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 the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 2/12/26 (hereinafter Response) has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, and 17 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 9, 11, 12, and 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the radially inner surface including a first pair of substantially flat surfaces and a second pair of substantially flat surfaces each angled relative to one another to define V-shapes” renders the claim indefinite in light of the previously introduced “the anti-rotation bushing having a plurality of bushing flat surfaces” because the antecedent basis of the first and second pair of substantially flat surfaces is unclear. Specifically it is unclear if the pairs of flat surfaces are a subset of the previously introduced plurality of bushing flat surfaces or if they are additional and separate flat surfaces. For the sake of compact prosecution they are interpreted as being the same flat surfaces.
Examiner notes that dependent claims 2 and 4 further define the flat surfaces adding to the indefiniteness created in claim 1, e.g., claim 4 again introduces pairs of V- shaped flat surfaces. For the sake of compact prosecution these are interpreted as being the same V shaped flat surfaces as introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the phrases “a main body portion” “first axial section” and a “second axial section” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relationship of the three sections is. Looking to the specification for clarification, e.g., Fig. 2 and [0015], it appears as though the second axial section and the main body are likely the same section however this relationship is not defined by the claim, hence rendering the claim indefinite.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0355853 A1 to Seo in view of US 2008/0088104 A1 to Arlt.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Seo discloses a steer-by-wire steering system for a vehicle (Abstract & Fig. 1) comprising:
a rack (111) moveable in an axial direction, the rack having a bushing engagement portion comprising an outer surface including a plurality of rack flat surfaces (301) (Figs. 2-5 and [0033] disclose outer surfaces 301 of the rack 111 slidably interact with the bushing flat surfaces 311); and
an anti-rotation bushing (310) disposed proximate an outer surface of the rack (111) at the bushing engagement portion of the rack (111), the anti-rotation bushing (310) having a plurality of bushing flat surfaces (311) (Figs. 2-5 & [0033]),
wherein the number of the plurality of rack flat surfaces (301) and the number of the plurality of bushing flat surfaces (311) is identical (Figs. 3-4 depict 4 flat surfaces for both the rack 111 and the bushing 310),
the anti-rotation bushing (310) comprising a main body portion extending from a first axial end (C) to a second axial end (D), the main body portion having a radially inner surface (311) and a radially outer surface (E), the radially inner surface (311) including a first pair of substantially flat surfaces (A) and a second pair (B) of substantially flat surfaces each angled relative to one another to define V-shapes and configured to cooperate with the plurality of rack flat surfaces (301) to guide translational movement of the rack during axial movement of the rack along a rack longitudinal axis while preventing rolling or rotating of the rack (Annotated Figs. 3-4 & [0041]), wherein the radially outer surface (E) has a substantially circular profile along a majority of the axial length (Annotated Figs. 3-4 depict the bushing as being “substantially” circular in profile despite having 4 tabs, the shape of the outer surface is still interpreted as being substantially circular, similar to the outer surface shown in Fig. 3 of Applicant’s originally filed drawings which also shows deviations in the circular outer surface.),
the main body portion is continuous along its circumference … (Annotated Figs. 3-4)
the anti-rotation bushing (310) having a first axial section … wherein the anti-rotation bushing (310) includes a plurality of radially outwardly extending tabs (312) along the first axial section (Fig. 3 & [0046] and [0048]).
Seo does not appear to discloses wherein the anti-rotation bushing (310) defines a single circumferential gap to facilitate expansion of the anti-rotation bushing (310), wherein the single circumferential gap extends along an entire axial length of the anti-rotation bushing (310) and the main body portion is continuous along its circumference except for the single circumferential gap,, the anti-rotation bushing having a first axial section and a second axial section, wherein the anti-rotation bushing includes a plurality of radially outwardly extending tabs along the first axial section, wherein the anti-rotation bushing includes a plurality of O-rings disposed on the radially outer surface of the anti-rotation bushing along the second axial section.
Arlt teaches that it was old and well known in the art of steering system rack bushings, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the bushing (30) to define a single circumferential gap (42) to facilitate expansion of the bushing1 (30), wherein the single circumferential gap (42) extends along an entire axial length of the bushing (30) and the main body portion is continuous along its circumference except for the single circumferential gap (42) (Figs. 9 &10 and [0030], [0033], & [0036]),
the bushing (30) having a first axial section (36) and a second axial section (32), wherein the bushing (30) includes a plurality of radially outwardly extending tabs (50) along the first axial section (36), wherein the bushing (30) includes a plurality of O-rings (44) disposed on the radially outer surface (45) of the bushing (30) along the second axial section (32) (Figs. 9-12 & [0029] and [0031]-[0032] disclose the section 32 includes O-rings and the section 36 includes flanges 50 which are interpreted as being individual tabs but also includes additional tabs 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of steering system rack bushings before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering system rack bushing disclosed by Seo to incorporate for the bushing 310 to include a single circumferential gap to facilitate expansion of the bushing, wherein the single circumferential gap extends along an entire axial length of the anti-rotation bushing, the anti-rotation bushing having a first axial section and a second axial section, wherein the anti-rotation bushing includes a plurality of radially outwardly extending tabs along the first axial section, wherein the anti-rotation bushing includes a plurality of O-rings disposed on the radially outer surface of the anti-rotation bushing along the second axial section as taught by Arlt in order to reduce noise and provide ease of manufacture/install while still maintaining performance, e.g., see Arlt [0007] and [0009], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Seo further discloses wherein the number of the plurality of rack flat surfaces (301) is four and the number of the plurality of bushing flat surfaces is four (311) (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Seo further discloses wherein the number of the plurality of rack flat surfaces (301) ranges from two to six (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 2, Seo further discloses wherein the plurality of bushing flat surfaces (311) is grouped into a first pair of bushing flat surfaces (A) and a second pair of bushing flat surfaces (B), wherein each of the first pair of bushing flat surfaces (A) and
PNG
media_image2.png
533
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the second pair of bushing flat surfaces (B) are angled relative to each other to define a V- shape (Annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Seo further discloses wherein the rack (111) does not include teeth formed on the bushing engagement portion (Figs. 1-5 & [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, Seo further discloses wherein the steer-by- wire system (100) does not have a pinion at the bushing engagement portion of the rack (111) (Figs. 1-5 & [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, Seo further discloses wherein the anti-rotation bushing (310) is formed of plastic ([0044] discloses it may be Teflon with a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a plastic).
Regarding claim 12, Seo discloses an anti-rotation bushing (310) for a steer-by-wire vehicle steering system (100) (Abstract & Figs. 1-5) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
406
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first axial end (C) (Annotated Fig. 3);
a second axial end (D) (Annotated Fig. 3);
a radially outer surface (E) (Annotated Fig. 3); and
a radially inner surface (311) including a first bushing flat surface, a second bushing flat surface, a third bushing flat surface and a fourth bushing flat surface (Annotated Figs. 3 & 4 and [0041]),
wherein the first and second bushing flat surfaces are angled relative to each other to define a V-shaped first pair of flat surfaces (A) (Annotated Fig. 4),
wherein the third and fourth bushing flat surfaces are angled relative to each other to define a V-shaped second pair of flat surfaces (B) (Annotated Fig. 4),
the anti-rotation bushing (310) comprising a main body portion extending from the first axial end (C) to the second axial end (D), the main body portion having the radially inner surface (311) and the radially outer surface (E) (Annotated Figs. 3-4), the radially outer surface (E) having a substantially circular profile along a majority of the axial length (Annotated Figs. 3-4 depict the bushing as being “substantially” circular in profile despite having 4 tabs, the shape of the outer surface is still interpreted as being substantially circular, similar to the outer surface shown in Fig. 3 of Applicant’s originally filed drawings which also shows deviations in the circular outer surface.), the V-shaped first pair of flat surfaces (A) and the V-shaped second pair of flat surfaces (B) being configured, when installed with a rack (111) having corresponding flat surfaces (301), to guide translational movement of the rack (111) during axial movement of the rack (111) along a rack longitudinal axis while preventing rolling or rotating of the rack (111) (Annotated Figs. 3-4 & [0041]),
the main body portion is continuous along its circumference … (Annotated Figs. 3-4)
the anti-rotation bushing (310) having a first axial section … wherein the anti-rotation bushing (310) includes a plurality of radially outwardly extending tabs (312) along the first axial section (Fig. 3 & [0046] and [0048]).
Seo does not appear to discloses wherein the anti-rotation bushing (310) defines a single circumferential gap to facilitate expansion of the anti-rotation bushing (310), wherein the single circumferential gap extends along an entire axial length of the anti-rotation bushing (310), the anti-rotation bushing having a first axial section and a second axial section, wherein the anti-rotation bushing includes a plurality of radially outwardly extending tabs along the first axial section, wherein the anti-rotation bushing includes a plurality of O-rings disposed on the radially outer surface of the anti-rotation bushing along the second axial section.
Arlt teaches that it was old and well known in the art of steering system rack bushings, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the bushing (30) to define a single circumferential gap (42) to facilitate expansion of the bushing2 (30), wherein the single circumferential gap (42) extends along an entire axial length of the bushing (30) (Figs. 9 &10 and [0030], [0033], & [0036]),
the bushing (30) having a first axial section (36) and a second axial section (32), wherein the bushing (30) includes a plurality of radially outwardly extending tabs (50) along the first axial section (36), wherein the bushing (30) includes a plurality of O-rings (44) disposed on the radially outer surface (45) of the bushing (30) along the second axial section (32) (Figs. 9-12 & [0029] and [0031]-[0032] disclose the section 32 includes O-rings and the section 36 includes flanges 50 which are interpreted as being individual tabs but also includes additional tabs 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of steering system rack bushings before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering system rack bushing disclosed by Seo to incorporate for the bushing 310 to include a single circumferential gap to facilitate expansion of the bushing, wherein the single circumferential gap extends along an entire axial length of the anti-rotation bushing, the anti-rotation bushing having a first axial section and a second axial section, wherein the anti-rotation bushing includes a plurality of radially outwardly extending tabs along the first axial section, wherein the anti-rotation bushing includes a plurality of O-rings disposed on the radially outer surface of the anti-rotation bushing along the second axial section as taught by Arlt in order to reduce noise and provide ease of manufacture/install while still maintaining performance, e.g., see Arlt [0007] and [0009], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 11, and, as such, is rejected for substantially the same reasons as given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response directed toward the 35 USC § 103 rejection of the claims under the combination of Seo/Cooper/Ikeyama have been fully considered and are persuasive and therefore the rejections are withdrawn. See Response pp. 6-8.
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Response directed toward the 35 USC § 103 rejection of the claims under the combination of Seo/Arlt have been fully considered but are not persuasive. See Response pp. 8-9.
Applicant of p. 9 states “Arlt's principle of operation is radial compliance and noise reduction via a segmented wall, not an anti-rotation guide defined by inner flat pairs. Adopting Arlt's slotted/flanged compliant wall into Seo would similarly depart from the claimed rigid, continuous wall architecture and the anti-rotation-only function.” Examiner disagrees. Initially, the argument is not persuasive because applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “rigid, continuous wall architecture and the anti-rotation-only function”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further Applicant's argument appears to attack the references individually. It is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Arlt is not relied upon for disclosing a continuous antirotation body with double V flats, instead Seo is as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments against modifying Seo in view of Arlt to include tables and o-rings is also not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above. Importantly, although Applicant attempts to disparage the reasons presented for modifying Seo in view of Arlt, these are not persuasive because the reasons do not have to be the same as Applicant’s motivations, instead only the resulting claimed structure need be disclosed. Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
1 Examiner notes that the underlined clause is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and thus is given no patentable weight because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114.
2 Examiner notes that the underlined clause is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and thus is given no patentable weight because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114.