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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 2a in Figure 2, 111 in Figure 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 should read “a motor, one end of which” for the purpose of clarity and grammatical accuracy.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 should read “the shaft of the first bolt” for the purpose of consistency as a shaft of the first bolt was previously introduced in claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 should read “a shaft of the second bolt” for the purpose of consistency as a shaft of the second bolt has not been previously introduced in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (KR 20190102700 A) in view of Watzlawek (DE 102013112776 A1, provided by applicant).
In regards to claim 1: Su teaches a motor supporting structure (Shown generally in Figure 1) for a steering device, the motor supporting structure comprising:
a rack bar (Not shown, Paragraph 4 of description: “The rack housing body 110 surrounds the outer surface of the rack bar (not shown) in a tubular shape.”);
a rack housing (110) in which the rack bar is housed; and
a power generator unit (200) that generates power for moving the rack bar, wherein
the power generator unit includes:
a motor (Paragraph 6 of description: “The power pack unit 200 includes a motor (not shown)”), extending along an axial direction of the rack bar (see Figures 1-3);
a motor peripheral part (See annotated Figure 2) that is disposed on another end of the motor; and
a first fastener that includes a first bolt (shown not labeled), and that fastens the motor and the motor peripheral part in an axial direction (See annotated Figure 2),
the rack housing includes:
a first support (120) that supports one end of the power generator unit; and
a second support (300) that supports another end of the power generator unit, the second support has a tip portion (see annotated Figure 2) that is connected to the other end of the power generator unit.
Su is silent as to an output shaft of the motor and fails to teach wherein the tip portion of the second support has a first hole through which a shaft of the first bolt passes, and is fastened by the first fastener, together with the motor and the motor peripheral part. However, Watzlawek teaches a motor supporting structure for a steering device (embodiment shown in Figure 19) with a motor output shaft (shown not labeled in Figure 19) along an axial direction of the rack bar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motor output shaft as in Watzlawek with the motor of Su so as to allow the motor output to assist the powered steering device thereby allowing for a functional powered steering device and motor.
The combination of Su and Watzlawek fails to teach wherein the first fastener fastens the tip portion of the second support along with the motor and motor peripheral part. However, "[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96. See MPEP 2141 Section I.
In the case of the instant application, merely rearranging Su so the second support is also bolted using the same bolt that connects the motor and motor peripheral part would yield an expected result of a secure connection between all three parts and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons of manufacturing cost, a more secure attachment, easier maintenance, or compact design choice.
PNG
media_image1.png
395
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 1 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination further teaches wherein the motor has a first flange (see annotated Figure 2 below) that protrudes from an outer peripheral surface of the other end of the motor and that is fastened by the first fastener, the motor peripheral part has a cover member (See annotated Figure 2 below) that closes an opening on the other end of the motor, and the cover member has a second flange (See annotated Figure 2 below) that is fastened by the first fastener and that abuts against the first flange.
PNG
media_image2.png
393
569
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 1 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination further teaches wherein the first hole is larger than a diameter of a shaft of the first bolt (See Figure 2 of Su wherein the bolt is located inside the hole which necessarily means that the diameter of the hole is larger than the diameter of the shaft of the bolt.
In regards to claim 7: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 1 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination fails to teach wherein the second support is manufactured integrally with the rack housing. However:
In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.");
Regarding the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the second support integrally with the rack housing as a matter of obvious engineering choice and/or to accommodate for parts availability, and manufacturing costs and capabilities thereby allowing for a more cost effective and streamlined manufacturing process.
In regards to claim 8: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 1 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination further teaches wherein the second support has a base portion (320 of Su) that is an end on an opposite side of the tip portion (See Figure 4 of Su) and provided with a second hole (321a of Su), and the base portion is fastened to the rack housing by a second bolt (400 of Su).
In regards to claim 9: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 8 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination further teaches wherein an elastic material is interposed between the base portion (320 of Su) of the second support and the rack housing (Paragraph 8 of the description: “The elastic part 310 is manufactured to be injection molded integrally with the plate 320 to surround the outer surface of the plate 320.” and paragraph 9: “The plate 320 is embedded in the elastic portion 310. Thus, when the damper unit 300 is coupled to the rack housing body 110, the elastic unit 310 is not only prevented from being pushed and moved, but also has a fixed shape.”).
In regards to claim 10: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 8 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination further teaches wherein the rack housing has: a rib (see annotated Figure 3 of Su) that protrudes from an outer peripheral surface of the rack housing to increase strength of the rack housing; and a boss (111, see annotated Figure 3 of Su) that protrudes from the outer peripheral surface of the rack housing, and into which the second bolt (400 of Su) is screwed, and an amount by which the boss protrudes is equal to or less than an amount by which the rib protrudes (See Figure 3 of Su where the protrusion of the rib is longer than the protrusion of the boss).
PNG
media_image3.png
437
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 8 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination further teaches wherein the second hole is larger than a diameter of the shaft of the second bolt (See Figure 3 of Su).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Watzlawek and further in view of Heiko (DE 102004007354 A1). The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 2 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination fails to teach wherein a rotor of the motor includes a magnet, and the motor peripheral part has a rotation angle sensor that detects a change in a magnetic field of the magnet. However, Heiko teaches a motor of a steering device with a rotor (10) including a magnet (6), and a rotation angle sensor (9) that detects a change in a magnetic field of the magnet (Paragraph 3 of disclosure: “The Invention is that in an electric motor for an electromechanical Steering, a fixedly arranged in a housing stator, a in the case rotatably mounted rotor with at least one permanent magnet, a Steering shaft and a sensor device for the rotation angle of the rotor”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally have a magnet on the rotor of the motor of Su in view of Watzlawek with a sensor on the motor peripheral part to detect the rotational angle of the magnet as in Heiko to allow for greater control and sensitivity of the electric steering system thereby creating a more efficient and smooth steering experience for the user.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Watzlawek and further in view of Shimizu (GB 2187692 A). The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 2 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination fails to teach wherein an elastic material is interposed between the tip portion of the second support and the first flange or the second flange adjacent to the tip portion in the axial direction. However, Shimizu teaches elastic members 133c and 134c between elements of a power steering system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally have elastic as in Shimizu between the second support and one of the flanges of Su in view of Watzlawek so as to allow absorption of the vibrations between the two parts thereby reducing wear and tear on the connection and creating a more secure attachment between the two components.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Watzlawek and further in view of Krolo (US 2020/0140008 A1). The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 1 is taught by Su in view of Watzlawek. The combination further teaches wherein the motor peripheral part is provided with a hole into which the first bolt is screwed (See annotated Figure 2 of Su above and hole can be more clearly seen in Figure 3). The combination fails to teach wherein the hole is threaded. However, Krolo teaches a threaded hole for a bolt (Paragraph 0015) for a simple and convenient attachment (Paragraph 0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally have threads for a threaded bolt as in Krolo for the bolt and hole attachment of Su in view of Watzlawek for a simple and convenient attachment as stated in Krolo thereby allowing for easier assembly and removal for maintenance and creating a more user friendly supporting structure.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Watzlawek and further in view of an alternate embodiment of Waltzlawek.
In regards to claim 12: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 8 is taught by Su in view of Waltzlawek. The combination fails to teach wherein the second support is formed by changing shape of a long plate-like metal piece, the first hole and the second hole are formed through the metal piece in a thickness direction, the second support has a middle part extending between the tip portion and the base portion, and the middle part is twisted, and the first hole and the second hole face different directions. However, an alternate embodiment of Waltzlawek shown in Figure 17 teaches a second support (3040) formed by changing the shape of a long plate-like metal piece with first and second holes formed through in a thickness direction, with a middle part between a tip and base portion that is twisted (See Figure 17 and 3040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second support of Su in view of Waltzlawek be formed from a twisted metal plate as in the alternate embodiment of Waltzlawek to account for manufacturing cost, availability, and space tolerances and constraints thereby creating a more cost effective and available product for the manufacturer and user.
In regards to claim 13: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 8 is taught by Su in view of Waltzlawek. The combination fails to teach wherein the second support is formed by changing shape of a long plate-like metal piece, the first hole and the second hole are formed through the metal piece in a thickness direction, the second support has a middle part extending between the tip portion and the base portion, and the middle part is bent, and the first hole and the second hole face different directions. However, an alternate embodiment of Waltzlawek shown in Figure 16 teaches a second support (2140) formed by changing the shape of a long plate-like metal piece with first and second holes formed through in a thickness direction, with a middle part between a tip and base portion that is bent (See Figure 16 and 2140). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second support of Su in view of Waltzlawek be formed from a bent metal plate as in the alternate embodiment of Waltzlawek to account for manufacturing cost, availability, and space tolerances and constraints thereby creating a more cost effective and available product for the manufacturer and user.
In regards to claim 14: The motor supporting structure for a steering device according to claim 13 is taught by Su in view of Waltzlawek and an alternative embodiment of Waltzlawek. The combination further teaches wherein the second support has an L shape (see Figure 16 of Waltzlawek.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bowling (US 2004/0232642 A1) teaches a housing for a steering system with a second support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611