Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment, including claim and drawing amendments, filed 5/11/26 (hereinafter Response) has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1-3 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application with claims 6-15 and 20 withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
Based on the amendments to the drawing included in the Response, the drawing objection raised in the non-final office action mailed 2/11/26 (hereinafter Office Action) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “a recirculating ball gear” lacks clear antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 which 4 depends from, as amended, now recites “a recirculating ball gear.” Thus, it is unclear if “a recirculating ball gear” recited in claim 4 is attempting to introduce a second “a recirculating ball gear” or is intending to refer back to the recirculating ball gear already introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “a pair of power packs” lacks clear antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite because claim 3 which 4 depends from, as amended, now recites “a pair of power packs.” Thus, it is unclear if “a pair of power packs” recited in claim 4 is attempting to introduce a second “a pair of power packs” or is intending to refer back to the pair of power packs already introduced in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “an eRCB assembly” lacks clear antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 which 19 depends from, as amended, now recites “an eRCB assembly.” Thus, it is unclear if “an eRCB assembly” recited in claim 19 is attempting to introduce a second “an eRCB assembly” or is intending to refer back to the eRCB already introduced in claim 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0377147 A1 to Ishihara et al (hereinafter Ishihara) in view of US 2004/0245739 A1 to Larson et al (hereinafter Larson).
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara discloses a steering assembly for steering a vehicle in response to a steering input (Fig. 1 & [0018] and [0021]), the steering assembly comprising:
a plurality of linkages (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first pair of knuckles (13L/R) operatively coupled to the first pair of wheels (10L/R) (Fig. 1 & [0018]-[0020]);
a first tie rod (11,12L/R) extending between and coupled to the first pair of knuckles (13L/R) (Fig. 1 & [0018]-[0020]);
PNG
media_image1.png
511
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one drag link (14L/R) attached to one of the first pair of knuckles (13L/R) (Fig. 1 & [0018]-[0020]);
a primary electric drive source (16R) comprising an electronic recirculating ball (eRCB) assembly (Fig. 3) operatively coupled to the at least one drag link (14R) by at least one pitman arm (15R) (Annotated Fig. 3, Fig. 1, & [0020], [0022]-[0023], [0040], [0043]-[0044], [0051], and [0057] disclose motor 41R drives the recirculating ball assembly depicted in Fig. 3 and transmits rotation from the motor to the output shaft 32R causing movement of the pitman arm and drag link through rotation of shaft 34R, linear movement of nut 27R, and rotational movement of output shaft 32R), eRCB assembly including a recirculating ball gear (A) and an output shaft (32R) engaged with the recirculating ball gear (A) (Annotated Fig. 3, Fig. 1, & [0043]-[0044] disclose the recirculating ball gear, generally indicated by parts within circle A in Annotated figure 3 are engaged with the sector gear 32R which also serves as an output shaft, this interpretation is in line with applicant’s disclosure of “ball gear 150” being multiple components, e.g., see [0035] of Applicant’s PG Pub.), the output shaft (32R) configured to transfer rotation from the recirculating ball gear (A) to the at least one pitman arm (15R) (Annotated Fig. 3, Fig. 1 & [0043]-[0044]); wherein the primary electric drive source (16R) is configured to move the at least one drag link (14R) through the at least one pitman arm (15R) in response to the steering input (18) to transfer movement through the plurality of linkages to turn the first pair of wheels (10L/R) (Annotated Fig. 3, Fig. 1 & [0018]-[0020], [0043]-[0044]); and
a secondary electric drive source (16L) operatively attached to one of the plurality of linkages (14L) and configured to independently and redundantly move the one of the plurality of linkages in response to the steering input (18) (Fig. 1 & [0024], [0026]-[0027], and [0067]).
Ishihara does not appear to explicitly disclose a first axle extending between a first pair of wheels.
Larson teaches that it was old and well known in the art of steering systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a first axle (18) extending between a first pair of wheels (Figs. 1 and 3 & Abstract and [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of steering systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering system disclosed by Ishihara to incorporate a first axle extending between a first pair of wheels as taught by Larson in order to rotatably support and drive the vehicles wheels and couple the wheels to the vehicles suspension, e.g., see Fig. 1 and [0005]-[0006] and as known by any person of ordinary skill in the art, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Ishihara further discloses a vehicle communication unit (VCU) (23) communicatively coupled to the primary electric drive source (16R) and the secondary electric drive source (16R) and configured to receive the steering input (18) and actuate each of the primary electric drive source (16R) and the secondary electric drive source (16L) based on the steering input (18) to turn the first pair of wheels (10L/R) (Fig. 1 & [0021], [0023]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Ishihara further discloses wherein the secondary electric drive source (16L) is an electronic recirculating ball (eRCB) assembly (Fig. 2) operatively coupled to the at least one drag link (14L) by at least one pitman arm (15L) (Figs. 1-2 & [0020], [0028][0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 16, depending on claim 1, Ishihara further discloses wherein the steering assembly further comprises a steering column (17) extending to the primary electric drive source (16R) to be physically attached to the primary electric drive source (16R), and rotation of the steering column (17) provides the steering input (18) to the primary electric drive source (16R) (Figs. 1 and 3 & [0021]).
Regarding claim 17, depending on claim 1, further discloses a steering wheel (18) and a rotation sensor (45) communicatively coupled to the steering wheel (18) to detect rotation of the steering wheel (18) (Figs. 1 and 3 & [0051]-[0052] discloses the steering wheel is rotatably coupled to the output shaft 34R of the ball screw where rotation angle sensor is mounted and configured to measure. Although the rotation sensor not directly coupled to the steering wheel, it still is interpreted as detecting rotation of the steering wheel), the rotation sensor (45) is communicatively coupled to the primary electric drive source (16R) to provide the steering input (18) to the primary electric drive source (16R) in response to the detected rotation of the steering wheel (18) (Figs. 1 and 3 & [0021], [0058], [0064]. See also Fig. 6 & supporting paragraphs [0070]-[0073], [0080], and [0088]-[00112] generally.).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Larson and further in view of US 2018/0244305 A1 to Cal et al (hereinafter Cai).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Ishihara further discloses wherein the eRCB assembly (Fig. 3) comprises a … power pack (B) engaged with the recirculating ball gear (A) to transfer rotation to the recirculating ball gear (A) (Annotated Fig. 3 & [0044] and [0046]):
Ishihara does not appear to disclose a pair of power packs engaged with the recirculating ball gear.
Cai teaches that it was old and well known in the art of steering systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for an eRCB assembly to include a pair of power packs (98, 104) engaged with the recirculating ball gear (46) (Fig. 1 & claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of steering systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eRCB assembly disclosed by the modified combination of Ishihara /Larson to modify the power pack to be a pair of power packs as taught by Cai in order to provide redundancy in steering systems, e.g., see Cai Abstract, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 3, Ishihara further discloses wherein the eRCB assembly comprises:
a recirculating ball gear (33R) engaged with the at least one pitman arm (15R) to transfer rotation to the pitman arm (15R) (Figs. 1 and 3 & [0043]-[0044]); and
a … power pack (41R) engaged with the recirculating ball gear (33R) to transfer rotation to the recirculating ball gear (33R) (Fig. 3 & [0044] and [0046]), … the pair of power pack comprises:
a worm gear reducer (39R,40R) (Fig. 3 & [0046]);
a motor (41R) operatively attached to the worm gear reducer (39R,40R) to transfer rotation to the worm gear reducer (39R,40R) (Fig. 3 & [0046]); and
an ECU (22R) communicatively coupled to the motor (41R) to control operation of the motor (41R), the worm gear reducer (39R,40R) engages the recirculating ball gear (33R) to transfer rotation to the recirculating ball gear (39R,40R) (Figs. 1 and 3 & [0025]-[0026], [0049]-[0051], and [0057]).
Ishihara does not appear to disclose a pair of power packs engaged with the recirculating ball gear.
Cai teaches that it was old and well known in the art of steering systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for an eRCB assembly to include a pair of power packs (98, 104) engaged with the recirculating ball gear (46) (Fig. 1 & claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of steering systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eRCB assembly disclosed by the modified combination of Ishihara /Larson to modify the power pack to be a pair of power packs as taught by Cai in order to provide redundancy in steering systems, e.g., see Cai Abstract, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Larson and further in view of US 2,232,165 to Cochran.
Regarding claim 18, depending on claim 1, Ishihara further discloses the secondary electric drive source (16L) is operatively attached to the at least one drag link (14L/R) (Fig. 1 & [0018]-[0020])
Ishihara does not appear to further disclose:
a second axle extending between a second pair of wheels;
wherein the plurality of linkages further comprises:
a second pair of knuckles operatively coupled to the second pair of wheels, the at least one drag link is attached to one of the second pair of knuckles;
a second tie rod extending between and coupled to the second pair of knuckles.
Cochran teaches that it was old and well known in the art of steering systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,
wherein the plurality of linkages further comprises:
a second pair of knuckles (29,30) operatively coupled to the second pair of wheels (13), the at least one drag link (38,40) is attached to one of the second pair of knuckles (29,30) (Fig. 2 & p. 1 col 2 ln 41 - p. 2 col 1 ln 12);
a second tie rod (28) extending between and coupled to the second pair of knuckles (29,30) (Fig. 2 & p. 1 col 2 ln 41 - p. 2 col 1 ln 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of steering systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the front wheel steering system including a drag link connected to the front wheel knuckle disclosed by Ishihara to incorporate the all wheel steering system including a second axle extending between a second pair of wheels; wherein the plurality of linkages further comprises: a second pair of knuckles operatively coupled to the second pair of wheels, the at least one drag link, which is also attached to one of the first pair of knuckles, is attached to one of the second pair of knuckles; a second tie rod extending between and coupled to the second pair of knuckles as taught by Cochran in order to improve the turning radius, particularly of large vehicles, e.g., see p. 1 col 2 ln 3-16, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Larson further discloses a second axle (20) extending between a second pair of wheels (Figs. 1 and 3 & Abstract and [0027]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Ishihara in view of the teachings of Larson for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, depending on claim 18, the modified combination of Ishihara/ Larson/Cochran further discloses wherein:
the plurality of linkages further comprises a first pitman arm (Ishihara - 15R/Cochran - 67) and a second pitman arm (15L) each attached to the at least one drag link (Ishihara - 14R/14L / Cochran – 38,40) (Ishihara – Fig. 1/Cochran Figs. 2 and 4);
the primary electric drive source (Ishihara - 16R) is an eRCB assembly operatively attached to the at least one drag link (Ishihara – 14L/14R) by the first pitman arm (15R) (Figs. 1 and 3 & [0020], [0040], [0043]-[0044], and [0051]); and
the secondary electric drive source (Ishihara – 16R) is an eRCB assembly operatively attached to the at least one drag link (Ishihara – 14L/R) by the second pitman arm (Ishihara – 15L) (Figs. 1-2 & [0020], [0028][0032]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Ishihara in view of the teachings of Cochran/Larson for at least the same reasons discussed above in claims 1 and 18 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response directed toward the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 1 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See Response pp. 8-10.
Applicant specifically argues:
Accordingly, Ishihara transmits steering motion through a different mechanical path. The output shaft 34R and ball screw 33R slide the nut 27R, and motion is then transmitted through the rack portion 28R and sector gear 32R to the pitman arm 15R. Amended claim 1, by contrast, requires an eRCB assembly in which a recirculating ball gear is engaged with an output shaft that transfers rotation from the recirculating ball gear to the pitman arm, so that the primary electric drive source moves the drag link through the pitman arm. Ishihara therefore does not disclose the claimed recirculating ball gear, the claimed output shaft engaged with that recirculating ball gear, or the claimed transfer of rotation from the recirculating ball gear through the output shaft and pitman arm to move the drag link.
Examiner disagrees that mechanical path disclosed by Ishihara is different from that of presently claimed amended claim 1. Specifically, as addressed above in the rejection of claim 1, the recirculating ball gear is a group of structures, this is in line with Applicant’s disclosure, e.g., see [0035] of Applicant’s PG Pub, which together engage with the sector gear 32R, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation can be interpreted as an output shaft because it delivers rotation from the ball gear A to the pitman arm 15R to move the drag link 14R as discussed above in claim 1. Therefore, while Applicant appears to base their argument on the use of different terms in Ishihara to those claimed, there is not actual difference in the mechanical path. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights