Ex Parte Demerly et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

13565311 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/565,311 08/02/2012 Jon D. Demerly MO5-0659US (DP-318662) 3703
23413 7590 06/27/2017
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P
EXAMINER
20 Church Street INGRAM, THOMAS P
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JON D. DEMERLY and SIDDHARTH H. D’SILVA
Appeal 2016-006433
Application 13/565,311
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6—14, 16—20, 40, and 41. Claims 5, and 15
have been canceled, and claims 21—39 are withdrawn during prosecution.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006433
Application 13/565,311
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates “particularly to
methods and systems of controlling power steering systems” (Spec. 11).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A power steering control system, comprising:
an actual module that determines an actual load torque
associated with a vehicle chassis;
a desired module that determines a desired load torque
associated with the vehicle chassis;
a delta module that determines a delta between the
desired load torque and the actual load torque; and
a steering module that generates a steering control signal
based on the delta and a driver-initiated torque and that causes a
motor of the vehicle to generate an assist torque according to
the steering control signal.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, and 11—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Tamaki et al. (US 2007/0144824 Al; pub. June 28, 2007).
Claims 4, 8—10, 14, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tamaki and Berg et al. (US 2002/0050417 Al;
pub. May 2, 2002).
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tamaki, Berg, and Liu et al. (On Torque Control of
Vehicle Handling and Steering Feel for Avoidance Maneuver with Electric
Power Steering, Proceeding of the 17th World Congress, The International
Federation of Automatic Control, pp. 12073—78, Seoul Korea, July 6—11,
2008.)
2
Appeal 2016-006433
Application 13/565,311
Claims 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tamaki and Blommer et al. (US 8,150,582 B2, iss. Apr. 3,
2012).
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that Tamaki discloses an “actual module” that “determines an actual load
torque associated with a vehicle chassis” (claim 1, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants ’ Specification
1. In Appellants’ invention, “exemplary torque inputs” to the steering
system include, for example, a “load torque . . . from the chassis of the
vehicle,” an “assisted torque . . . from the motor of the steering assist unit”
and a “driver initiated torque . . . from the operator operating the hand
wheel” (Spec. 117).
Tamaki
2. Tamaki discloses a power steering apparatus comprising: a self­
aligning torque computing means for computing a self-aligning torque based
on the steering angle and vehicle speed, a friction torque computing means
for computing a friction torque in accordance with the steering angle change
from a steering angular velocity, and an apparent steering torque computing
3
Appeal 2016-006433
Application 13/565,311
means for computing an apparent steering torque from the friction torque
and a steering torque (Abstract). Figure 3 is reproduced below:
FIG.3
Figure 3 shows a steering torque control apparatus 30 for driving and
controlling the assist motor M to assist the steering force (136). As shown
in Figure 3, steering torque control apparatus 30 is provided with a self­
aligning torque computing means 31, an angular velocity computing means
35, a friction torque computing means 36, and an apparent steering torque
computing means 37 (139). Steering torque T detected by steering torque
sensor 20, steering angle 0 detected by the steering sensor 28, and vehicle
speed v detected by a vehicle speed sensor 25 are input to the steering torque
control apparatus 30 (138). A steering torque deviation is determined by
setting the self-aligning torque Ts computed by the self-aligning torque
computing means 31 to a target torque, and subtracting the apparent steering
torque Ts computed by the apparatus steering torque computing means 37
from the target steering torque (161). The steering torque deviation is input
to a steering torque feedback control means 45 and the assist motor M is
4
Appeal 2016-006433
Application 13/565,311
driven and controlled in such a manner that the steering torque deviation
becomes 0 and comes close to the target steering torque (162).
3. In the method of Tamaki, the steering angle is detected, the steering
angular velocity is calculated and the vehicle speed is detected (1 65).
Subsequently, the self-aligning base torque is extracted based on the steering
angle, the self-aligning torque multiplication efficient is extracted based on
the vehicle speed, and the self-aligning torque corresponding to the target
steering torque is calculated (1 66). Next, the steering torque detected by the
sensor is read, the friction torque is calculated and the apparent steering
torque is calculated by subtracting the friction torque from the steering
torque (167). Then, the difference between the target steering torque (self­
aligning torque) and the apparent steering torque is obtained and the steering
torque deviation is calculated (1 68). The steering torque deviation is
calculated and input to the steering torque feedback control means (170).
IV. ANALYSIS
35U.S.C.§ 102
As to claim 1, Appellants contend “[a] person of ordinary skill in the
art would not equate a desired load torque associated with a vehicle chassis
[as claimed] to a steering input by the driver [as set forth in Tamaki]” (App.
Br. 5). According to Appellants, “[t]he Specification clearly recites that a
load torque (TL) is from the chassis of the vehicle and the specification
differentiates the load torque (TL) from the assist torque (Ta)” (id. ). That is,
“[i]n Tamaki, the apparent steering torque is not from the chassis of the
vehicle, but instead is determined based on steering parameters set by the
driver” (id.).
5
Appeal 2016-006433
Application 13/565,311
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejection of the claims. Based on the record before us, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that claim 1 is anticipated by
Tamaki.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although
Appellants contend, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would not equate
a desired load torque associated with a vehicle chassis to a steering input by
the driver” (App. Br. 5), we note the Specification does not provide any
specific definition for “load torque” which precludes a torque associated
with “steering input by the driver” as long as it is “associated with” a
chassis. That is, although Appellants contend, “[t]he Specification clearly
recites that a load torque (TL) is from the chassis of the vehicle” (id.), we
note that the Specification merely sets forth “exemplary” torques that are
input to the steering system, which include “for example” torque “from the
chassis” (FF 1), wherein the claim merely recites that the “load torque” is
“associated with” (rather than is from) the chassis of the vehicle (claim 1).
Giving the term its broadest, reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification and claims, we conclude a “load torque” is any torque
input to the steering system that is associated with the chassis of the vehicle,
which also includes, for example, any torque input to the steering system hy
the driver that is associated with the chassis.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Tamaki discloses a “self-
aligning torque computing means,” and an “apparent torque computing
6
Appeal 2016-006433
Application 13/565,311
means” wherein “a steering torque deviation is determined” and “the
steering torque deviation is input to a steering torque feedback control
means” so that “an assist motor M is driven and controlled in such manner”
(Final Rej. 4; FF 2—3). Further, we find no error with the Examiner’s
reasoning that, “a steering input by the driver ... is imparted on the vehicle
chassis” wherein “a steering torque input by the driver by way of the
steering wheel will induce a load on the vehicle chassis” (Final Rej. 3). As
the Examiner finds, “the chassis system of the vehicle includes various
subsystems, which include ... the steering subsystem” (Ans. 2—3). Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that, in Tamaki, “the apparent steering torque is
calculated by taking into account the steering torque” wherein “the steering
torque” is based on the “steering subsystem” which is “associated with the
vehicle chassis” (id.).
On this record, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“load torque,” we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Tamaki for disclosing the “desired load torque” as set forth in claim 1 (Final
Rej. 3). Accordingly, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over
Tamaki. Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 2 and 3
separate from claim 1 from which they depend (App. Br. 6), and thus, these
claims fall with claim 1.
Appellants repeat the arguments for claim 1 that Tamaki’s “apparent
steering torque is not from the chassis of the vehicle” with respect to
independent claim 11 (App. Br. 6—7). Based on this record, we similarly
affirm the rejection of claim 11 and claims 12—13 depending therefrom and
falling therewith (id.) as anticipated by Tamaki.
7
Appeal 2016-006433
Application 13/565,311
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
As for the other pending claims, Appellants merely contend that Berg,
Liu or Blommer “does not cure the deficiencies of Tamaki” (App. Br. 8).
However, as discussed above, we find no deficiencies with the Examiner’s
reliance on Tamaki for teaching and suggesting the contested limitations.
Accordingly, we also find no error with the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 4, 8—10, and 18—20 over Tamaki in further view of Berg;
of claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 over Tamaki and Berg, in further view of Liu; and
of claims 40 and 41 over Tamaki in further view of Blommer.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3, and 11—13 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, and claims 4, 6—10, 14, 16—20, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8