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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-6, 8-11, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200012518 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’) in view of Chikaraishi et al. (EP 1 621 444 A1) and Boyle (US 2020/0398887) and Michioka et al. (US 2005/0255927).
With respect to claims 1-2, 8-10, 14 and 17-19, Kim discloses a vehicle (MTD paragraph 3) comprising an electric power steering assembly (fig. 1), comprising: an electric motor (113); a pulley system (123, 125, 127); and a ball-screw assembly (fig. 1) comprising a housing (130), a ball nut (121) and a ball shaft (120, 140) collectively defining a helical track (figs. 1-2), a portion of the helical track defined by the ball shaft (120, 140) being defined on an outer surface of the ball shaft (120, 140), the pulley system (123, 125, 127) coupling the electric motor (113) and the ball nut (121) such that the electric motor (113) is operable to rotate the ball nut (121) relative to the ball shaft (120), the ball nut (121) rotatably mounted (fig. 4) within the housing (130), the ball shaft (120) translatable relative to the housing, an outer surface of the ball shaft (120, 140) comprising at least one spline (149b) received by the housing (130, 133b) in order to limit rotation of the ball shaft relative to the housing (MTD paragraphs 40-41), and a bearing (121b) circulatable through the helical track when the ball nut (121) rotates relative to the ball shaft (120, 140) in order to translate the ball shaft relative to the ball nut (121). (Figs. 1-9, MTD paragraphs 12-52.) Kim 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 Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent rattling in the axial direction. (Paragraphs 74-75.) Further, because both Kim and Chikaraishi et al. teach methods for transferring energy from the electric motor to the ball nut, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (pulley system) for another (gearset system) in order to achieve the predictable result of transmitting a driving force of the electric motor to the ball nut. Kim describes a singular ball but is silent regarding a plurality of balls and a bevel gearbox. Boyle teaches of 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); and 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). (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 7-19.) 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 Boyle into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively move the steering member axially relative to the ball nut assembly and axially relative to the housing and to transfer force from the steering column to the ball nut assembly. (Paragraphs 11-14.) From the teachings of Chikaraishi et al. and Boyle into Kim; Kim, as modified, discloses an output of the bevel gearbox (40 taught from Boyle) connected to the second gearwheel (53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) of the gearset (51-53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) Kim, as modified, discloses members screw bar (120) and piston member (140) as press-fit together but does not disclose the helical shaft on the same portion of the ball shaft as the at least one spline. Michioka et al. teaches of the outer surface of the ball shaft (50) further comprising at least one spline (52) received by the housing in order to limit rotation of the ball shaft (50) relative to the housing (59); the at least one spline (52) comprises a plurality of splines distributed circumferentially (fig. 4) around the ball shaft (50); wherein a length of the at least one spline (52) is no less than a length of travel of the ball shaft (50) relative to the housing (59); wherein the at least one spline (52) and a portion of the helical track (fig. 4) defined by the ball shaft (50) at least partially axially overlap on the outer surface of the ball shaft (50). (Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 36-45.) 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 Michioka et al. into the invention of Kim, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively preventing relative rotation between the output shaft 50 and the ball screw nut 54. (Paragraphs 41.)
With respect to claim 3, Kim, as modified, discloses the housing (130) defines a plurality of slots (133b), each spline (149b) of the plurality of splines received within a respective one of the plurality of slots (133b). (Figs. 1-9, MTD paragraphs 12-52.)
With respect to claim 4, Kim, as modified, is silent regarding an axial length of the plurality of slots is no less than 6mm and no greater than 50mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an axial length of the plurality of slots is no less than 6mm and no greater than 50mm, 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 5, Kim, as modified, discloses the housing (130) extends between a first end portion (figs. 1, 4) and a second end portion (figs. 1, 4); the plurality of slots (133b) are positioned at the first end portion (figs., 4, 7) of the housing (130); and the gearset (51-53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) is coupled to the ball nut (121) at the second end portion (fig. 4) of the housing (130). (Figs. 1-9, MTD paragraphs 12-52.)
With respect to claim 6, Kim, as modified, discloses the plurality of splines (149b) comprises no less than six splines (figs. 6-7) distributed circumferentially around the ball shaft (120, 140). (Figs. 1-9, MTD paragraphs 12-52.)
With respect to claim 11, Kim, 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 15, Kim, as modified, is silent regarding the vehicle being a heavy commercial vehicle. Boyle teaches of the vehicle being a heavy commercial vehicle (paragraph 1). 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 Boyle into the invention of Kim, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively turn steerable wheels of a vehicle, especially a commercial vehicle such as a heavy truck. (Paragraph 1.)
With respect to claim 16, Kim discloses an electric power steering assembly (fig. 1), comprising: an electric motor (113); a pulley system (123, 125, 127); and a ball-screw assembly (fig. 1) comprising a housing (130), a ball nut (121) and a ball shaft (120, 140) collectively defining a helical track (fig. 1), a portion of the helical track defined by the ball shaft (120, 140) being defined on an outer surface of the ball shaft (120, 140), the pulley system (123, 125, 127) coupling the electric motor (113) and the ball nut (121) such that the electric motor (113) is operable to rotate the ball nut (121) relative to the ball shaft (120), the ball nut (121) rotatably mounted (fig. 4) within the housing (130), the ball shaft (120) translatable relative to the housing, an outer surface of the ball shaft (120, 140) comprising a plurality of splines (149b) received by the housing (130, 133b) in order to limit rotation of the ball shaft relative to the housing (MTD paragraphs 40-41), and a bearing (121b) circulatable through the helical track when the ball nut (121) rotates relative to the ball shaft (120, 140) in order to translate the ball shaft relative to the ball nut (121). (Figs. 1-9, MTD paragraphs 12-52.) Kim 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 Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent rattling in the axial direction. (Paragraphs 74-75.) Further, because both Kim and Chikaraishi et al. teach methods for transferring energy from the electric motor to the ball nut, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (pulley system) for another (gearset system) in order to achieve the predictable result of transmitting a driving force of the electric motor to the ball nut. Kim describes a singular ball but is silent regarding a plurality of balls and a bevel gearbox. Boyle teaches of 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); and 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). (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 7-19.) 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 Boyle into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively move the steering member axially relative to the ball nut assembly and axially relative to the housing and to transfer force from the steering column to the ball nut assembly. (Paragraphs 11-14.) From the teachings of Chikaraishi et al. and Boyle into Kim; Kim, as modified, discloses an output of the bevel gearbox (40 taught from Boyle) connected to the second gearwheel (53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) of the gearset (51-53 taught from Chikaraishi et al.) Kim, 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. Kim, as modified, discloses members screw bar (120) and piston member (140) as press-fit together but does not disclose the helical shaft on the same portion of the ball shaft as the at least one spline. Michioka et al. teaches of the outer surface of the ball shaft (50) further comprising at least one spline (52) received by the housing in order to limit rotation of the ball shaft (50) relative to the housing (59); the at least one spline (52) comprises a plurality of splines distributed circumferentially (fig. 4) around the ball shaft (50); wherein a length of the plurality of splines (52) is no less than a length of travel of the ball shaft (50) relative to the housing (59). (Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 36-45.) 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 Michioka et al. into the invention of Kim, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively preventing relative rotation between the output shaft 50 and the ball screw nut 54. (Paragraphs 41.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Boyle, Chikaraishi et al. and Michioka et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 5,152,185).
With respect to claim 7, Kim, as modified, is silent regarding a grease fitting. Taylor teaches of a grease fitting (192, 194) mounted to the housing (168, 170). (Figs. 1, 3, col. 5, lines 49-68, col. 6, lines 1-26.) 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 Taylor into the invention of Kim, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a means whereby the gears and bearings may be lubricated, with the lubricant being protected from contamination, thereby increasing the life of the components due to less wear. (Col. 1, lines 67-68, col. 2, lines 1-3)
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Boyle, Chikaraishi et al. and Michioka et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 5,890,394).
With respect to claims 12-13, Kim, 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) therethrough, and air is flowable between the pair of concertinaed jackets (56) through the 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 Kim, 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.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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