DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of Claim for purposes of evaluation under 35 USC § 101 as follows:
(A) “ determining a duty cycle of a first pulse width modulation (PWM) signal according to a first torque signal collected by a first torque sensor, wherein the duty cycle of the first PWM signal is configured to represent a first torque detected by the first torque sensor”
(B) “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e. Mathematical concepts, and Mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Abstract Ideas:
With respect to Independent Claim , claim limitations ()-() recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a), (i.e. Mathematical concepts, and Mental processes)
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, and/or by a human using a pen and paper. Limitations ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Mathematical Concepts: (Mathematical Relationships, Mathematical Formulas or Equations, Mathematical Calculations) - MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)
Claim limitation(s) ()-() also fall within the mathematical concept grouping of patent ineligible subject matter.
Specifically, the claim limitations invoke the functions of . The Instant Specification fails to attribute special definitions to the language used in limitation(s) ()-(). Consequently, the words and phrases of the limitation(s) have been given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
These steps are common computer processing functions that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known generic computers were capable of performing and would have associated with generic computers. .
“A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols . . . [t]here is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”) citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), and Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., 741 Fed. Appx. 777, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“using a formula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural numbers”). In this instance, determining a duty cycle of an electronic signal involves mathematical calculations/operations/methods.
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In this instance, although the specification indicates the method as being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming, the recited claim does not include any limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even if the claim recited limitations directed towards the method as being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming, since the recited features of the abstract idea would be applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea; this would be inadequate to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, even the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) ()-() constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data (“according to a first torque signal collected by a first torque sensor, “ and “according to a second torque signal collected by a second torque sensor”), and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) wherein the duty cycle of the second PWM signal is configured to represent second torque detected by the second torque sensor” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding Claim 12 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising a program stored therein, wherein the program, when run, controls a device where the computer-readable storage medium is located to perform the method according to claim” which are generic computer related limitations recited at a high level of generality which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least the reasons indicated above in section 12 (Step 2A Prong Two). Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim .
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by HE D et al. (CN110562319 A). HE discloses “The invention discloses an electric power steering gear control method. The electric power steering gear control method comprises the following steps of S1, calculating a torque of a steering wheel” (Abstract)
Regarding Claim 1, HE discloses A torque signal processing method (Fig. 1) , comprising:
determining a duty cycle of a first pulse width modulation (PWM) signal according to a first torque signal collected by a first torque sensor, wherein the duty cycle of the first PWM signal is configured to represent a first torque detected by the first torque sensor (Fig. 1, S1-1; ¶0022+);
and determining a duty cycle of a second PWM signal according to a second torque signal collected by a second torque sensor, wherein the duty cycle of the second PWM signal is configured to represent second torque detected by the second torque sensor (Fig. 1, S1-3; ¶0026+).
An electronic power steering (EPS) sensor, comprising: a first torque sensor (¶0022+, “first torque sensor”); a second torque sensor (¶0026+; “second torque sensor”); and a controller (¶0174+, “MCU”) configured to perform the method according to claim 1.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising a program stored therein, wherein the program (Fig. 1, control process method comprising executable program/code stored in MCU), when run, controls a device (¶0001; “electric power steering system” comprising an electric motor) where the computer-readable storage medium is located to perform the method (Fig. 1) according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE D et al. (CN110562319 A) in view of Harata et al. (U.S. 7497132B2). Harata discloses “A magnetostrictive torque sensor comprising a first magnetostrictive film, a second magnetostrictive film, and a third magnetostrictive film formed over the entire circumferential periphery of a surface of a rotating shaft. A first sensor coil, a second sensor coil, and a third sensor coil for sensing changes in impedance are provided for the first, second, and third magnetostrictive films, respectively. Signals according to the changes in impedance outputted from the first through third sensor coils are inputted to a torque calculating unit. “ (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, HE discloses all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above but does not explicitly teach: wherein the first torque sensor and the second torque sensor are arranged symmetrically, so that a first torque theoretical value detected by the first torque sensor and a second torque theoretical value detected by the second torque sensor are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction
Harata teaches a torque sensor arrangement for an electric power assisted steering system (Fig. 5) : wherein the first torque sensor (Fig. 6, 13a) and the second torque sensor (Fig. 6, 13b) are arranged symmetrically (Fig. 6, symmetric on shaft 11 either side of item 13c), so that a first torque theoretical value detected by the first torque sensor and a second torque theoretical value detected by the second torque sensor are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction (Fig. 6, “FIG. 6 is a side view of the configuration of the magnetostrictive torque sensor 10 shown in FIG. 1, and selectively showing in exaggerated form the positional relationship of mounting the magnetostrictive films 14A, 14B, 14C and the sensor coils 13A, 13B, 13C as being extracted and exaggerated….In FIG. 6, the arrow 71 indicates the direction of the magnetic anisotropy provided to the magnetostrictive film 14A, and the arrow 72 indicates the direction of the magnetic anisotropy provided to the magnetostrictive film 14B.” see Col. 11 line 20+; which results in opposite direction voltage signals from respective torque sensors) in order that “it becomes possible to provide a magnetostrictive torque sensor with a magnetostrictive film configuration wherein magnetostrictive film failures can be detected using regions of smaller dimensions in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, and a magnetostrictive film failure sensing structure and function can be provided to a shorter rotating shaft than in conventional practice” (Col. 4 lines 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the electric power steering assist system of HE to incorporate the teachings of Harata to include wherein the first torque sensor and the second torque sensor are arranged symmetrically, so that a first torque theoretical value detected by the first torque sensor and a second torque theoretical value detected by the second torque sensor are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction in order that “it becomes possible to provide a magnetostrictive torque sensor with a magnetostrictive film configuration wherein magnetostrictive film failures can be detected using regions of smaller dimensions in the axial direction of the rotating shaft, and a magnetostrictive film failure sensing structure and function can be provided to a shorter rotating shaft than in conventional practice” (Col. 4 lines 9-15).
Claims 2 , 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE D et al. (CN110562319 A) in view of Lin et al. (CN107128357A). Lin discloses “The electric power assisted steering system can learn by seif and count the EPS system sensor torque signal or corner signal midpoint deviation phenomenon by the electronic control unit (for short ECU) in the system, and can implement automatic calibration to make the EPS system has normal power assist and not need special instrument.” (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, HE discloses all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above and further teaches: wherein the determining a duty cycle of a first PWM signal according to a first torque signal collected by a first torque sensor comprises: determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, an average initial voltage, and a conversion coefficient; and the determining a duty cycle of a second PWM signal according to a second torque signal collected by a second torque sensor comprises: determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to a second voltage collected by the second torque sensor, the average initial voltage, and the conversion coefficient; (See ¶0171-0184; duty cycle of first and second PWM signals based on first/second voltages, respective average initial voltages, and a conversion coefficient)
HE does not explicitly teach: wherein the average initial voltage is an average value of a first initial voltage collected by the first torque sensor and a second initial voltage collected by the second torque sensor, and the first initial voltage and the second initial voltage are respectively voltage values collected by the first torque sensor and the second torque sensor when the torque is 0
Lin teaches: wherein the average initial voltage is an average value of a first initial voltage collected by the first torque sensor and a second initial voltage collected by the second torque sensor, and the first initial voltage and the second initial voltage are respectively voltage values collected by the first torque sensor and the second torque sensor when the torque is 0 (¶0016; ¶0042, zero point voltage sensor(s) calibration) in order to “automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the electric power steering assist system of HE to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include wherein the average initial voltage is an average value of a first initial voltage collected by the first torque sensor and a second initial voltage collected by the second torque sensor, and the first initial voltage and the second initial voltage are respectively voltage values collected by the first torque sensor and the second torque sensor when the torque is 0 in order to…automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of HE and Lin teaches all the elements of Claim 2 as indicated above. Lin further discloses: wherein the determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, an average initial voltage, and a conversion coefficient comprises: calculating a difference between the first voltage collected by the first torque sensor and the average initial voltage to obtain a first relative voltage; and determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to the first relative voltage and the conversion coefficient; andthe determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to a second voltage collected by the second torque sensor, the average initial voltage, and the conversion coefficient comprises: calculating a difference between the second voltage collected by the second torque sensor and the average initial voltage to obtain a second relative voltage; and determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to the second relative voltage and the conversion coefficient(¶0016; ¶0042, zero point voltage sensor(s) calibration) in order to “automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the electric power steering assist system of HE to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include wherein the determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, an average initial voltage, and a conversion coefficient comprises: calculating a difference between the first voltage collected by the first torque sensor and the average initial voltage to obtain a first relative voltage; and determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to the first relative voltage and the conversion coefficient; andthe determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to a second voltage collected by the second torque sensor, the average initial voltage, and the conversion coefficient comprises: calculating a difference between the second voltage collected by the second torque sensor and the average initial voltage to obtain a second relative voltage; and determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to the second relative voltage and the conversion coefficient in order to…automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of HE and Lin teaches all the elements of Claim 2 as indicated above. Lin further discloses: wherein prior to the determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, an average initial voltage, and a conversion coefficient, the method further comprises: sampling a first voltage analog signal outputted by the first torque sensor to obtain the first voltage collected by the first torque sensor; and sampling a second voltage analog signal outputted by the second torque sensor to obtain the second voltage collected by the second torque sensor (¶0016; ¶0042, zero point voltage sensor(s) calibration method based on converting analog signals to digital signals) in order to “automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the electric power steering assist system of HE to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include wherein prior to the determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, an average initial voltage, and a conversion coefficient, the method further comprises: sampling a first voltage analog signal outputted by the first torque sensor to obtain the first voltage collected by the first torque sensor; and sampling a second voltage analog signal outputted by the second torque sensor to obtain the second voltage collected by the second torque sensor in order to “automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
Claims 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE D et al. (CN110562319 A) in view of Lin et al. (CN107128357A) in further view of Zhong et al. (CN102564689A). Zhong discloses a zero correction method for torque sensors utilized in vehicle electric power steering systems.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of HE and Lin teaches all the elements of Claim 4 as indicated above. However, neither reference explicitly teaches: wherein the determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, an average initial voltage, and a conversion coefficient comprises: determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a formula T t'=X+K(VA- (VAO+Vuo)/2), where T1' denotes the duty cycle of the first PWM signal, X denotes a preset duty cycle parameter, K denotes the conversion coefficient, VA denotes the first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, VAo denotes the first initial voltage, and VBo denotes the second initial voltage; andthe determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to a second voltage collected by the second torque sensor, the average initial voltage, and the conversion coefficient comprises: determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to a formula T2'=X- K((VAO+Vuo)/2-VB), where T2' denotes the duty cycle of the second PWM signal, X denotes the duty cycle parameter, K denotes the conversion coefficient, Vn denotes the second voltage collected by the second torque sensor, VAo denotes the first initial voltage, and Vo denotes the second initial voltage
Zhong teaches: wherein the determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, an average initial voltage, and a conversion coefficient comprises: determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a formula T t'=X+K(VA- (VAO+Vuo)/2), where T1' denotes the duty cycle of the first PWM signal, X denotes a preset duty cycle parameter, K denotes the conversion coefficient, VA denotes the first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, VAo denotes the first initial voltage, and VBo denotes the second initial voltage; andthe determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to a second voltage collected by the second torque sensor, the average initial voltage, and the conversion coefficient comprises: determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to a formula T2'=X- K((VAO+Vuo)/2-VB), where T2' denotes the duty cycle of the second PWM signal, X denotes the duty cycle parameter, K denotes the conversion coefficient, Vn denotes the second voltage collected by the second torque sensor, VAo denotes the first initial voltage, and Vo denotes the second initial voltage (See at least ¶0015-0024) in order “to compensate for the aging of the mechanical structure, ensuring the comfort and safety of the user's driving experience, and extending the product's service life as much as possible, so that the entire electric power steering system can achieve balance” (¶0007).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the electric power steering assist system of HE to incorporate the teachings of Zhong to include wherein the determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, an average initial voltage, and a conversion coefficient comprises: determining the duty cycle of the first PWM signal according to a formula T t'=X+K(VA- (VAO+Vuo)/2), where T1' denotes the duty cycle of the first PWM signal, X denotes a preset duty cycle parameter, K denotes the conversion coefficient, VA denotes the first voltage collected by the first torque sensor, VAo denotes the first initial voltage, and VBo denotes the second initial voltage; andthe determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to a second voltage collected by the second torque sensor, the average initial voltage, and the conversion coefficient comprises: determining the duty cycle of the second PWM signal according to a formula T2'=X- K((VAO+Vuo)/2-VB), where T2' denotes the duty cycle of the second PWM signal, X denotes the duty cycle parameter, K denotes the conversion coefficient, Vn denotes the second voltage collected by the second torque sensor, VAo denotes the first initial voltage, and Vo denotes the second initial voltage in order “to compensate for the aging of the mechanical structure, ensuring the comfort and safety of the user's driving experience, and extending the product's service life as much as possible, so that the entire electric power steering system can achieve balance” (¶0007).
Regarding Claim 6, HE does not explicitly disclose: wherein X is 50%.
Lin further teaches: (PWM center value is set within a predetermined range, wherein 50% is within the disclosed range) in order to “automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the electric power steering assist system of HE to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include wherein X is 50% in order to “automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
Regarding Claim 7, HE does not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining a first standard duty cycle according to a formula T1"=Y+(Ti'-T2')/2, wherein Ti" denotes the first standard duty cycle, and Y denotes a preset standard duty cycle parameter; and determining a second standard duty cycle according to a formula T2"=Y-(Ti'-T2')/2wherein T2" denotes the second standard duty cycle, and Y denotes the preset standard duty cycle parameter.
Zhong teaches: determining a first standard duty cycle according to a formula T1"=Y+(Ti'-T2')/2, wherein Ti" denotes the first standard duty cycle, and Y denotes a preset standard duty cycle parameter; and determining a second standard duty cycle according to a formula T2"=Y-(Ti'-T2')/2wherein T2" denotes the second standard duty cycle, and Y denotes the preset standard duty cycle parameter in order “to compensate for the aging of the mechanical structure, ensuring the comfort and safety of the user's driving experience, and extending the product's service life as much as possible, so that the entire electric power steering system can achieve balance” (¶0007).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the electric power steering assist system of HE to incorporate the teachings of Zhong to include determining a first standard duty cycle according to a formula T1"=Y+(Ti'-T2')/2, wherein Ti" denotes the first standard duty cycle, and Y denotes a preset standard duty cycle parameter; and determining a second standard duty cycle according to a formula T2"=Y-(Ti'-T2')/2wherein T2" denotes the second standard duty cycle, and Y denotes the preset standard duty cycle parameter in order “to compensate for the aging of the mechanical structure, ensuring the comfort and safety of the user's driving experience, and extending the product's service life as much as possible, so that the entire electric power steering system can achieve balance” (¶0007).
Regarding Claim 8, HE does not explicitly disclose: wherein X is 50%.
Lin further teaches: (PWM center value is set within a predetermined range, wherein 50% is within the disclosed range) in order to “automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the electric power steering assist system of HE to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include wherein X is 50% in order to “automatically calibrate the sensor torque signal….making the torque signal output by the sensor more accurately represent the driver’s steering force. (¶0014)
Regarding Claim 10, HE does not explicitly teach: wherein the method further comprises: determining an average initial voltage according to a first initial voltage collected by the first torque sensor and a second initial voltage collected by the second torque sensor when the torque is 0.
Zhong teaches: wherein the method further comprises: determining an average initial voltage according to a first initial voltage collected by the first torque sensor and a second initial voltage collected by the second torque sensor when the torque is 0. (zero point calibration method executed at vehicle startup when torque is zero; ¶0015-0024) in order “to compensate for the aging of the mechanical structure, ensuring the comfort and safety of the user's driving experience, and extending the product's service life as much as possible, so that the entire electric power steering system can achieve balance” (¶0007).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the electric power steering assist system of HE to incorporate the teachings of Zhong to include wherein the method further comprises: determining an average initial voltage according to a first initial voltage collected by the first torque sensor and a second initial voltage collected by the second torque sensor when the torque is 0 in order “to compensate for the aging of the mechanical structure, ensuring the comfort and safety of the user's driving experience, and extending the product's service life as much as possible, so that the entire electric power steering system can achieve balance” (¶0007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoneda et al. (U.S. 7478568) discloses “A magnetostrictive torque sensor system stabilizes and detects steering torque applied to a steering shaft. The sensor system comprises magnetic-characteristic variation parts that are provided to the steering shaft, wherein magnetic characteristics of the magnetic-characteristic variation parts change in accordance with the applied torque; coils that are positioned around the magnetic-characteristic variation parts and that respond to changes in the magnetic characteristics; resistance elements that are serially connected to the coils; voltage-applying means for periodically applying a voltage to serial circuits that are formed from the coils and the resistance elements; terminals for retrieving changes in the terminal voltage of the coils; phase-shifting means for inverting the phase of the change in the terminal voltage of the coils; selecting means for alternatingly selecting and outputting the voltage change in the terminals and the voltage change in the output ends of the phase-shifting means; and smoothing means for smoothing the voltage signals output from the selecting means and for outputting a direct-current voltage.” (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights