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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of the claims (pages 9- 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 (part “A”, page 10), that duplicating the grooves and rolling elements of FASSBENDER does not arrive at the claimed invention because “duplicating” is understood as “to make double or twofold” and does not imply a change in configuration, the examiner disagrees. Firstly, while the term “duplicating” does mean, in at least one sense, “to make double or twofold”, this does not mean that it would only be obvious to make the two bearings into four- i.e.- two pairs of bearings- as it would be just as obvious to duplicate one of the bearings to make three (the two original bearings plus the one duplicate) as it is to duplicate both of the bearings and make four. As the applicant points out, this duplication alone does not necessarily guide a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange this third bearing radially from the first two, and to rearrange the first two to accommodate the new third bearing. However, KRAUSE does teach three bearings radially arranged about a rack which suggests the triple bearing arrangement of the claimed invention.
The applicant’s argument (part “B”, page 11), that modifying FASSBENDER with the teachings of KRAUSE to include an “extra rolling element” as described in the previous office action would not render it more stable because it already comprises bearings supporting two directions, is persuasive; however the examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using identical- i.e. duplicated- bearings in the triple, radial arrangement of KRAUSE would make a more cost-effective and simplified assembly compared to the arrangement of FASSBENDER, and therefore the rejection is maintained, with new motivation (see the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 8 below).
Regarding the applicant’s argument (part “C”, page 11), that the bearings of KRAUSE serve a fundamentally different purpose to those of FASSBENDER, and therefore there is not motivation to combine the two, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the Rollers 33 of KRAUSE are not, as the applicant argues, for the purpose of pressing the rack against the pinion as described in the cited passages of KRAUSE, as the rollers cited therein are Bearings 29, which are shown in at least Fig. 6, whereas the Rollers 33 cited by the examiner are located elsewhere and shown in Fig. 7, where it is illustrated that they support Rack 5 radially as it translates.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (part “D”, page 12), that duplicating the two Bearings 14 of FASSBENDER to arrive at the claimed invention would not be obvious, see the above regarding parts “A” and “B”, which discuss the duplication of the bearings.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (part “E”, page 13), that FASSBENDER and KRAUSE are not combinable because they operate on different principles, the examiner disagrees. The examiner does not dispute the highlighted differences between the operation of the bearings/ rollers of FASSBENDER and KRAUSE, particularly that the bearings of FASSBENDER move with the rack and the rollers of KRAUSE do not. However, this does not change the fact that they fulfill similar functions- both the traversing bearings of FASSBENDER and the stationary rollers of KRAUSE serve to support a rack in at least a radial direction. It is further noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), MPEP 2145 (III). In this case the rollers of KRAUSE do not need to be capable of being bodily incorporated into the rack and pinion assembly of FASSBENDER, but instead the teachings of KRAUSE suggest duplicating and rearranging the existing bearings of FASSBENDER.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (part “E”, page 14- para. 2: “The Advisory Action continues…”), that “surfaces upon which the bearings run” do not amount to the claimed radial grooves, the examiner disagrees. Whether FASSBENDER alone discloses a third radial groove or not the examiner does not currently make an argument, but notes that the claims in question (claims 5 and 28, and by extension claim 29) rely upon claims 1 or 27, in which the examiner has modified FASSBENDER to include a third radial groove using the teachings of KRAUSE. It is further noted that even if the element G3 is not considered to be a radial groove as claimed, it is at least analogous to the Raceways 19 and the claimed grooves such that FASSBENDER is understood to teach angles between features that, when modified as discussed, are understood to be the claimed radial grooves.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (part “F”, page 14), that the rejections rely on hindsight reasoning, the examiner disagrees, and points to the above responses to the applicant’s arguments, as well as those found in the Advisory Action dated December 29, 2025, and finally to the motivations detailed in the below office action.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 15, para. 3: “For instance, claim 29…”) that Fassbender teaches away from the claimed angular arrangement of the bearings because it teaches the bearings being arranged in two perpendicular planes, the examiner disagrees. It is true that Fassbender teaches the bearings being arranged in two perpendicular planes and that this is different than the claimed arrangement, but the examiner does not consider this to be “teaching away” because the disclosure of Fassbender does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution; see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and MPEP 2145 (X)(D)(1).
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 27-30 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).
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.
PNG
media_image3.png
669
547
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
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
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 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611