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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “through axial passage” should be “through the axial passage”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 includes the limitation: “wherein the vehicle is a Class 8 commercial vehicle based on the gross vehicle weight rating”; however neither the claims nor the disclosure provides a definition for a Class 8 commercial vehicle and as the definition of a Class 8 commercial vehicle may vary between different countries and over time, the scope of the claim cannot be determined. For the sake of examination “a Class 8 commercial vehicle based on the gross vehicle weight rating” will be interpreted as a “heavy commercial vehicle” as discussed in Para. [0035] of Applicant's original Specification. See MPEP 2173.05(b) — Relative Terminology.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle (US 2020/0398887) in view of Chikaraishi et al. (EP 1 621 444 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 3 and 14-15, Boyle discloses a heavy commercial vehicle (paragraph 1) comprising, an electric power steering assembly (10), comprising: a ball-screw assembly (52) comprising a ball nut (52) and a ball shaft (72) collectively defining a helical track (figs. 1-2), the ball nut rotatable relative to the ball shaft (paragraph 14), and a plurality of bearings (‘balls’; paragraph 14) circulatable through the helical track (figs. 1-2) when the ball nut rotates relative to the ball shaft in order to translate the ball shaft (72) relative to the ball nut (52) (paragraph 14); an electric motor (80). (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 7-19.) Boyle describes a pulley system transferring energy between the motor and ball-screw assembly. Chikaraishi et al. teaches of a gearset (51-53) coupling the electric motor and the ball nut (75) such that the electric motor (41) is operable to rotate the ball nut (75) relative to the ball shaft (68), the gearset comprising a first gearwheel (51), a second gearwheel (52), and a third gearwheel (53), the first gearwheel (51) coupled to a rotor (44, 45) of the electric motor (41), the third gearwheel (53) meshed with a gear toothing (80) of the ball nut (75), the second gearwheel (53) disposed between and meshed with the first (51) and third (52) gearwheels in a power flow path between the first (51) and third (52) gearwheels. (Figs. 5-6, paragraphs 70-83.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Chikaraishi et al. into the invention of Boyle with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent rattling in the axial direction. (Paragraphs 74-75.) Boyle, as modified, discloses a bevel gearbox (figs. 1-2), an input (18) of the bevel gearbox connectable to a steering wheel column (14) (paragraph 9), an output of the bevel gearbox (40) connected to the second gearwheel (53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) of the gearset (51-53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.).
With respect to claim 2, Boyle, as modified, discloses the bevel gearbox comprises a first bevel gear (32) and a second bevel gear (40), the first bevel gear (32) meshed with the second bevel gear (40), the first bevel gear (32) connectable to the steering wheel column at the input (18) of the bevel gearbox, the second bevel gear (40) connected to the second gearwheel (53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) of the gearset at the output of the bevel gearbox. (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 7-19.)
With respect to claim 7, Boyle, as modified, is silent regarding a root diameter of the second gearwheel is greater than a root diameter of the third gearwheel, and the root diameter of the third gearwheel is greater than the root diameter of the first gearwheel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a root diameter of the second gearwheel is greater than a root diameter of the third gearwheel, and the root diameter of the third gearwheel is greater than the root diameter of the first gearwheel, 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.
With respect to claim 8, Boyle, as modified, is silent regarding a length of the ball shaft is no less than 300mm and no greater than 900mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a length of the ball shaft is no less than 300mm and no greater than 900mm, 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.
With respect to claim 9, Boyle, as modified, discloses the electric motor, and the bevel gearbox are positioned on the same axial side of the gearset (figs. 1-2) but is silent regarding the ball-screw assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the ball-screw assembly positioned on the same axial side of the gearset, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claim 13, Boyle, as modified, is silent regarding a gear ratio of the gearset is no less than 1:1 and no greater than 2:1, and a gear ratio of the bevel gearbox is no less than 0.25:1 and no greater than 0.75:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a gear ratio of the gearset is no less than 1:1 and no greater than 2:1, and a gear ratio of the bevel gearbox is no less than 0.25:1 and no greater than 0.75:1, 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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle and Chikaraishi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonny et al. (US 10,876,596).
With respect to claims 4-5, Boyle, as modified, is silent regarding planetary gear set. Bonny et al. teaches of a planetary gear set (150), a sun gear (151) of the planetary gear set (150) connected to the rotor (123) of the electric motor (121), a carrier (154) of the planetary gear set; wherein a ring gear (135) of the planetary gear set (150) is fixed relative to a housing (130) of the electric motor (col. 3, lines 4-9). (Figs. 2-4, col. 2, lines 35-67, col. 3, lines 1-53.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Bonny et al. into the invention of Boyle, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provides for a compound planetary gear assembly providing a summative reduction of the rotational speed of the electric motor output to an output hub. (Col. 1, lines 21-25.) Boyle, as modified, discloses a carrier (154 taught by Bonny et al.) of the planetary gear set (150 taught by Bonny et al.) connected to the first gearwheel (51 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) of the gearset (51-53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.)
With respect to claim 6, Boyle, as modified, is silent regarding a gear ratio of the planetary gear set is no less than 7.5:1 and no greater than 8.5:1, and a gear ratio of the gearset is no less than 1:1 and no greater than 2:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a gear ratio of the planetary gear set is no less than 7.5:1 and no greater than 8.5:1, and a gear ratio of the gearset is no less than 1:1 and no greater than 2:1, 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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle and Chikaraishi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 5,890,394).
With respect to claims 10-11, Boyle, as modified, is silent regarding a ball joint. Anderson teaches of a pair of ball joints (46), each of the pair of ball joints mounted to the ball shaft (20, 24) at a respective end portion of the ball shaft (fig. 1); and a pair of concertinaed jackets (56), each of the pair of concertinaed jackets (56) mounted over a respective one of the pair of ball joints (46), wherein the ball shaft (20, 24) defines an axial passage (22), and air is flowable between the pair of concertinaed jackets (56) through axial passage (22); wherein the axial passage and interiors of the pair of concertinaed jackets (56) collectively define a sealed air chamber relative to ambient air around the electric power steering assembly (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Anderson into the invention of Boyle, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the boots to communicate with one another to maintain pressure equilibrium so that neither boots collapses or is subjected to excessive expansion. (Col. 1, lines 59-65.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle and Chikaraishi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20-2020-0012518 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 12, Boyle, as modified, is silent regarding a spline received by the housing. Kim teaches of the ball-screw assembly further comprising a housing (130), the ball nut (121) rotatably mounted within the housing, the ball shaft (120) translatable relative to the housing, an outer surface of the ball shaft comprising at least one spline (140) received by the housing (130) in order to limit rotation of the ball shaft relative to the housing (130). (Figs. 1-9, MTD paragraphs 40-52.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Kim into the invention of Boyle, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success so that the impact of a collision of the screw bar can be absorbed. (MTD paragraph 11.)
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle (US 2020/0398887) in view of Chikaraishi et al. (EP 1 621 444 A1) and Bonny et al. (US 10,876,596).
With respect to claim 16, Boyle discloses an electric power steering assembly (10), comprising: a ball-screw assembly (52) comprising a ball nut (52) and a ball shaft (72) collectively defining a helical track (figs. 1-2), the ball nut rotatable relative to the ball shaft (paragraph 14), and a plurality of bearings (‘balls’; paragraph 14) circulatable through the helical track (figs. 1-2) when the ball nut rotates relative to the ball shaft in order to translate the ball shaft (72) relative to the ball nut (52) (paragraph 14); an electric motor (80). (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 7-19.) Boyle describes a pulley system transferring energy between the motor and ball-screw assembly. Chikaraishi et al. teaches of a gearset (51-53) coupling the electric motor and the ball nut (75) such that the electric motor (41) is operable to rotate the ball nut (75) relative to the ball shaft (68), the gearset comprising a first gearwheel (51), a second gearwheel (52), and a third gearwheel (53), the first gearwheel (51) coupled to a rotor (44, 45) of the electric motor (41), the third gearwheel (53) meshed with a gear toothing (80) of the ball nut (75), the second gearwheel (53) disposed between and meshed with the first (51) and third (52) gearwheels in a power flow path between the first (51) and third (52) gearwheels. (Figs. 5-6, paragraphs 70-83.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Chikaraishi et al. into the invention of Boyle with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent rattling in the axial direction. (Paragraphs 74-75.) Boyle, as modified, discloses a bevel gearbox (figs. 1-2), an input (18) of the bevel gearbox connectable to a steering wheel column (14) (paragraph 9), an output of the bevel gearbox (40) connected to the second gearwheel (53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) of the gearset (51-53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.). Boyle, as modified, is silent regarding planetary gear set. Bonny et al. teaches of a planetary gear set (150), a planetary gear set (150), one of a sun gear (151), a carrier, and a ring gear of the planetary gear set connected to the rotor (123) of the electric motor (121), another one of the sun gear, the carrier(154), and the ring gear of the planetary gear set (col. 3, lines 4-9). (Figs. 2-4, col. 2, lines 35-67, col. 3, lines 1-53.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Bonny et al. into the invention of Boyle, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provides for a compound planetary gear assembly providing a summative reduction of the rotational speed of the electric motor output to an output hub. (Col. 1, lines 21-25.) Boyle, as modified, discloses a carrier (154 taught by Bonny et al.) of the planetary gear set (150 taught by Bonny et al.) connected to the first gearwheel (51 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) of the gearset (51-53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.)
With respect to claim 17, Boyle, as modified, discloses the electric motor, and the bevel gearbox are positioned on the same axial side of the gearset (figs. 1-2) but is silent regarding the ball-screw assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the ball-screw assembly positioned on the same axial side of the gearset, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614