DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement filed by the Applicant listed below:
November 22, 2025
Drawings
Figure is objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR § 1.83(a), which requires a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box / labeled graphical drawing symbol) for claimed features depicted in the form of a graphical drawing symbol (e.g., block diagrams, methods, and flowcharts). The unlabeled shapes depicted in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because is it describes a computer program that is directed to a signal per se, or software per se. (see MPEP § 2106.03 ).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim, see MPEP 2106 (I). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 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.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language, but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
[0013] In a second aspect, a device for estimating a steering torque in a steering system of a vehicle and/or a machine is provided. The device comprises a provisioning device, which is configured to provide a machine-learning algorithm and at least one input signal, which comprises information about at least one movement variable of an electric motor of a control element of the steering system; and an analysis and computation device, which is configured to estimate and/or approximate the steering torque applied by an operator by means of the control element by using the machine-learning algorithm based on the provided input signal.
[0014] An advantage of the invention is that by estimating the steering torque, it is fundamentally possible to refrain from using a torsion rod sensor in the steering system in question. According to the present invention, it is possible to estimate the steering torque without necessarily having to measure the steering torque with a torsion rod sensor. This may achieve a cost reduction for a steering system configured in this way. The torsion rod sensor is also omitted as a component, so that more design space is available. The method according to the invention as well as the device according to the invention also have a positive effect on the costs of producing a steering system.
[0043] Figure 1 shows a schematic block diagram of a computer-implemented method and device 1 for estimating a steering torque in a steering system of a vehicle and/or a machine.
[0044] In any embodiment, the method may be performed at least in part by the device 1, which may comprise a plurality of components not shown here, for example one or more supply devices and/or at least one analysis and calculation device. It is understood that the supply device may be configured together with the analysis and computing device or may be different from it. Furthermore, the system may comprise a storage device and/or an output device and/or a display device and/or an input device.
[0045] According to the invention, the computer-implemented method comprises at least the following steps:
[0046] In a step S1, a machine-learning algorithm 100 is provided. For example, the machine-learning algorithm comprises an explainable boosting machine, EBM, algorithm as shown schematically in greatly simplified manner and incompletely indicated in Fig. 2. Alternatively, or in addition, the machine-learning algorithm comprises a generalized additive model, GAM, algorithm, and/or a regression-based algorithm.
[0047] In a step S2, at least one input signal is provided comprising information concerning at least one movement variable of the electric motor of a control element of the steering system. The at least one input signal comprises rotor position information feati and/or rotor speed information feat2 and/or rotor acceleration information feat3 and/or rotor jerking information featn_4 and/or a motor target torque information featn_3 and/or information about a gradient of the motor target torque featn-2 and/or a motor actual torque information featn_1 and/or information about a gradient of the motor actual torque feat. The features featn_4 to featn_1 are not indicated in Fig. 2, but are merely indicated by three dots (...).
[0048] In a step S3, the steering torque applied by an operator via the control element is estimated by the particularly trained machine-learning algorithm based on the at least one input signal provided.
See at least: Instant Specification ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which input(s) are provided and output(s) result as follows:
Inputs:
Output: .
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the Specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language, but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
[0013] In a second aspect, a device for estimating a steering torque in a steering system of a vehicle and/or a machine is provided. The device comprises a provisioning device, which is configured to provide a machine-learning algorithm and at least one input signal, which comprises information about at least one movement variable of an electric motor of a control element of the steering system; and an analysis and computation device, which is configured to estimate and/or approximate the steering torque applied by an operator by means of the control element by using the machine-learning algorithm based on the provided input signal.
[0014] An advantage of the invention is that by estimating the steering torque, it is fundamentally possible to refrain from using a torsion rod sensor in the steering system in question. According to the present invention, it is possible to estimate the steering torque without necessarily having to measure the steering torque with a torsion rod sensor. This may achieve a cost reduction for a steering system configured in this way. The torsion rod sensor is also omitted as a component, so that more design space is available. The method according to the invention as well as the device according to the invention also have a positive effect on the costs of producing a steering system.
[0043] Figure 1 shows a schematic block diagram of a computer-implemented method and device 1 for estimating a steering torque in a steering system of a vehicle and/or a machine.
[0044] In any embodiment, the method may be performed at least in part by the device 1, which may comprise a plurality of components not shown here, for example one or more supply devices and/or at least one analysis and calculation device. It is understood that the supply device may be configured together with the analysis and computing device or may be different from it. Furthermore, the system may comprise a storage device and/or an output device and/or a display device and/or an input device.
[0045] According to the invention, the computer-implemented method comprises at least the following steps:
[0046] In a step S1, a machine-learning algorithm 100 is provided. For example, the machine-learning algorithm comprises an explainable boosting machine, EBM, algorithm as shown schematically in greatly simplified manner and incompletely indicated in Fig. 2. Alternatively, or in addition, the machine-learning algorithm comprises a generalized additive model, GAM, algorithm, and/or a regression-based algorithm.
[0047] In a step S2, at least one input signal is provided comprising information concerning at least one movement variable of the electric motor of a control element of the steering system. The at least one input signal comprises rotor position information feati and/or rotor speed information feat2 and/or rotor acceleration information feat3 and/or rotor jerking information featn_4 and/or a motor target torque information featn_3 and/or information about a gradient of the motor target torque featn-2 and/or a motor actual torque information featn_1 and/or information about a gradient of the motor actual torque feat. The features featn_4 to featn_1 are not indicated in Fig. 2, but are merely indicated by three dots (...).
[0048] In a step S3, the steering torque applied by an operator via the control element is estimated by the particularly trained machine-learning algorithm based on the at least one input signal provided.
See at least: Instant Specification ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which input(s) are provided and output(s) result as follows:
Inputs:
Output: .
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the Specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement and are rejected for depending therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation ""
However, the claim depends from claim 2 which recites the limitation "wherein the machine-learning algorithm comprises an explainable boosting machine, EBM, algorithm, and/or a generalized additive model, GAM, algorithm, and/or a regression-based algorithm".
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the limitation of claim 2 provides the options the machine-learning algorithm comprising: an explainable boosting machine, EBM, algorithm, and/or
a generalized additive model, GAM, algorithm, and/or
a regression-based algorithm.
It is unclear how a fit function to a plurality of data points could b determined by the GAM algorithm based on a plurality of cumulative spline functions using at least one regularization term in the case that the machine learning algorithm comprises only an explainable boosting machine, EBM, algorithm or a regression-based algorithm.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation ""
However, the claim depends from claim 2 which recites the limitation "wherein the machine-learning algorithm comprises an explainable boosting machine, EBM, algorithm, and/or a generalized additive model, GAM, algorithm, and/or a regression-based algorithm".
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the limitation of claim 2 provides the options the machine-learning algorithm comprising: an explainable boosting machine, EBM, algorithm, and/or
a generalized additive model, GAM, algorithm, and/or
a regression-based algorithm.
It is unclear how an EBM algorithm could be built on a GAM algorithm and expanded with a data tree-based approach in the case that the machine learning algorithm comprises only a regression-based algorithm.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (), hereinafter “” in view of (), hereinafter “”
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A computer-implemented method for estimating a steering torque in a steering system of a vehicle and/or a machine, the method comprising:
providing at least one input signal comprising information about at least one movement variable of the electric motor (75) of a control element (10, 15) of the steering system; See at least ¶¶0008, 0010, 0022, 0042; “” and
fails to explicitly disclose:
providing a machine-learning algorithm; estimating, with the machine-learning algorithm, the steering torque applied by an operator via the control element based on the at least one input signal provided.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to improve estimation of the steering wheel torque and adapt steering feel. See at least ¶¶0041-0045.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to improve estimation of the steering wheel torque and adapt steering feel. See at least ¶¶0041-0045; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the machine-learning algorithm is trained on the basis of training data via the at least one input signal of the electric motor of the control element of the steering system. See at least ¶¶0026, 0030-0031, 0040-0041; “”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the at least one input signal comprises rotor position information and/or rotor speed information and/or rotor acceleration information and/or rotor jerking information and/or motor target torque information and/or information about a gradient of the motor target torque and/or motor actual torque information and/or information about a gradient of the motor actual torque. See at least : ¶¶0009-0010, 0024, 0029, 0035, 0038, 0065-0068; “angle of rotation of reaction motor”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the control element comprises a steering wheel and/or a joystick and/or a steering lever and/or a steering switch. See at least : ¶¶0022, 0042; “
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A controller of a steering system and/or a vehicle comprising at least one processor and/or an analysis and control device (: 50; Fig 3) configured to at least partially perform the method of claim 1. See at least : ¶¶0005, 0022, 0042; “
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
A device for estimating a steering torque in a steering system of a vehicle and/or a machine, the device comprising:
a supply unit that is configured to provide at least one input signal comprising information about at least one movement variable of an electric motor (75) of a control element (10, 15) of the steering system; See at least ¶¶0008, 0010, 0022, 0042; “”and
fails to explicitly disclose:
provide a machine-learning algorithm and an analysis and computing device configured to estimate and/or approximate the steering torque applied by an operator by way of the control element by using the machine-learning algorithm based on the at least one input signal provided.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to improve estimation of the steering wheel torque and adapt steering feel. See at least ¶¶0041-0045.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to improve estimation of the steering wheel torque and adapt steering feel. See at least ¶¶0041-0045; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A steering system of a vehicle and/or machine comprising a control element (: 10, 15) configured to apply steering torque by an operator, an electric motor coupled to the control element (: 10, 15), and a device according to claim 10. See at least : ¶¶0009-0011, 0025-0035“; ”;
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A computer program comprising program code to execute at least portions of a method according to claim 1 if the computer program is executed on a computer. See at least : ¶¶0025, 0027;“”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A computer-readable data carrier comprising program code of a computer program to execute at least portions of a method according to claim 1 if the computer program is executed on a computer. See at least : ¶¶0025, 0027-0028;“”; “”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A steering system of a vehicle and/or machine comprising a control element configured to apply steering torque by an operator, an electric motor (: 75) coupled to the control element (: 10, 15), and a controller according to claim 9. See at least : ¶¶0005, 0009-0011, 0022, 0025-0035, 0042; “”; “”;
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the machine-learning algorithm comprises an explainable boosting machine, EBM, algorithm, and/or a generalized additive model, GAM, algorithm, and/or a regression-based algorithm.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to improve driver attentiveness. See at least ¶¶0058, 0072; “”; “”..
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to improve driver attentiveness. See at least ¶¶0058, 0072; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above and further in view of (), hereinafter “”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the at least one input signal is filtered by applying a moving average and/or a low-pass filter.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to remove spurious signal data. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to remove spurious signal data. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
