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 .
Claims 7-13 have been canceled. Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 1-6 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.
In claim 1, lines 11-12, “the component” and “the harder material property” lack clear antecedent basis in the claim.
It is not clear how claim 2 further defines the invention. In claim 1, a frame or bushing surface is “textured with a laser to form a laser surface”, whereas, claim 2 only recites a frame or bushing surface that “is laser etched to form a friction surface”. These appear to be the same feature.
In claims 4, 5, and 6, “the first component” and “the second component” lack clear antecedent basis and fail to relate back to the “frame” and the “bushing” that appears to correspond to the components.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108657263) in view of Ribeiro (PGPub 2021/0388867).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Liu teaches a friction assembly for mounted components comprising: a steering gear (see title); a frame 1 having a first interface surface comprising a frame surface (upper contact surface of frame 1 that contacts bushing 3); a bushing 3 having a second interface surface 31 comprising a bushing surface, wherein the first interface surface and the second interface surface are in contact in an assembled condition (see Figure 3), the bushing surface being in operative contact with the frame surface and the steering gear; wherein one of the frame surface and the bushing surface is textured to form a friction surface, and wherein the component with the harder material property has the surface that is to be texturized (bushing 3 has a texture surface 311; Figures 4 and 5; abstract refers to an “embedded pattern” that increases the coefficient of friction between the sleeve/bushing 3 and the frame 1; page 6, first full paragraph, teaches a “texture 311” on sleeve/bushing 3).
Liu is silent regarding the textured pattern 311 being laser etched.
Ribeiro teaches a friction assembly for mounted components comprising: a first component (outer ring 14 of bearing) having a first interface surface (surfaces of the outer ring that contact the housing 16; see Ribeiro, para [0014], lines 1-4; Figure 1); and a second component (housing 16) having a second interface surface (inner surface of housing that contact the outer bearing ring 14), wherein the first interface surface and the second interface surface are in contact in an assembled condition (Figure 1), wherein one of the first interface surface and the second interface surface are textured to form a friction surface (laser etched contact surface; para [0014], lines 3-4). The laser etching improves the security of the press fit between the first component (bearing 14) and second component (housing 16; see abstract and para [0014], lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, form the texture on the bushing by laser etching, as taught by Ribeiro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the contact interface between the bushing and frame (first and second components).
Regarding claim 3, the bushing surface of Liu is the textured surface so it is the laser etched surface of the combination, to form the friction surface.
Regarding claim 4, the first component/frame is formed of a first material (aluminum) having a first hardness, wherein the second component/bushing is formed of a second material (steel) having a second hardness that is greater than the first hardness (see Liu, page 3, fifth full paragraph of the translation), and wherein the one of the first interface surface and the second interface surface which is etched is the second interface surface.
Regarding claim 5, the first component/frame and the second component/bushing are assembled to each other in a vehicle (automobile, see title).
Regarding claim 6, the first component/frame and the second component/bushing are assembled to each other in a steering system (see title, abstract, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 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.
Applicant has argued that neither Liu nor Ribeiro alone teaches the entire claimed combination. However, applicant has not specifically argued the combination of Liu and Ribeiro which was set forth in the previous Office Action and which is relied upon here. Absent a convincing argument as to why the combination of Liu and Ribeiro is improper or fails to meet the claimed combination, the rejection is being maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hiramoto teaches a laser roughened surface used in a power steering arrangement.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights