DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/6/26 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the first boot.”
There is no support in the original specification for the single pressure sensor being in the rack housing assembly (as recited in claim 1) AND at least partially disposed within the first boot. Accordingly, claim 5 contains new matter.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the second boot.”
There is no support in the original specification for the single pressure sensor being in the rack housing assembly (as recited in claim 1) AND at least partially disposed within the second boot. Accordingly, claim 6 contains new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the rack housing assembly.” However, claim 1 already recites that the pressure sensor is in the rack housing assembly, meaning that claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittner (US 20210146993 A1) in view of Matsuda et al. (JP 2012240435 A, hereinafter Matsuda).
As to claim 1, Pittner teaches a steering diagnostic system comprising:
a steering linkage 34, 34 that is operatively connectable to a pair of road wheels (¶25);
[AltContent: textbox (40Y)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (40X)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
412
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sealed compartment (comprising at least gear casing 32 and boots 40, 40; ¶30) containing at least a portion (e.g., portion 36) of the steering linkage, wherein the sealed compartment is defined by an interior of a rack housing assembly 32, 42, 46 (¶30, ¶32-33), a first sealing boot (one of boots 40X and 40Y in fig 1 above) disposed at a first end of the rack housing assembly, and a second sealing boot (the other of boots 40X-40Y) disposed at a second end of the rack housing assembly (note that ¶25 and ¶34 teach that the system includes hydraulic steering assistance).
Pittner does not teach that the steering diagnostic system is a steering seal diagnostic system,
a single pressure sensor positioned within the rack housing assembly proximate a gear assembly powered by a motor or proximate a circuit card assembly to detect an internal pressure within the sealed compartment over a range of travel of the steering linkage, wherein a pressure change lower than a pressure change threshold indicates a leak condition of the sealed compartment during translation of the steering linkage from an on center position to a full left position or to a full right position, wherein the pressure change of the internal pressure detected by the pressure sensor is a result of movement of the steering linkage toward the full left position or to the full right position.
Matsuda teaches a steering seal diagnostic system comprising:
a steering linkage (comprising rack shaft 3) that is operatively connectable to a pair of road wheels 9, 13;
a sealed compartment S1-S3 (¶18 and ¶32-33) containing at least a portion of the steering linkage (fig. 2), wherein the sealed compartment is defined by an interior of a rack housing assembly (comprising housing 2 and at least end walls 47-48 or connection part 62a; end wall 47 is part of the hydraulic steering assistance mechanism described in at least ¶24), a first sealing boot 14 disposed at a first end of the rack housing assembly, and a second sealing boot 15 disposed at a second end of the rack housing assembly; and
a pressure sensor 16 (¶29) positioned to detect an internal pressure within the sealed compartment over a range of travel of the steering linkage (¶10 and ¶46 teach that during steering, the pressure inside one of the boots increases will pressure in the other boot decreases according to the steering direction; at least fig. 3 illustrates that as the rack shaft 3 moves along direction X1, the boot 15 will expand or contract; ¶44-46 and fig. 6 teach wherein the pressure sensor detects an internal pressure within the sealed compartment over a range of travel of the steering linkage), wherein a pressure change lower than a pressure change threshold indicates a leak condition of the sealed compartment during translation of the steering linkage from an on center position to a full left position or to a full right position (the pressure sensor is capable of being used such that a detected pressure change lower than a pressure change threshold indicates a leak condition of the sealed compartment during translation of the steering linkage from an on center position to a full left position or to a full right position), wherein the pressure change of the internal pressure detected by the pressure sensor is a result of movement of the steering linkage toward the full left position or to the full right position (¶44-46 describe sensors 16 as detecting an increase in pressure due to steering in a respective one of a left or right direction, meaning a similar pressure increase will be detected when steering to one of the full right or full left positions; note that ¶43-44 and fig. 6 teach a set of steps for detecting a leak in at least one of boots 14-15 using just one pressure sensor 16; that is, in steps S1-S5, a leak can be detected with one pressure sensor 16 and without the other; also note that ¶47 confirms that a leak in at least one of the boots is detected; also note that ¶29 teaches that an overall controller comprising an ECU 41 uses the signal(s) from the pressure sensor 16 to detect a leak, and ¶30 and ¶44 teach wherein the overall controller turns on a signal light 45 to warn of a leak; it is noted that portion S1 of the sealed compartment extends partially into the rack housing assembly – see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pittner to have the sealed compartment S1-S3 (Matsuda) and the hydraulic steering assistance mechanism forming part of the sealed compartment, and to use a pressure sensor (16 of Matsuda) in the sealed compartment and in one of the two boots for leak detection via an overall controller comprising an ECU, wherein the controller turns on a warning light to warn of the leak, as taught by Matsuda, for the benefit of detecting a leak in at least one of the boots to provide early detection of a leak, enabling early repair (¶5 – Matsuda).
Regarding the limitation that the pressure sensor is in the rack housing assembly,
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that placing either of the disclosed or prior art pressure sensor at least partially within the rack housing assembly would have modified the operation of the disclosed or prior art device. Specifically, in Matsuda, space S1 of the sealed compartment S1-S3 extends into the rack housing assembly, and moving the pressure sensor 16 into the part of the rack housing assembly forming space S1 would not have modified the operation of the device. Accordingly, in the modified Pittner, moving the pressure sensor 16 (Matsuda) in a similar manner would not have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pittner as modified such that the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the rack housing assembly, since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that a leak is still successfully detected
Pittner as modified teaches a steering seal diagnostic system,
a single pressure sensor 16 (Matsuda) positioned proximate a circuit card assembly (the circuit card assembly is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, a circuit card assembly is capable of being placed proximate the single pressure sensor in the modified Pittner) to detect an internal pressure within the sealed compartment over a range of travel of the steering linkage (as taught by Matsuda), wherein a pressure change lower than a pressure change threshold indicates a leak condition of the sealed compartment during translation of the steering linkage from an on center position to a full left position or to a full right position (as taught in test steps S1-S5 of Matsuda; alternatively, the pressure sensor is capable of being used such that a detected pressure change lower than a pressure change threshold indicates a leak condition of the sealed compartment during translation of the steering linkage from an on center position to a full left position or to a full right position), wherein the pressure change of the internal pressure detected by the pressure sensor is a result of movement of the steering linkage toward the full left position or to the full right position (as taught by Matsuda).
If Applicant argues that the unmodified Pittner does not teach the sealed compartment, Pittner as modified teaches a sealed compartment S1-S3 (Matsuda) in view of Matsuda’s teachings.
As to claim 5, Pittner as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the first boot.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that placing either of the disclosed or prior art pressure sensor at least partially within a boot would have modified the operation of the disclosed or prior art device. Accordingly, in the modified Pittner, moving the pressure sensor 16 (Matsuda) into the claimed location would not have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pittner as modified such that the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the boot (shown in fig. 2 of Matsuda), since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that a leak is still successfully detected
Pittner as modified teaches wherein the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the first boot (the boot in which Matsuda’s pressure sensor 16 is at least partially disposed reads on the first boot, as broadly recited).
As to claim 6, Pittner as modified teaches wherein the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the second boot.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that placing either of the disclosed or prior art pressure sensor at least partially within a boot would have modified the operation of the disclosed or prior art device. Accordingly, in the modified Pittner, moving the pressure sensor 16 (Matsuda) into the claimed location would not have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pittner as modified such that the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the boot (shown in fig. 2 of Matsuda), since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that a leak is still successfully detected
Pittner as modified teaches wherein the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the second boot (the boot in which Matsuda’s pressure sensor 16 is at least partially disposed reads on the second boot, as broadly recited).
As to claim 7, Pittner as modified teaches wherein the pressure sensor is at least partially disposed within the rack housing assembly (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 10, Pittner as modified teaches wherein the pressure sensor is in operative communication with a controller (overall controller comprising an ECU as taught by Matsuda).
As to claim 11, Pittner as modified teaches wherein the controller issues a diagnostic warning (via light 45 as taught by Matsuda) if the leak condition is detected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 5 that "Pittner does not teach or suggest this diagnostic architecture. As correctly acknowledged in the Office Action, Pittner does not teach the claimed steering seal diagnostic system or the claimed single-pressure-sensor pressure-change leak determination. Pittner instead concerns sensing ingress fluids using spatially separated fluid sensor units and triggering different response behaviors depending on the detected ingress fluid. Thus, Pittner's diagnostic premise is materially different from the subject matter of claim 1. In particular, Pittner responds to detected fluid ingress, whereas claim 1 diagnoses a leak condition from insufficient pressure change caused by steering-linkage movement."
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). While Pittner alone does not teach all the limitations of claim 1, Pittner as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues on pg. 5 that "Matsuda does not cure the deficiency of Pittner in a manner that would render claim 1 obvious. Matsuda uses atmospheric pressure sensors arranged in boot spaces S1 and S2 to detect an abnormality of boots 14 and 15. Matsuda's disclosed control determines whether, despite steering, atmospheric pressure P1 or P2 in a corresponding boot space does not substantially change, and then turns on warning light 45. That disclosure is a boot-space pressure-monitoring arrangement, not a teaching or suggestion that Pittner's spatially separated ingress-fluid sensors should be replaced or reconfigured into the claimed single pressure sensor that detects internal pressure within the sealed compartment over the recited range of steering-linkage travel."
Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Pittner is NOT modified such that Pittner's spatially separated ingress-fluid sensors are replaced or reconfigured into the claimed single pressure sensor that detects internal pressure within the sealed compartment over the recited range of steering-linkage travel as suggested by Applicant.
Applicant argues on pg. 5 that "The Office Action states that it would have been obvious to modify Pittner using Matsuda "for the benefit of detecting a leak in at least one of the boots to provide early detection of a leak, enabling early repair." (See Office Action, Page 8). Respectfully, that statement identifies a desired result, but it does not provide an adequate articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill starting from Pittner would have modified Pittner's ingress-fluid response system into the claimed pressure-change diagnostic system. Pittner already addresses detected fluid ingress by using different fluid sensor units in spatially separated regions and triggering different response behaviors. The rejection does not explain why one of ordinary skill would abandon or materially reconfigure that approach to incorporate Matsuda's boot-pressure algorithm, which depends on pressure behavior during steering rather than detection of ingress fluid."
Applicant's argument is not persuasive. The fluid ingress detection of Pittner and the seal leak detection of Matsuda are two different functions. For example, a leak may exist in Pittner without fluid ingress (e.g. with water - 18 of Pittner), in which case the fluid ingress detection system would provide no indication of fluid ingress. In Matsuda, leak detection is performed positively and in direct response to a leak, regardless of water ingress. Pittner's fluid ingress detection system would not be replaced by Matsuda's leak detection system, because Pittner relies on the fluid ingress detection system to alter the behavior of the steering system in response to fluid ingress (T9 of Pittner). Accordingly, Pittner is modified to have the leak detection function from Matsuda without changing Pittner's fluid ingress detection function. Additionally,
Applicant correctly points out that "the benefit of detecting a leak in at least one of the boots to provide early detection of a leak, enabling early repair" is "a desired result," which is a motivation to combine the references, making the combination obvious.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that "Accordingly, the proposed combination is based on Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap rather than on a reasoned teaching or suggestion in the cited art."
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive for at least the reasons above.
Furthermore, 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).
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that "Even if Matsuda discloses pressure changes in boot spaces during steering, the Office Action has not established that Pittner in view of Matsuda teaches or suggests the claimed steering seal diagnostic system as a whole, including the claimed single pressure sensor and pressure-change-threshold leak determination tied to translation from an on-center position to a full left or full right position."
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive. The Office Action clearly shows that Pittner as modified teaches all of claim 1.
In response to 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., single pressure sensor and pressure-change-threshold leak determination "tied to" translation from an on-center position to a full left or full right position) 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). ¶10 and ¶46 of Matsuda teach that steering causes one of the boots to be compressed, and ¶44 of Matsuda teaches that a leak is detected when the pressure increase due to compression of a boot is less than what it should be. Accordingly, in Matsuda, the pressure increase when steering occurs from the center position to one of the right or left positions is indeed indicative of a leak when the increase is less than a certain amount. Therefore, the pressure sensor is capable of being used such that a detected pressure change lower than a pressure change threshold indicates a leak condition of the sealed compartment during translation of the steering linkage from an on center position to a full left position or to a full right position. Note that there is no logic structure recited in claim 1 that specifically requires leak detection using the pressure change starting during steering specifically between the center position and one of the right and left positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
