Robert Bosch Automotive Steering GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

15313134 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020)

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.
15/313,134 11/22/2016 Thomas Wanner 022862-8005-US00 5437
34044 7590 05/29/2020
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
KERRIGAN, MICHAEL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS WANNER and EMAN MEHRJERDIAN
Appeal 2019-006424
Application 15/313,134
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch
Automotive Steering GmbH. Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006424
Application 15/313,134

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for operating a steering
system. Claims 1, 14, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed invention, with certain limitations italicized:
1. A method for operating a steering system (2) of a motor
vehicle, wherein a steering means (8) is connected by an input
shaft to a superimposition steering system (4) and the
superimposition steering system (4) is connected by an output
shaft to a steering gear (14) for vehicle wheels, the steering
system (2) including a power steering system (6) for turning the
vehicle wheels and a control device (18) for controlling the
superimposition steering system (4) and the power steering
system (6), the method comprising:
detecting, during an autonomous driving mode of the
motor vehicle, a driver intervention (40) of the driver into the
steering means, and
operating the superimposition steering system (4) in such
a way that a coupling (30) between a steering means angle (26)
and an angle (28) which is introduced into the steering gear (14)
is adjusted as a function of the detected driver intervention (40).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dolgov US 9,342,074 B2 May 17, 2016
Mitsumoto US 9,771,101 B2 Sept. 26, 2017
REJECTION
Claims 1–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Mitsumoto and Dolgov. Final Act. 2.

Appeal 2019-006424
Application 15/313,134

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Mitsumoto teaches most of the limitations of
the independent claims, including operating a superimposition steering
system such that a coupling between a steering means angle and an angle
introduced into the steering gear is adjusted as a function of detected driver
intervention. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Mitsumoto moves
between autonomous mode and a driver intervention mode based on a switch
rather than detection of driver intervention, but finds that Dolgov detects
driver intervention. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Mitsumoto to “initiate transitioning upon detection of
driver’s intervention directly into a steering means, as doing so was a known
way of initiating such a transition.” Id.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that neither Mitsumoto nor Dolgov
adjusts a coupling between a steering means angle and an angle introduced
into the steering gear as a function of detected driver intervention. Br. 8–9.
Appellant asserts that Mitsumoto gradually reduces a gain control and that
Dolgov simply detects driver intervention during autonomous mode. Br. 8–
9. According to Appellant, the references do not “adjust/set the coupling
between the steering wheel and the steered wheels in dependence on the
amount (of) driver intervention.” Br. 8.
The Examiner responds that Dolgov discloses “an obvious and
intuitive alternative” method for a driver to take steering control during
autonomous steering, and that the many ways to take over steering control
are “interchangeable.” Ans. 9. According to the Examiner, applying any of
the various known modes for a driver to take over control “would be obvious
and within the capability of one having ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
Appeal 2019-006424
Application 15/313,134

4
Appellant has the better position. Although we appreciate that
Mitsumoto and Dolgov disclose alternative ways to determine whether a
driver or autonomous mode will control a vehicle, the Examiner does not
explain sufficiently how the combined teachings of the references meet the
requirement in claim 1 that coupling is a function of detected driver
intervention. Appellant’s Specification discloses that, because coupling is
adjusted based on detected driver intervention, the driver can determine
“how much control he would like to have over the steering system.” Spec. ¶
6. The Specification further discloses that partially autonomous driving
states 46 and 48 depend on the “detected increasing or reducing driver
intervention 40.” Spec. ¶ 27; Fig. 3. In Figure 3, the detected driver
intervention 40 ranges from 0% to 100%. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the
art upon reading the Specification would understand that “coupling … as a
function of detected driver intervention” requires a detection of an amount
of driver intervention, not just whether there is driver intervention. See Br.
8. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 in light of
the Specification, the phrase “as a function of” requires more than just
switching on and off.
In Mitsumoto, “a so called N deviation reduction control which
reduces the size of deviation amount between a rotated position of a steering
wheel and a rotated position of a steering wheel found from the rudder angle
of the steered wheel (N deviation amount),” is changed by a gradual
reduction or by degrees so that “it is possible to reduce the N deviation
amount so as not to rapidly change the steering characteristic at the time of
termination of the trajectory control. Mitsumoto, 3:11–15; 10:28–32; see
also Final Act. 3. By using Mitsumoto’s gradual reduction, “it is possible to
Appeal 2019-006424
Application 15/313,134

5
reduce the concern that a driver feels the unusual feeling due to the steering
characteristics being different in each steering operation, since the steering
characteristics at a time of termination and at a time of resumption of the
steering operation are identical.” Mitsumoto, 2:49–53. The gradual
reduction is depicted in Mitsumoto’s Figure 18, reproduced below.

Figure 18 is a time chart schematically showing an example of a
change in the N deviation amount and a gain Klka for the trajectory control.
Mitsumoto, 6:24–26. Figure 18 shows that autonomous “steering control is
terminated and the termination control is initiated at the time point t1, and
the termination control is terminated and the manual steering mode is
initiated at time point t2.” Mitsumoto, 17:50–53. In Mitsumoto, “the N
deviation amount is relatively slowly decreased from the time point t1 to
time point t2 … to thereby prevent the control amount of the trajectory
Appeal 2019-006424
Application 15/313,134

6
control from being abruptly decreased,” as in the conventional art.
Mitsumoto, 17:59–18:6. Thus, Mitsumoto changes between autonomous
control (1) and manual steering (0) over time. Although the slope of the
change varies (compare K1 and K2) depending on different factors, the
Examiner has not established adequately that one of these factors is an
amount of driver intervention. While the prior art may disclose a transition
period between autonomous control and driver control where both controls
coexist, autonomous control is still only turned on and off based on driver
intervention, which is not operating the steering system such that a coupling
between a steering means angle and an angle which is introduced into the
steering gear is adjusted as a function of detected driver intervention.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 14, and 15, and claims 2–13, 16, and 17 depending therefrom as
unpatentable over Mitsumoto and Dolgov.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17 103 Mitsumoto, Dolgov 1–17
Overall
Outcome:
1–17

REVERSED