DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1 – 12, 14, 15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bless et al. (US 2008/0257085 A1) in view of Muenster et al. (DE 102008054667 A1).
For claim 1, Bless et al., first embodiment, discloses a serrated component for use in a progressive steering gear, having first 3 and second 4 inclined prong ramps comprising a plurality of prongs 31 [each having a first flank angle and a second flank angle with respect to a center plane that runs normal to a longitudinal direction of the serrated component] (fig. 1a), wherein, for at least 50% of the prongs of the plurality of prongs, [the first flank angles have a single first angular value and the second flank angles have a single second angular value] (page 4, paragraph [0069]), and [wherein a first plurality of prong tips of the first inclined prong ramp are arranged obliquely to the center plane, and wherein a second plurality of prong tips of the second inclined prong ramp are arranged obliquely to the center plane] (fig. 1a, see page 7 of Applicants Remarks under Bless et al.); but does not explicitly disclose the first angular value corresponding to a reflection of the second angular value at the center plane.
Muenster et al. discloses starting from a central position 3, this extends to its ends 4, 5 in a straight line and mirrored to a plane extending through the central position and vertically to a rack 2] (page 14, paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the mirroring relative to a central position as taught by Muenster et al. with the prong ramps of Bless et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a more precise manufacturing of the inclined ramp, thus reducing overall impact loading and replacement costs.
For claim 2, Bless et al. modified as above discloses the serrated component [wherein, for at least 70% or at least 90% of the prongs of the plurality of prongs, the first flank angles have the first angular value and the second flank angles have the second angular value] (fig. 1a, page 3, paragraph [0057] and page 4, paragraph [0069]).
For claim 3, Bless et al. modified as above the serrated component [wherein, for at least 50% or at least 70% or at least 90% of those prongs of the plurality of prongs which have a base inclined with respect to the longitudinal direction of the serrated component, the first flank angles have the first angular value and the second flank angles have the second angular value] (fig. 1d, page 4, paragraph [0069]).
For claim 4, Bless et al modified as above does not explicitly teach that the first angle value and the second angle value for the flank angles of each prong allow a deviation of ±20%.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flank angle of each prong to allow a deviation of ±20% with a reasonable expectation of success because such deviation may provide for noise reduction and improved teeth engagement, thus reducing overall replacement costs, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should not that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
For claim 5, Bless et al modified as above does not explicitly teach that the first and second angular values are x±10%, where x is a value between 25° and 40°. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second angular values are x±10%, where x is a value between 25° and 40° with a reasonable expectation of success because the angle may increase overall strength and load capacity, thus reducing overall replacement costs, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should not that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
For claim 6, Bless et al. modified as above the serrated component [wherein the first and second prong ramps are arranged with opposite inclinations] (fig. 1a).
For claim 7, Bless et al. modified as above the serrated component wherein the center plane is perpendicular to a base surface of the serrated component] (fig. 1a).
For claim 8, Bless et al. modified as above does not explicitly disclose the serrated component wherein the serrated component has a center prong with a prong base that is larger than a prong base of each laterally adjacent prong. However, an alternative embodiment of Bless et al. discloses [a central tooth 30 with a prong base that is larger than a prong base of the adjacent prong] (fig. 7b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the central prong of the alternative embodiment with the serrated component of Bless et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a uniform course, thus improving overall smoother running movement of the gears.
For claim 9, Bless et al. modified as above discloses the serrated component wherein the first prong ramp is designed for a first rolling curve and the second prong ramp is designed for a second rolling curve, wherein the first rolling curve extends obliquely to the center plane, and wherein the first rolling curve is non-rectilinear and deviates, over at least 50% of an extension of the first rolling curve, by at most 10° from a rectilinear rolling curve, and wherein the second rolling curve extends obliquely to the center plane, and wherein the second rolling curve is non- rectilinear and deviates, over at least 50% of an extension of the second rolling curve, by at most 10 from a rectilinear rolling curve. Bless, third embodiment, discloses [adapted to the shape of the spur gears 1, 2 are the gear racks 3, 4, firstly, i.e. starting from their apex, configured linear ramped before translating into a ramped but curved line K] (page 3, paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the linear ramped and ramped but curved line K of the third embodiment of Bless et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for an appropriate shaped gear rack which is dependent upon the spur gear shape, [thus allowing for reduction in additional components need to achieve a progressive steering gear and resulting in a gear assembly with zero backlash] (page 1, paragraph [0013]).
For claim 10, Bless et al. modified as above discloses the serrated component [wherein the first prong ramp is designed for a first rolling curve and the second prong ramp is designed for a second rolling curve, each of the rolling curves extending rectilinearly and obliquely to the center plane, except for deviations for correcting a running gear progression and/or a Cardan joint error] (page 3, paragraph [0057]).
For claim 11, Bless et al. modified as above the serrated component [wherein the first prong ramp is arranged, when viewed in side view in a viewing direction, in a plane in front of a plane of the second prong ramp] (fig. 1b).
For claim 12, Bless et al. modified as above the serrated component wherein the serrated component comprises a third prong ramp 5 [which, in the side view, is substantially identical to the first prong ramp and is arranged, in the viewing direction, in a plane behind the planes of the first and second prong ramps] (fig. 1b).
For claim 14, Bless et al. modified as above a progressive steering gear comprising a serrated component and [a pinion component 1, 2] (page 1, paragraph [0014]) comprising a plurality of pinion elements 1, 2, [each of which being associated with a respective one of the prong ramps] (page 2, paragraph [0049]) and [being arranged to engage with or disengage from the associated prong ramp in dependence on a respective steering angle] (page 2, paragraph [0049]).
For claim 15, Bless et al. modified as above discloses the steering gear [wherein the serrated component is adapted to be shifted substantially in the longitudinal direction] (page 2, paragraph [0049]).
For claim 17, Bless et al. modified as above discloses the steering gear [wherein each pinion element has a plurality of prongs, each with a prong base, wherein respective normals of the plurality of prongs run past the axis of rotation] (fig. 1a).
For claim 21, Bless et al. modified as above does not explicitly discloses the serrated component wherein the first prong ramp is designed for a first rolling curve and the second prong ramp is designed for a second rolling curve, wherein each of the first and second rolling curves is non-rectilinear, and wherein the first and second rolling curves are not mirror-symmetrical with respect to each other. Bless, second embodiment, discloses [adapted to the shape of the spur gears 1, 2 are the gear racks 3, 4, firstly, i.e. starting from their apex, configured linear ramped before translating into a ramped but curved line K] (page 3, paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the linear ramped and ramped but curved line K of the third embodiment of Bless et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for an appropriate shaped gear rack which is dependent upon the spur gear shape, [thus allowing for reduction in additional components need to achieve a progressive steering gear and resulting in a gear assembly with zero backlash] (page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Claim 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bless et al. (US 2008/0257085 A1) in view of Muenster et al. (DE 102008054667 A1), and further in view of Nomura (JP 2005271605 A1).
For claim 13, Bless et al. modified as above does not explicitly disclose the serrated component wherein at least some of the prongs have different sizes.
Nomura discloses prongs 14a, [wherein at least some of the prongs having different sizes] (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the different sized prongs of Nomura with the prongs of Bless et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for suppressing and reducing overall size of the device, thus improving overall steering performance.
For claim 18, Bless et al. modified as above does not explicitly disclose the steering gear wherein the steering gear further comprises a motor having a motor shaft which is connected to the pinion component in a rotationally fixed manner or via a planetary gear.
Nomura discloses a motor 7 having a motor shaft 8 which is connected to a pinion component 10 in a rotationally fixed manner] (fig. 1, page 8, paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the motor and motor shaft of Nomura with the serrated component of Bless et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for enhanced precision and control, thus improving overall steering.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bless et al. (US 2008/0257085 A1) in view of Muenster et al. (DE 102008054667 A1), and further in view of Nishizaki et al. (US 7,604,088 B3).
For claim 16, Bless et al. modified as above does not explicitly the steering gear wherein the serrated component is pressed against the pinion component under spring load and is movable in the direction of the center plane by at least 0.1 mm relative to the pinion component.
Nishizaki et al. discloses [a specific meshing engagement mode which uses pre-load means based on a spring load for pressingly biasing a rack shaft toward a pinion shaft, thereby bringing pinion teeth and rack teeth into a backlash-free meshing engagement] (col. 15, lines 16 – 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the spring load of Nishizaki et al. with the serrated component and pinion component of Bless et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a backlash-free meshing engagement, thus preventing degradation of a steering feeling. Bless et al. modified as above does not explicitly disclose being movable by at least 0.1 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spring being movable by at least 0.1 mm with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved adjustment while maintaining the backlash-free engagement, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of the record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bless et al. (US 2008/0257085 A1) in view of Muenster et al. (DE 102008054667 A1), and further in view of McLean (WO 02076653 A1).
For claims 19 and 20, Bless et al. modified as above does not explicitly disclose a method of manufacturing a serrated component wherein the serrated component is manufactured by forging or impact extrusion or flow drawing or sintering.
McLean discloses [a forging die 15 in an open position after forging and forged dual pinion steering rack 6 being removed by a multi-axis robot 18, newly forged second toothed portion 38 of dual pinion rack may then be transported] (fig. 13, page 10, lines 18 – 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the forging manufacturing of McLean with the serrated component of Bless et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow a reduction in overall wasted material, thus reducing overall manufacturing costs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights