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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 19 August 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0153639, filed on 01 November 2024.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first logic” in claims 7 and 19;
The structure of the first logic is not disclosed in the specification.
“second logic” in claims 7 and 19;
The structure of the second logic is not disclosed in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 7-8 and 19 are 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.
Claims 7 and 9 recites “a first logic/second logic configured to…” and “determining… using the first logic and the second logic”. The “first/second logic” invoke 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for first/second logic to perform the recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the first/second logic. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the first/second logic is, what the advantages of using a first/second logic are and how the recited functions are performed by the first/second logic, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a first and a second logic.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-8, 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determine, based on the sensing signal and at least two different logics, respective first steering wheel angles of the vehicle” which is ambiguous. It is not clear the sensing signal and the two different logics respectively determine the angles of the “respective first steering wheel angles” OR the “respective first steering wheel angles” are respectively determined based on the two different logics. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 2 recites “based on the sensing signal and the at least two different logics, respective second steering wheel angles”, which is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons as the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the first processor is configured to output a first error signal based on the respective first steering wheel angles being inconsistent with each other, wherein the second processor is configured to output a second error signal based on the respective second steering wheel angles being inconsistent with each other, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to control operation of the vehicle based on a steering wheel angle output received from one processor of the first processor and the second processor that is not outputting a corresponding error signal” which is ambiguous. It is not clear when both processors output error signals, how the vehicle is controlled. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the other processor” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the other processor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the other processor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “based on the comparison of the steering angle received from the second processor to each of the first steering angle and the second steering angle, cause initialization of one of the first logic or the second logic using the steering angle received from the second processor as an initial value” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how the result of the comparison is related to the “initialization”, i.e., whether no matter what the result of the comparison is (e.g. the angles are all the same), the initialization will be caused. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim limitation “first/second logic” in claims 7 and 19 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “first/second logic” is recited in the claim as having the specific functions. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-8 and 13 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
A method performed by an apparatus of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by a first processor of the apparatus, a sensing signal associated with an angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle;
based on a first logic and the sensing signal, determining, by the first processor, a steering wheel angle associated with the first logic;
based on a second logic and the sensing signal, determining, by the first processor, a steering wheel angle associated with the second logic;
based on the two steering wheel angles determined by the first processor being consistent with each other, outputting, by the first processor, a first signal indicating a first steering wheel angle; and
controlling, based on the first signal, operation of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “…determining...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method performed by an apparatus of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by a first processor of the apparatus, a sensing signal associated with an angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle;
based on a first logic and the sensing signal, determining, by the first processor, a steering wheel angle associated with the first logic;
based on a second logic and the sensing signal, determining, by the first processor, a steering wheel angle associated with the second logic;
based on the two steering wheel angles determined by the first processor being consistent with each other, outputting, by the first processor, a first signal indicating a first steering wheel angle; and
controlling, based on the first signal, operation of the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving...”, “…outputting…” and “controlling ...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the sensors and/or from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle condition data for use in the determining steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting…step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution data output/transmission. The controlling… step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the determined results), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “by the first processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining... steps amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving…”, “…outputting…” and “controlling...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving ...” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “outputting...” and “controlling”, when interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 1.
Claim 1, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim, but adds a steering angle sensor and a control circuit. These generically recited computer elements and data gathering elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 14.
Claim 14, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim, but adds a first memory storing at least one first instruction. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 14.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang (US20130166142).
As to claim 1, Jang teaches an apparatus of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a steering angle sensor configured to output a sensing signal associated with an angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle (see at least Jang para 0023: …a torque sensor including a first rotor 14 and a second rotor 16, and an electronic control unit 20 for determining a reference steering angle based on detection information detected by the torque sensor…; also see para 0028, Fig. 1);
a first processor configured to (see at least Jang para 0028: electronic control unit):
determine, based on the sensing signal and at least two different logics, respective first steering wheel angles of the vehicle (see at least Jang para 0023-0028: …determining a reference steering angle based on detection information detected by the torque sensor, verifying relative steering angles received from second and third angle elements, and calculating a verified final absolute steering angle… The electronic control unit 20 determines a reference steering angle through the steering angles received from the first to third angle elements 131, 132, and 133 and a vernier algorithm, and traces movement of the first rotor 14 based on the determined reference steering angle. Then, by using the movement of the first rotor 14, first and second absolute steering angles may be calculated by using the reference steering angle and the relative steering angles received from the second and third angle elements 132 and 133, respectively, also see para 0030, Fig. 1, Fig. 2), and
based on the respective first steering wheel angles of the vehicle being consistent with each other, output a first signal indicating a first steering wheel angle of the vehicle (see at least Jang para 0029-0035: …calculates a difference between the first absolute steering angle and the second absolute steering angle, determines whether the calculated difference is within a preset reference difference… averages the first absolute steering angle and the second absolute steering angle to calculate a final absolute steering angle if the calculated difference is within the preset reference difference, also see para 0040, Fig. 1, Fig. 2); and
a control circuit configured to control, based on the first signal, operation of the vehicle (see at least Jang para 0041: The steering angle providing unit 25 outputs the final absolute steering angle calculated by the calculation unit 24 to a steering apparatus, also see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
As to claim 9, claim 9 a process claim includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 9 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Jang.
As to claim 14, claim 14 an apparatus claim includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Jang.
As to claim 18, Jung teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one first instruction, when executed by the first processor, is further configured to cause the apparatus to compare the first steering angle and the second steering angle by determining whether a difference between the first steering angle and the second steering angle falls within a predefined consistency threshold (see at least Jang para 0029-0035: …calculates a difference between the first absolute steering angle and the second absolute steering angle, determines whether the calculated difference is within a preset reference difference… averages the first absolute steering angle and the second absolute steering angle to calculate a final absolute steering angle if the calculated difference is within the preset reference difference, also see para 0040, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Yousuf (US20220080992).
As to claim 2, Jang teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Jang further teaches:
determine, based on the sensing signal and the at least two different logics, respective second steering wheel angles (see Jang Fig. 2 and related text, claim 1), and
based on the respective second steering wheel angles being consistent with each other, output a second signal indicating a second steering wheel angle, wherein the control circuit is further configured to control, based on at least one of the first signal and the second signal, autonomous driving operation of the vehicle (see Jang Fig. 2 and related text, claim 1).
Jang does not teach a second processor.
Yousuf is directed to a controller architecture includes multiple processors. Yousuf teaches …Each processor monitors the others and takes appropriate safe action when needed, some processors may run dormant or low priority redundant functions that become active when another processor is detected to have failed. The processors are independently powered and independently execute redundant algorithms from sensor data processing to actuation commands using different hardware capabilities (GPUs, processing cores, different input signals, etc.) (see at least Yousuf abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Yousuf et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Yousuf because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to improve fault tolerance that can be used for self-driving vehicles (Yousef, abstract).
As to claim 3, Jang in view of Yousuf teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Jung further teaches wherein the first processor is configured to output a first error signal based on the respective first steering wheel angles being inconsistent with each other (see at least Jang para 0035: …verifies whether the difference between the first and second absolute steering angles calculated through the calculation unit 24 is within a predetermined reference difference; also see para; also see para 0055; Fig. 2).
Yousuf further teaches wherein the second processor is configured to output a second error signal based on the respective second steering wheel angles being inconsistent with each other, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to control operation of the vehicle based on a steering wheel angle output received from one processor of the first processor and the second processor that is not outputting a corresponding error signal (see at least Yousuf para 0027-0031: …with redundancy provided through the independence of redundant computation In example non-limiting embodiments, much of the functionality required to provide autonomous operation is duplicated in software or firmware between the different processors…If one of the three processors fails for any reason, the two other processors continue to operate; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Yousuf et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Yousuf because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to improve fault tolerance that can be used for self-driving vehicles (Yousef, abstract).
As to claim 10, claim 10 a process claim includes limitations analogous to claim 2, an apparatus claim. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 2, claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Yousuf.
As to claim 11, claim 11 a process claim includes limitations analogous to claim 3, an apparatus claim. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 3, claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Yousuf.
As to claim 15, claim 15 an apparatus claim includes limitations analogous to combination of apparatus claims 2 and 3. For the reasons give above with respect to claims 2 and 3, claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Yousuf.
As to claim 19, Jang in view of Yousuf teaches the apparatus of claim 15.
Yousuf further teaches wherein the at least one second instruction, when executed by the second processor, is further configured to cause the apparatus to (see at least Yousuf abstract).
Jang further teaches determine a third steering angle and a fourth steering angle using the first logic and the second logic, respectively, and compare the third steering angle and the fourth steering angle to detect an inconsistency (see at least Jang para 0023-0028: …determining a reference steering angle based on detection information detected by the torque sensor, verifying relative steering angles received from second and third angle elements, and calculating a verified final absolute steering angle… The electronic control unit 20 determines a reference steering angle through the steering angles received from the first to third angle elements 131, 132, and 133 and a vernier algorithm, and traces movement of the first rotor 14 based on the determined reference steering angle. Then, by using the movement of the first rotor 14, first and second absolute steering angles may be calculated by using the reference steering angle and the relative steering angles received from the second and third angle elements 132 and 133, respectively, also see para 0030, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Yousuf et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Yousuf because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to improve fault tolerance that can be used for self-driving vehicles (Yousef, abstract).
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Yousuf as applied to claim 3 and claim 15 above, and further in view of Bailey (US20190205218).
As to claim 4, Jang in view of Yousuf teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Jang modified by Yousuf does not teach wherein the other processor of the first processor and the second processor is configured to perform a recovery process to recover from an error state using the steering wheel angle output from the one processor that is not outputting the corresponding error signal.
Bailey is directed to a parallel processing system. Bailey teaches the parallel processing system 100 further includes state reload circuitry 106 coupled to the plurality of parallel processors 102A-102N, the state reload circuitry 106 being configured to select a second processor, e.g., 102B, of the plurality of parallel processors 102A-102N for state reload, to access a runtime state of the second processor 102B, and to load the runtime state of the second processor 102B into the first processor 102A… a runtime state error exists in any processor of a plurality of parallel processors/plurality of sub-systems and to load an error free runtime state into another processor/sub-system in runtime (see at least Bailey para 0037, para 0046; also see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Bailey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Bailey because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to be applied to critical computing systems such as autonomous driving systems so that when one processor fails, at least one other processor would be available to continue performing autonomous driving functions without taking out of service for a full restart (See at least Bailey para 0032).
As to claim 12, claim 12 a process claim includes limitations analogous to claim 4, an apparatus claim. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 4, claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Yousuf and Bailey.
As to claim 20, Jang in view of Yousuf teaches the apparatus of claim 15.
Jang modified by Yousuf does not teach wherein the at least one first instruction, when executed by the first processor, is further configured to cause the apparatus to: compare the steering angle received from the second processor to each of the first steering angle and the second steering angle, and based on the comparison of the steering angle received from the second processor to each of the first steering angle and the second steering angle, cause initialization of one of the first logic or the second logic using the steering angle received from the second processor as an initial value.
Bailey is directed to a parallel processing system. Bailey teaches the parallel processing system 100 further includes state reload circuitry 106 coupled to the plurality of parallel processors 102A-102N, the state reload circuitry 106 being configured to select a second processor, e.g., 102B, of the plurality of parallel processors 102A-102N for state reload, to access a runtime state of the second processor 102B, and to load the runtime state of the second processor 102B into the first processor 102A… a runtime state error exists in any processor of a plurality of parallel processors/plurality of sub-systems and to load an error free runtime state into another processor/sub-system in runtime (see at least Bailey para 0037, para 0046; also see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Bailey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Bailey because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to be applied to critical computing systems such as autonomous driving systems so that when one processor fails, at least one other processor would be available to continue performing autonomous driving functions (See at least Bailey para 0032).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Yousuf as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee (US20130305843).
As to claim 5, Jang in view of Yousuf teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Jang modified by Yousuf does not explicitly teach wherein the steering angle sensor comprises: a main gear connected to a steering shaft; a first sub-gear having fewer teeth than the main gear and rotating in engagement with the main gear; a second sub-gear having fewer teeth than the first sub- gear and rotating in engagement with the main gear; a first sensor configured to output a first sensing signal according to a rotation of the first sub-gear; and a second sensor configured to output a second sensing signal according to a rotation of the second sub-gear.
Lee is directed to a torque angle sensor. Lee teaches a main gear rotating in conjunction with rotation with the rotation shaft formed with the steering input shaft and output shaft coupled to a center, a first sub gear gear-coupled to the main gear; and a second sub gear gear-coupled
to any one of the main gear and the first/second sub gears… the first and second sub gears may be installed at each body thereof with a magnet… the number of teeth at the main gear (1020) may be 68, the number of teeth at the first sub gear (1031) may be 18 and the number of teeth at the second sub gear (1032) may be 17 (Lee para 0022-0030, also see para 0070, para 0074-0076, para 0079, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Lee because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 6, Jang in view of Yousuf and Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 5.
Jang further teaches determine a plurality of rotation angles of the main gear, wherein the plurality of rotation angles of the main gear is determined based on the at least two different logics (see at least Jang para 0023-0030, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Yousuf further teaches wherein the first processor and the second processor are each configured to (see at least Yousuf abstract).
Lee further teaches determine, based on the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal, a first rotation angle of the first sub-gear and a second rotation angle of the second sub-gear; and rotation angles of the main gear is determined based on the first rotation angle, and the second rotation angle (Lee para 0022-0030, para 0074-0079: a main gear rotating in conjunction with rotation with the rotation shaft formed with the steering input shaft and output shaft coupled to a center, a first sub gear gear-coupled to the main gear; and a second sub gear gear-coupled to any one of the main gear and the first/second sub gears… the first and second sub gears may be installed at each body thereof with a magnet… the number of teeth at the main gear (1020) may be 68, the number of teeth at the first sub gear (1031) may be 18 and the number of teeth at the second sub gear (1032) may be 17, also see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Lee because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 7, Jang in view of Yousuf and Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Jang further teaches wherein the at least two different logics comprise: a first logic configured to output a first-logic steering wheel angle based on a rotation angle of the main gear associated with the first logic, a second logic configured to output a second-logic steering wheel angle based on a rotation angle of the main gear associated with the second logic, wherein the rotation angle of the main gear associated with the second logic is determined based on an accumulated change in a rotation angle of the main gear over time (see at least Jang para 0023-0028: …determining a reference steering angle based on detection information detected by the torque sensor, verifying relative steering angles received from second and third angle elements, and calculating a verified final absolute steering angle… The electronic control unit 20 determines a reference steering angle through the steering angles received from the first to third angle elements 131, 132, and 133 and a vernier algorithm, and traces movement of the first rotor 14 based on the determined reference steering angle. Then, by using the movement of the first rotor 14, first and second absolute steering angles may be calculated by using the reference steering angle and the relative steering angles received from the second and third angle elements 132 and 133, respectively, also see para 0030, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Lee further teaches wherein the rotation angle of the main gear associated with the first logic is determined based on the first rotation angle and the second rotation angle (Lee para 0022-0030, para 0074-0079: a main gear rotating in conjunction with rotation with the rotation shaft formed with the steering input shaft and output shaft coupled to a center, a first sub gear gear-coupled to the main gear; and a second sub gear gear-coupled to any one of the main gear and the first/second sub gears… the first and second sub gears may be installed at each body thereof with a magnet… the number of teeth at the main gear (1020) may be 68, the number of teeth at the first sub gear (1031) may be 18 and the number of teeth at the second sub gear (1032) may be 17, also see Fig. 6);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Lee because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Yousuf and Lee as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bailey.
As to claim 8, Jang in view of Yousuf and Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
Yousuf further teaches wherein the first processor and the second processor (see at least Yousuf abstract).
Jang further teaches determine an error state and output an error signal based on respective steering wheel angles determined using the at least two different logics being inconsistent with each other (see at least Jang para 0035: …verifies whether the difference between the first and second absolute steering angles calculated through the calculation unit 24 is within a predetermined reference difference; also see para; also see para 0055; Fig. 2).
Jang modified by Yousuf does not teach based on a determination of the error state, receive a steering wheel angle output from the other processor in which a corresponding error state does not occur; initialize computation using one of the at least two different logics based on the received steering wheel angle output from the other processor; and recalculate a steering wheel angle.
Bailey is directed to a parallel processing system. Bailey teaches the parallel processing system 100 further includes state reload circuitry 106 coupled to the plurality of parallel processors 102A-102N, the state reload circuitry 106 being configured to select a second processor, e.g., 102B, of the plurality of parallel processors 102A-102N for state reload, to access a runtime state of the second processor 102B, and to load the runtime state of the second processor 102B into the first processor 102A… a runtime state error exists in any processor of a plurality of parallel processors/plurality of sub-systems and to load an error free runtime state into another processor/sub-system in runtime (see at least Bailey para 0037, para 0046; also see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Bailey et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Bailey because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to be applied to critical computing systems such as autonomous driving systems so that when one processor fails, at least one other processor would be available to continue performing autonomous driving functions without taking out of service for a full restart (See at least Bailey para 0032).
As to claim 13, claim 13 a process claim includes limitations analogous to claim 8, an apparatus claim. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 8, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Yousuf, Lee and Bailey.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Lee.
As to claim 16, Jung teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Jung does not explicitly teach a steering angle sensor configured to output the sensing signal, wherein the first steering angle is further based on a combination of rotation angles of a first sub-gear and a second sub-gear that are engaged with a main gear connected to a steering shaft.
Lee is directed to a torque angle sensor. Lee teaches a main gear rotating in conjunction with rotation with the rotation shaft formed with the steering input shaft and output shaft coupled to a center, a first sub gear gear-coupled to the main gear; and a second sub gear gear-coupled
to any one of the main gear and the first/second sub gears… the first and second sub gears may be installed at each body thereof with a magnet… the number of teeth at the main gear (1020) may be 68, the number of teeth at the first sub gear (1031) may be 18 and the number of teeth at the second sub gear (1032) may be 17 (Lee para 0022-0030, also see para 0070, para 0074-0076, para 0079, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jang so as to include the above limitation in view of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Jang and Lee because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 17, Jung in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Jung further teaches a steering angle sensor configured to output the sensing signal, wherein the second steering angle is further based on a change in rotation angle of the main gear accumulated over time from an initial reference angle (see at least Jang para 0023-0028: …determining a reference steering angle based on detection information detected by the torque sensor, verifying relative steering angles received from second and third angle elements, and calculating a verified final absolute steering angle… The electronic control unit 20 determines a reference steering angle through the steering angles received from the first to third angle elements 131, 132, and 133 and a vernier algorithm, and traces movement of the first rotor 14 based on the determined reference steering angle. Then, by using the movement of the first rotor 14, first and second absolute steering angles may be calculated by using the reference steering angle and the relative steering angles received from the second and third angle elements 132 and 133, respectively, also see para 0030, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights