Claim(s) 1 has been amended. Claim(s) 1, and 3-9 are pending in Instant Application. Priority Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of CN202410537920.0 filed 04/30/2024 and CIP of PCT/CN2024/107210 filed 07/24/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: …outputting this steering feel feedback torque, however, it appears that the claim should recite … outputting [[this]] the steering feel feedback torque Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: … Ka 1ow, …are adjustable parameters to achieve… however, it appears that the claim should recite … Ka high …are adjustable parameters to achieve… Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim(s) 1, and 3-9 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 recites two different ways of obtaining a “total expected steering feel motor torque”. The first is to “calculate an alignment torque based on…and adding them to obtain a total expected steering feel motor torque;” and the second is “inputting signals of a steering wheel angle, speed and torque, an observed rack force and a vehicle speed into the steering feel feedback model to obtain the total expected steering feel motor torque” previously presented are same or not. Subsequently, it is unclear if the claims recite two different ways to calculate the same value, the updated of a value with further information, or another relationship entirely. The term “low speeds and medium-to-high speeds” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low speeds and medium-to-high speeds” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “medium-to-high speeds” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “medium-to-high speeds” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “relatively heavy” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively heavy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the steering wheel torque". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “relatively heavy” recites claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively heavy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 3 recites in limitation “the aligning process” in line 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what limitations exactly is "the aligning process" referring to. Dependent claims 3-9, do not act to cure the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale. Potentially Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 1-9 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. Claim(s) 1, and 3-9 are allowed over the prior art of record. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. SHUAI, Su-yang (CN113799872B; the NPL citations are based on the provided English Translation) hereinafter, referred to as “Shuai” discloses a control method and a control system based on steer-by-wire road feel simulation, wherein the torque fed back to a driver by the road feel simulation is subdivided into damping simulation, aligning simulation, friction simulation, soft dead point simulation, thermal protection simulation and road surface simulation, and the road feel is simulated by multiple modules, so that the driving hand feel identical to that of the traditional automobile electric power steering is realized. HOU, Shi-yang (CN115503812A; the NPL citations are based on the provided English Translation) hereinafter, referred to as “Hou” discloses a road feeling simulation method, device, electronic equipment and storage medium, so as to improve the authenticity, accuracy and applicability of road feeling simulation, thereby improving the driver's driving experience. While the aforementioned references disclose each of the elements of the invention, the combination of references does not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. Claim(s) 3-9 are allowable based on their dependency of the independent claim(s) 1 are therefore allowable. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30. 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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. /B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 29, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594987
ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING SYSTEM RACK FORCE OBSERVER VEHICLE DIAGNOSTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576690
REEFER POWER CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575493
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING MACHINE BASED ON COST OF HARVEST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576876
Method for Implementing Autonomous Driving, Medium, Vehicle-Mounted Computer, and Control System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546626
METHOD, APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROBE DATA-BASED GEOMETRY GENERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 196 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month