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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-12, and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walentowski (US 20210024122) in view of Ishimura (US 20200130725).
Regarding claim 1, Walentowski teaches a steer by wire type steering apparatus (Abstract), comprising:
a first rotating member 14 having a first support portion 24 protruding from an outer circumferential side of the first rotating member 14 ([0050], Figs. 2a-2c);
a second rotating member 22 supported on the outer periphery of the first rotating member 14 (Fig. 2b) and having a second support portion 30 protruding from an inner circumferential side of the second rotating member 22 (Fig. 2b), wherein the second rotating member 22 has an inner space so that the first support portion 24 protruding from the outer circumferential side of the first rotating member 14 is rotatable within the inner space of the second rotating member 22 formed by an inner circumferential surface of the second rotating member 22 and the second support portion 30 protruding from the inner circumferential side of the second rotating member 22 (Fig. 2b), the first rotating member 14 is configured to be rotatable relative to the second rotating member 22 when the first support portion 24 of the first rotating member 14 does not contact the second support portion 30 of the second rotating member 22 and the second rotating member 22 is configured to be rotatable together with the first rotating member 14 when the first support portion 24 of the first rotating member 14 contacts the second support portion 30 of the second rotating member 22 (Abstract, Figs. 2b-2c); and
a housing 18 in which the first rotating member 14 and the second rotating member 22 are built-in ([0044], Figs. 2a-2c), coupled to the steering column 14, and an outer circumferential side of the second rotating member 22 is supported on an inner circumferential surface to restrict rotation of the second rotating member 22 ([0049], Figs. 1 and 2b).
Walentowski teaches the steering shaft being the first rotating member 14 (Figs. 1-2c), but does not teach the first rotating member coupled to the steering shaft to rotate together with the steering shaft through the use of connecting serrations.
However, Ishimura teaches a rotating steering column wherein a first rotating member 51 coupled to a steering shaft 32 to rotate together with the steering shaft and having a first support portion 52 protruding from an outer circumferential side of the first rotating member 51 ([0043], Fig. 3 of Ishimura), wherein the steering shaft 32 includes a plurality of stepped portions (Figs. 3 and 9 of Ishimura), a serration 32a formed on one of the plurality of stepped portions of the steering shaft is coupled to a serration 51a formed on an inner surface of the first rotating member 51 ([0045], Figs. 3 and 9-10 of Ishimura), and a side surface of the first rotating member 51 is supported by another of the plurality of stepped portions of the steering shaft located next to the one of the plurality of stepped portions of the steering shaft on which the serration is formed (Figs. 3 and 9; the shaft has a larger diameter portion past the serration where the edge of the first rotating member 51 will abut against when it its inner serration 51a is mounted on the shaft serration 32a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering apparatus of Walentowski to have the first rotating member and the shaft be separate components, sharing a connection so that the components rotate together as Ishimura teaches in order to advantageously restrict the rotation range of a steering shaft without damaging components such as wires ([0003] of Ishimura).
Additionally, see In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Regarding claim 5, Walentowski as modified teaches wherein: the second rotating member 22 further comprises a third support portion 36 ([0054], Fig. 2b) protruding from the outer circumferential side of the second rotating member 22 and the housing 18 comprises a fourth support portion 42 protruding from an inner circumferential side of the housing 18 ([0055], Fig. 2b), and
the housing 18 has an inner space so that the third support portion 36 protruding from the outer circumferential side of the second rotating member 22 is rotatable within the inner space of the housing 18 formed by an inner circumferential surface of the housing and the third support portion 36 protruding from the outer circumferential side of the second rotating member 22 (Figs. 2a-2c), the housing 18 is configured to block rotation of the second rotating member 22 when the third support portion 36 of the second rotating member 22 is supported by the fourth support portion 42 of the housing 18 ([0055]), and the second rotating member 22 is configured to be rotatable relative to the housing 18 when the third support portion 36 of the second rotating member 22 is not supported by the fourth support portion 42 of the housing 18 ([0042], Figs. 2b-2c).
Regarding claim 21, Walentowski as modified teaches wherein the second support portion 30 protruding from the inner circumferential side of the second rotating member 22 and the third support portion 36 protruding from the outer circumferential side of the second rotating member 22 are aligned with each other (Figs. 2a-2c).
Claims 4, 6, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walentowski in view of Ishimura, and further in view of Stocker (US 5050443).
Regarding claim 4, Walentowski as modified teaches wherein the second rotating member 22 is formed in a ring shape (Figs. 2a-2c), but does not teach the second rotating member being stepped in an axial direction.
However, Stocker teaches a steering wheel return assist device comprising a second rotating member 68’ wherein the second rotating member is formed in a ring shape in which the inner circumferential surface of a large diameter portion and a small diameter portion are axially connected to each other so that the outer circumferential side is stepped in an axial direction (Fig. 3 of Stocker).
Walentowski as modified teaches a second rotating member with second and third support portions protruding on the respective inner and outer radial circumferences and Stocker teaches a second rotating member with a stepped configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element would have performed the same functions as they did separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the results of the combination were predictable and to modify the second rotation member of Walentowski/Ishimura to have the stepped configuration of Stocker in order to advantageously free up space surrounding the second rotating member.
While Stocker does not teach “the second support portion is provided on the inner peripheral side of the large diameter portion and the small diameter portion”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the second support portion of the modified second rotation member of Walentowski/Ishimura being provided on inner peripheral side of both the modified large and small diameter portions of Walentowski/et.al.
Regarding claim 6, Walentowski teaches wherein: the second rotating member 22 is provided with a third support portion 36 protruding in a radial direction on the outer peripheral side, and a fourth support portion 42 protruding radially from the inner peripheral side of the housing 18 and supported by the third support portion 36 in a circumferential direction is provided (Figs. 2a-2c). Walentowski as modified does not teach the third support portion protruding in a radial direction on the outer peripheral side of the small diameter portion.
However, Stocker teaches a steering wheel return assist device connected to the steering shaft wherein a third support portion 94’ protrudes in a radial direction on the outer peripheral side of the small diameter portion of the second rotating member 68’ (Col. 4, line 62-Col. 5, line 2; Fig. 3 of Stocker).
Walentowski as modified teaches a base device which differs from the claimed invention by the third support portion being provided on the outer periphery of both large and small diameter portions. A rotation-limiting device with a stepped ring which has a support portion provided on the smaller diameter portion is known in the art and is taught by Stocker. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and provided the advantage of freeing up space surrounding the second rotating member by decreasing the diameter of space occupied by a rotation of the support portion.
Regarding claim 22, Walentowski as modified teaches wherein the second rotating member 22 is formed in a ring shape (Figs. 2a-2c), but does not teach the second rotating member being stepped in an axial direction.
However, Stocker teaches a steering wheel return assist device comprising a second rotating member 68’ wherein the second rotating member 68’ is formed in a ring shape having a large diameter portion and a small diameter portion such that the outer circumferential side of the second rotating member is stepped (Col. 4, lines 52-68, Fig. 3 of Stocker).
Walentowski as modified teaches a second rotating member with second and third support portions protruding on the respective inner and outer radial circumferences and Stocker teaches a second rotating member with a stepped configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element would have performed the same functions as they did separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the results of the combination were predictable and to modify the second rotation member of Walentowski/Ishimura to have the stepped configuration of Stocker in order to advantageously free up space surrounding the second rotating member.
Walentowski does not teach a stepped portion of the steering shaft which supports the second rotating member.
However, Ishimura teaches a steering shaft rotation limiting device wherein a second rotating member 55 is supported by the another of the plurality of stepped portions of the steering shaft 32 located next to the one of the plurality of stepped portions of the steering shaft 32 on which the serration 32a is formed ([0043], Fig. 3 of Ishimura).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering apparatus of Walentowski to have the second rotating member be supported on a stepped portion of the steering shaft together as Ishimura teaches in order to advantageously provide a vehicle steering system which restricts the rotation range of a steering shaft without damaging components such as wires ([0003] of Ishimura).
While Ishimura does not teach a large diameter portion of the second rotating member being supported on a stepped portion of the steering shaft next to a stepped portion on which the serration is formed, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the large diameter portion of the modified second rotating member of Walentowski/Stocker being supported on the steering column stepped portions next to the stepped portion with a serration of the modified steering assembly of Walentowski/Ishimura.
Regarding claim 23, Walentowski as modified teaches wherein a third support portion radially protrudes from only an outer circumferential side of the small diameter portion of the second rotating member (Col. 4, line 59-Col. 5, line 2, Fig. 3 of Stocker; protrusion 94’ projects from rotation member 68’ in this way), and the second support portion 30 radially protrudes from inner circumferential sides of both the small diameter portion and the large diameter portion of the second rotating member 22 ([0052], Figs. 2a-2c; the modified second rotation member of Walentowski/Stocker would project from both the large and small diameter portions).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walentowski in view of Ishimura, and further in view of Hino (US 7708666).
Regarding claim 7 Walentowski does not expressly teach the first support portion protruding in an axial direction.
However, Hino teaches a shift control assembly with a first rotating member 186 (Col. 14, lines 47-51 of Hino) wherein a first support portion 186a is formed to protrude from one end of the rotating member 186 in an axial direction (Col. 14, lines 47-51, Fig. 4 of Hino).
Walentowski as modified teaches the first rotating member and a first support portion which extends in a radial direction, but is silent whether the first support portion extends in an axial direction. One of ordinary skill in the art could have recognized the advantages of the axially protruding support portions of Hino such as increasing the available axial contact distance between the first support protrusion and the second support protrusion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified steering system of Walentowski/Ishimura to extend the first support protrusion in the axial direction as Hino teaches and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Walentowski as modified teaches wherein an end of the first support portion 24 is formed to be positioned on an outer peripheral side of the second rotating member 22 ([0051], Figs. 2a-2c; second rotating member 22 is a 3D shape with an inner composition [denoted by the diagonal series of lines in the figures] and an outer peripheral edge which extends along the inner circumference, outer circumference, and the borders of the support portions 30, 36; first support portion contacts the second rotating member through the support portions and is thereby supported by an outer peripheral side of the second rotating member).
Regarding claim 9, Walentowski as modified teaches wherein the second rotating member 22 includes an outer circumferential support portion 36 protruding radially to the outer circumferential side and supported in the circumferential direction by the first support portion 24 ([0020] and [0051], as the first support portion rotates and engages second support portion 30, the outer circumferential support portion 36 is supported and driven to rotate with the second rotating member 22).
Regarding claim 10, Walentowski as modified does not teach wherein the outer circumferential support portion protrudes from both ends.
However, Hino teaches a shift control assembly with a second rotating member 176 with an outer circumferential support portion 176a, 176b which protrudes from both ends of the second rotating member 176 (Col. 13, lines 62-67, Fig. 4 of Hino).
Walentowski as modified teaches the second rotating member and second support portion which extends in a radial direction, but is silent on whether the second support portion extends axially from both ends. One of ordinary skill in the art could have recognized the advantages of the axially protruding support portions of Hino such as increasing the available axial contact distance between the first support protrusion and the second support protrusion (or the second support protrusion and an inner circumferential support portion of the housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified steering system of Walentowski/Ishimura to extend the second support protrusion from both ends in the axial direction as Hino teaches and the results would have been predictable.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walentowski in view of Ishimura and Hino, and further in view of Bodtker (US 20180105198).
Regarding claim 11, Walentowski as modified does not teach the outer circumferential support portion being positioned on the outer peripheral side of the first rotating member.
However, Bodtker teaches a rotation control assembly for a steering column, wherein the outer circumferential support portion 22 is formed to one end is located on the inner peripheral side of the housing 18 ([0016], Fig. 4 of Bodtker) and the other end is positioned on the outer peripheral side of the first rotating member 26 (Figs. 2-3 of Bodtker).
Walentowski teaches a rotation control assembly wherein the rotating members engage each other in a radial direction which is different than the axially engaging rotation control assembly of claimed invention. Bodtker teaches a rotation control assembly wherein the rotating members are designed so as to engage each other in an axial direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the axially engaging support portions of Bodtker for the radially engaging support portions of Walentowski/et.al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and provided the advantage of optionally being able to increase or limit the angular rotation of the steering column ([0018] of Bodtker).
Regarding claim 12, Walentowski as modified teaches wherein the housing 18 is provided with an inner circumferential support portion 42 protruding radially to the inner circumferential side and supported in the circumferential direction by the outer circumferential support portion 36 ([0061], Figs. 2b-2c).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights