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, filed June 23, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims (pages 10- 16) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 10, last para.- page 11, para. 1: “ The Examiner’s reliance…”), that modifying FASSBENDER by adding a third support element is not merely duplication, as asserted in the previous office action, because doing so would require not only a third rolling element and third corresponding groove, but a relationship between them where the roller rolls about a radial axis, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that all three elements: (i) a rolling element, (ii), a laterally extending radial groove, and (iii) the rolling element rolling inside a corresponding groove about a radial axis; are taught by the two instances of Rolling Bearing 14 running in Grooves G1 & G2, as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 1 in this and the previous office actions. Therefore a duplication of the support element is understood to include not only the third rolling element and groove but the specific relationship that they have.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 11, last para.), that the motivation of combining FASSBENDER and KRAUSE to include a third radially spaced roller – i.e. “to make a more cost-effective and simplified assembly” does not actually make a cheaper or simpler assembly, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the teachings of KRAUSE are understood to suggest rearranging the three rollers of FASSBENDER- the two instances of Rolling Bearing 14 and one instance of Rolling Bearing 15- such that the one instance of Rolling Bearing 15 resembled and functioned like the two instances of Rolling Bearing 14 as suggested by the three identical rollers or KRAUSE, not adding a fourth rolling element, which would indeed be more expensive and more complicated.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 12, para. 1: “The Office Action…”), that combining FASSBENDER and KRAUSE does not result in the claimed invention because FASSBENDER does not disclose three rolling elements that are connected to and translatable with the rack and received in a corresponding radial groove, the examiner disagrees and points to the 103 rejection of claim 1 in this and the previous office actions where each of these are discussed. 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).
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 12, para.: “Furthermore, Krause’s design…”), that combining FASSBENDER and KRAUSE would defeat the intended purpose of KRAUSE, namely that it would not allow the rack of KRAUSE to bend and would remove an intended mechanical advantage of KRAUSE, the examiner disagrees. Firstly, although a case for obviousness is not proper if the proposed modification renders the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended use, the rejection relies on modifying FASSBENDER, not KRAUSE, and understands the intended use of FASSBENDER to remain intact after the discussed modifications. Secondly, the applicant has not pointed out where the supposed intended uses/ benefits of KRAUSE are discussed, but the examiner found in Para. [0049]: “a free space being formed between the rack 5 and the steering housing 2 [which] allows the rack to bend freely”. The examiner notes that there is a similar free space around Rack 3 of FASSBENDER, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 13, para. 2: “Applicant respectfully…”- para. 3), that the duplication of FASSBENDER’s two radially-extending legs does not result in the claimed spider because there is not a one-to-one relationship between the three resulting radially-extending legs and rolling elements the examiner disagrees, noting that a duplication of the rolling elements was already discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 1, and the two radially-extending legs of FASSBENDER have all of the features required by the claims as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 7 in this and the previous office actions.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 14, para. 4: “In addition…”), that the combination of FASSBENDER and KRAUSE does not arrive at the claimed invention because KRAUSE does not teach the claimed rolling elements, the examiner disagrees because the rejection is not based on the teachings of FASSBENDER or KRAUSE alone but on what the teachings of both of them would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 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) and MPEP 2145(IV).
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 15, para. 4: “In addition…”), that the combination of FASSBENDER and KRAUSE does not teach the claimed arrangement where a third groove is radially opposite an aperture because KRAUSE does not teach grooves, the examiner disagrees noting that the arrangement is still suggested because the rollers of FASSBENDER are necessarily positioned with a groove, such that arranging the rollers according to KRAUSE would also dispose the grooves in a similar arrangement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 31 and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation: “each of the three angularly spaced laterally extending radial grooves is dedicated to a corresponding single rolling element of three rolling elements” is not understood to be taught by the applicant’s disclosure. The examiner notes, for example, Fig. 7 wherein there are two instances each of rolling elements 326 and 328 which are disposed in grooves 252 and 254 such that each groove is not understood to be dedicated to a single rolling element. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 16, and 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FASSBENDER (DE-19854080-A1) in view of KRAUSE (DE-102006011752-B3) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment and/ or where the office action deviates from the previous office action, for the applicant’s convenience) (note that the MS Word version of the Office Action shows annotated figures in color, as opposed to in grayscale as printed in the PDF version of the same document).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, (having similar limitations, differing as noted below), FASSBENDER teaches a rack and pinion assembly for a steering assembly (Abstract), the rack and pinion assembly comprising:
a housing (Housing 1, Fig. 3) having a laterally extending central axis (“CA”, Figs. 3 & 5 Annotated), the housing (1) defining {two} angularly spaced laterally extending radial grooves (Raceways 19, further indicated as “G1” & “G2”, Fig. 5 Annotated [claim 1 only]), the {two} laterally extending radial grooves (19/ G1 & G2) being radially spaced from the central axis (Raceways 19/ G1 & G2 being spaced away from Central Axis CA as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated [claim 1 only]);
a rack (Rack 3, Fig. 3) disposed in the housing (as illustrated in Fig. 3), the rack being translatable in the housing (1) along the central axis (Rack 3 translating along Central Axis CA of Housing 1 as illustrated in Fig. 3 Annotated and described in Para. [0001]);
a pinion (Pinion 2, Fig. 3) engaging the rack (3) for causing translation of the rack (Para. [0018]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
413
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
three angularly spaced rolling elements (the two instances of Rolling Bearing 14 and one instance of Rolling Bearing 15, Figs. 3 & 5) connected to the rack (as illustrated in Fig. 3), the three elements (14 & 15) being translatable with the rack (Para. [0021] teaches Rolling Bearings 14 & 15 guiding Rack 3, and being connected to the Rack 3 they must also translate with it),
{two} of the three rolling elements (14):
being received in a corresponding one of the {two} laterally extending radial grooves (the two instances of Roller Bearing 14 being received in corresponding Grooves G1 & G2 as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated [claim 1 only]), and
PNG
media_image2.png
611
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
rolling {about a corresponding rotation axis inside the corresponding one of the {two} laterally extending radial grooves (G1 & G2) along an inner surface (19) of the corresponding one of the {two} laterally extending radial grooves (G1 & G2) [claim 1]/ about {two} rotation axes along an inner surface of the housing [claim 8]} as the rack (3) translates (the two instances of Roller Bearing 14 rolling along corresponding Raceways 19 of Grooves G1 & G2 and each about a corresponding axis as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated and described in Para. [0022]), the {corresponding rotation axis [claim 1]/ three rotation axes [claim 8]} extending radially from the central axis (the rotation axes of each of Rolling Bearings 14 extending radially from Central Axis CA as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated), {the {two} rolling elements (14) being radially spaced from the central axis [claim 8 only]} (the two instances of Rolling Bearing 14 being spaced away from Central Axis CA as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated).
FASSBENDER does not teach the third roller running inside a third radially spaced groove.
KRAUSE teaches, in another rack and pinion assembly for a steering assembly (Abstract), three angularly spaced rolling elements (Rollers 33, Fig. 7) that are radially spaced from a central axis (“CA”, Fig. 7 Annotated).
KRAUSE further teaches that the third rolling element (the bottom instance of Roller 33, Fig. 7) is arranged radially opposite of an aperture (the top instance of Slot 16, Fig. 7) (note: these teachings relate to claims 5 and 9 as discussed below).
The rolling elements (33) of KRAUSE are further arranged such that first, second, and third angles between them are 120 degrees (the three instances of Roller 33 being arranged evenly around a circular pattern as illustrated in Fig. 7) (note: these teachings relate to claims 28-30 as discussed below).
PNG
media_image3.png
669
547
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the dual angularly spaced rolling elements running inside corresponding radially spaced grooves taught by FASSBENDER as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Further, the arrangement of three angularly spaced rolling elements, spaced radially from a central axis, is suggested by the three angularly and radially spaced rolling elements of KRAUSE and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of using identical- i.e. duplicated- support elements that would beneficially make a more cost-effective and simplified assembly.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing in that claim 3 further claims the second rolling elements being received in and rolling inside corresponding radial grooves where claim 12 claims the second rolling elements rolling along the inner surface of the housing), FASSBENDER, as modified above, teaches three first rolling elements (14) but does not teach three second rolling elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the singular group of three rolling elements taught by FASSBENDER, including the limitations that they are received in and roll inside radial grooves/ along the inner surface of the housing as discussed in the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 8 above, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, except that claim 5 generally teaches three radial grooves where claim 9 generally teaches 3 rolling elements) FASSBENDER, as modified, further teaches that:
the housing (1) defines an aperture (Longitudinal Slot 12, Fig. 4, labeled added in Fig. 5 Annotated for clarity);
the three laterally extending {radial grooves [claim 5]/ rolling elements [claim 9]} (include first (G1/ first instance of Rolling Bearing 14), second (G2/ second instance of Rolling Bearing 14) and third {radial grooves [5]/ rolling elements [9]} (G3/ 14);
the aperture (12) is circumferentially between the first (G1/ 14) and second radial grooves (G2/ 14) (as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated);
a first angle (A 1-2, Fig. 5 Annotated) between the first (G1/ 14) and second (G2/ 14) {radial grooves [5]/ rolling elements [9]} is greater than a second angle (A 2-3, Fig. 5 Annotated) between the second (G2/ 14) and third (G3/ 15) {radial grooves [5]/ rolling elements [9]} (as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated);
the first angle (A 1-2) is greater than a third angle (A 1-3) between the first (G1/ 14) and third (G3/ 15) {radial grooves [5]/ rolling elements [9]} (as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated); and
the rack and pinion assembly further comprises:
a tie rod connector (Tie Rod Joint 10, Fig. 4) fastened to the rack (as illustrated in Fig. 4); and
at least one fastener (Pivot Pin 5, Fig. 4) fastening the tie rod connector (10) to the rack (Para. [0019] teaches that Pivot Pin 5 is attached to Tie Rod Joint 10), the fastener passing through the aperture (Para. [0020] and Figs. 3 & 4 teach Pivot Pin 5, alternately labeled “Hinge Pin”, pass out through Longitudinal Slot 12),
the tie rod connector (10) being configured to connect to tie rods (Para. [0019] teaches that Tie Rod Joints 10 & 11 are attached to Tie Rods 8 & 9).
FASSBENDER does not teach that the third {radial groove [claim 5]/ rolling element [claim 9]} is arranged radially opposite the aperture but KRAUSE does (see the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 8 above for the teachings of KRAUSE and motivation to combine them with the rack and pinion assembly of FASSBENDER).
Regarding Claims 7 and 11, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) FASSBENDER further teaches a spider (Thickened End 18, Fig. 4) connected to the rack (Thickened End 18 being formed as a part of Rack 3 as illustrated in Fig. 4); and
wherein:
the spider has {two} radially-extending legs (two features holding each instance of Rolling Bearing 14 as illustrated in Fig. 5, the features considered radially-extending legs in that they protrude radially from a center body of Thickened End 18 to provide support); and
each of the three rolling elements (14) is rotationally connected to a corresponding one of the {two} legs (as illustrated in Fig. 5 and understood by their rolling function described in Para. [0021]).
FASSBENDER does not teach a third radially-extending leg.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the dual radially-extending legs taught by FASSBENDER as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 13, FASSBENDER, as modified above, teaches that:
the three second rolling elements are rotationally connected to a spider (the three second rolling elements being a duplication of Rolling Bearings 14, as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 12 above, they are considered to be rotationally connected to Thickened End 18 as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 11);
the spider (18) is connected to the rack (as illustrated in Fig. 4);
the spider (18) has three radially-extending legs (as discussed in the 103 rejections of claim 8 and 11); and
each of the three second rolling elements is rotationally connected to a corresponding one of the three legs (as discussed in the 103 rejections of claim 8 and 11).
Regarding Claim 16, FASSBENDER further teaches that the three rolling elements (14) are three rollers (Rolling Bearings 14 being considered rollers in that they comprise a cylindrical body that rolls along a surface as illustrated in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 27, FASSBENDER, as modified above, teaches a rack and pinion assembly for a steering assembly with substantially the same features of the rack and pinion assembly of claim 1 and further includes the features of claim 5 (noting that claim 27 omits the limitations of “angularly spaced”, “radial”, and “radially spaced from the central axis” as applied to the three grooves of claims 1 and 5; see the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 5 above for the teachings of FASSBENDER and KRAUSE).
Regarding Claims 28- 30, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), FASSBENDER does not teach that the first angle is 150 degrees and that the second and third angles are 105 degrees, instead teaching a first angle (A 1-2) of 180 degrees and second (A 1-3) and third (A 2-3) angles of 90 degrees (as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the specific first, second, and third angles are directly correlated to an amount of load that is divided between the rollers (as a “result effective variable”, per MPEP 2143 and 2144.05-II-B). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to modify the rack and pinion assembly of FASSBENDER such that that the first angle is 150 degrees and that the second and third angles are 105 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. It is further noted that- as FASSBENDER’s first angle is 180 degrees where KRAUSE’s is 120 degrees, and FASSBENDER’s second and third angles are 90 degrees where KRAUSE’s are 120 degrees- the claimed first, second, and third angles fall between those taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claims 31 and 33, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), FASSBENDER, as modified by KRAUSE to have, for example, three radially spaced rolling elements and grooves, further teaches that:
each of the corresponding rotation axes remains fixed relative to the rack (3) during translation of the rack (Rolling Bearings 14 being attached to Rack 3 such that their corresponding axes move with Rack 3 as understood by Fig. 3); and
each of the three angularly spaced laterally extending radial grooves (G1, G2, and a third as modified by KRAUSE) is dedicated to a corresponding single rolling element (any one instance of Rolling Bearings 14) of three rolling elements (Grooves G1 and G2 each being dedicated to a single instance of Rolling Bearing 14, a modification to arrange a third Rolling Bearing 14 and Groove G1/ G2 is understood to have a dedicated groove).
Regarding Claim 32, FASSBENDER, as modified by KRAUSE to have, for example, three radially spaced rolling elements and grooves, further teaches that:
each of the three rotation axes remains fixed relative to the rack (3) during translation of the rack (Rolling Bearings 14 being attached to Rack 3 such that their corresponding axes move with Rack 3 as understood by Fig. 3);
Claims 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FASSBENDER and KRAUSE in view of KIM (KR-101337033-B1).
Regarding Claim 20, FASSBENDER, as modified above, further teaches that:
the rack (3) includes:
a first rack portion (3) having teeth for engaging the pinion (Para. [0018] teaches the Pinion 2 engaging the Rack 3 with teeth);
the three first rolling elements (Rolling Bearing 14, Fig. 3; made three as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above) are connected to the {first} rack portion (Rolling Bearings 14 being connected to Rack 3 as illustrated in Fig. 3);
the three second rolling elements (the second set of Rolling Bearings 14, as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 3) are connected to the {first} rack portion (3),
the housing (1) defines an aperture (Longitudinal Slot 12, Fig. 3); and
the rack and pinion assembly further comprises:
a tie rod connector (Tie Rod Joint 10, Fig. 4) fastened to the {first} rack portion (3); and
at least one fastener (Pivot Pin 5, Fig. 4) fastening the tie rod connector (10) to the {first} rack portion (Para. [0019] teaches that Pivot Pin 5 is attached to Tie Rod Joint 10), the fastener passing through the aperture (Para. [0020] and Figs. 3 & 4 teach Pivot Pin 5, alternately labeled “Hinge Pin”, pass out through Longitudinal Slot 12),
the tie rod connector (10) being configured to connect to tie rods (Para. [0019] teaches that Tie Rod Joints 10 & 11 are attached to Tie Rods 8 & 9).
FASSBENDER does not teach a second rack portion connected to the first rack portion by an articulated joint.
KIM teaches, in another steering device (Abstract), a first rack portion (First Rack Bar 310, Fig. 3) having teeth (First Rack Gear 311, Fig. 3) for engaging a pinion (Para. [0006]) and a second rack portion (Second Rack Bar 330, Fig. 3) connected to the first rack portion by an articulated joint (Connector 390, Fig. 3, considered to be an articulated joint in that it joins First Rack Bar 310 and Second Rack Bar 330 such that they may rotate relative to each other about an axis- see Para. [0028]).
KIM further teaches that the arrangement taught therein in which the first rack bar and the second rack bar are relatively rotatable around the longitudinal axis advantageously allows an adjustment to be easily made if a meshing mismatch occurs between the pinions and rack gears, beneficially making maintenance easier (Para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of FASSBENDER and KIM in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FASSBENDER’s rack and pinion assembly to include a second rack portion and an articulated joint as suggested by KIM. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantages taught by KIM as discussed above.
FASSBENDER, as modified above, does not teach that the tie rod connector is disposed laterally between the first three and the second three rolling elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the rack and pinion assembly of FASSBENDER, as modified above, such that the tie rod connector was disposed laterally between the first three and the second three rolling elements, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 21, FASSBENDER, as modified above to include a second rack portion, further teaches a first spider (Thickened End 18, Fig. 4) connected to the second rack portion, the first spider having {two} radially-extending legs (two features holding each instance of Rolling Bearing 14 as illustrated in Fig. 5, the features considered radially-extending legs in that they protrude radially from a center body of Thickened End 18 to provide support); and
wherein:
each of the three first rolling elements (14) is rotationally connected to a corresponding one of the {two} legs of the first spider (Rolling Bearings 14 being rotationally connected to Thickened End 18 as illustrated in Fig. 5 and understood by their rolling function described in Para. [0021]);
FASSBENDER does not teach a third radially-extending leg but it would be obvious to make that modification (see the 103 rejections of claims 7 and 11 above).
FASSBENDER does not teach a second spider or group of three rolling elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the singular spider and group of three rolling elements taught by FASSBENDER, as modified above, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
FASSBENDER, as modified above, does not teach that the tie rod connector is disposed laterally between the first and second spiders.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the rack and pinion assembly of FASSBENDER, as modified above, such that the tie rod connector was disposed laterally between the first and second spiders, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 23, FASSBENDER, as modified above, further teaches that:
the three first rolling elements (14) are three first rollers (Rolling Bearings 14 being considered rollers in that they comprise cylindrical bodies that roll along a surface as illustrated in Fig. 4); and
the three second rolling elements (14) are three second rollers (the second set of Rolling Bearings 14 being duplicates of the first set as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 3, they are understood to have similar features).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FASSBENDER and KRAUSE in view of BOMBARDIER (US-10442458-B2).
Regarding Claim 24, FASSBENDER teaches a steering assembly (Abstract) comprising:
the rack and pinion assembly of claim1 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above);
a left tie rod (Tie Rod 8, Fig. 1) operatively connected to the rack (Tie Rod 8 being connected to Rack 3 by Tie Rod Joint 10 as illustrated in Fig. 1); and
a right tie rod (Tie Rod 9, Fig. 1) operatively connected to the rack (Tie Rod 9 being connected to Rack 3 by Tie Rod Joint 10 as illustrated in Fig. 1).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would likely understand that the steering assembly of FASSBENDER includes a steering wheel and a steering column, however FASSBENDER does not specifically teach these features.
BOMBARDIER teaches, in another a steering assembly (Col. 1: Lines 16-17), a steering wheel (Steering Wheel 28, Fig. 7) and a steering column (Steering Shaft 170, Fig. 7) operatively connected to the steering wheel (as illustrated in Fig. 7).
The steering column of BOMBARDIER is arranged such that there is a power steering unit (Electric Motor 182, Fig. 7) operatively connected to the steering column (as illustrated in Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of FASSBENDER, KRAUSE, and BOMBARDIER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FASSBENDER’s steering assembly to include a steering wheel and a steering column as suggested by BOMBARDIER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means for a steering input, that is common to the art, that would beneficially make a more useful assembly.
Regarding Claim 25, FASSBENDER, as modified above to include a steering column, further teaches a power steering unit (Para. [0006] teaches a motor for providing powered steering) operatively connected to the steering column (as in the steering column arrangement of BOMBARDIER, see the 103 rejection of claim 24 above).
Regarding Claim 26, FASSBENDER teaches a vehicle (Abstract) comprising:
a front left wheel (Wheel 6, Fig. 1);
a front right wheel (Wheel 7, Fig. 1);
the steering assembly of claim 24 (see the 103 rejection of claim 24 above), the left tie rod (8) being operatively connected to the front left wheel (Tie Rod 8 being connected to Wheel 6 as illustrated in Fig. 1), and the right tie rod being operatively connected to the front right wheel (Tie Rod 9 being connected to Wheel 7 as illustrated in Fig. 1).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would likely understand that the vehicle of FASSBENDER includes a frame, a seat, and a rear wheel, however FASSBENDER does not specifically teach these features.
BOMBARDIER teaches, in another a vehicle (Vehicle 10, Fig. 1), a frame (Frame 12, Fig. 1), at least one seat (Seats 24 & 26, Fig. 1) connected to the frame (Seats 24 & 26 being connected to the Frame 12 as illustrated in Fig. 1), and at least one rear wheel (Rear Wheels 18, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of FASSBENDER, KRAUSE, and BOMBARDIER in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FASSBENDER’s vehicle to include a frame, a seat, and a rear wheel as suggested by BOMBARDIER. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a frame for supporting the vehicle, a seat for accommodating an operator and a rear wheel for stability, all features common in the art, that would beneficially make a more useful vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights