Robert Bosch Automotive Steering GmbHDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 20202019006424 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation