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 – 15, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bless et al. (WO 2006079492 A1) in view of Nomura (JP 2005271605 A).
For claim 1, Bless 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); but does not explicitly teach
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, the first angular value corresponding to a reflection of the second angular value at the center plane
Nomura et al. discloses [a pinion gear 10 meshing pitch line of pinion teeth 10a that mesh with a rack teeth 14a of a rack 14, the tooth pitch and tooth height of the pinion teeth 10a can be set in various ways, and correspondingly, the tooth pitch and tooth height of the rack teeth 14a can also be set in various ways] (page 24, paragraph [0022]); and [wherein at least 50% of the teeth have a first angular flank corresponding to a reflection of a second angular flank] (as best understood in 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 flank angles of Nomura with the serrated component of Bless et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a reduction in size and change a turning angle of a wheel and a degree of non-linear operation as desired according to vehicle form, road type, road surface conditions, etc., thus providing for excellent steering performance.
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] (page 33, paragraph [0086] of Bless et al., fig. 2 of Nomura).
For claim 3, Bless et al. modified as above discloses 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] (page 33, paragraph [0086] of Bless et al., fig. 2 of Nomura).
Regarding 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 angles 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 note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding 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 note 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 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, each of the rolling curves extending obliquely to the center plane and deviating, over at least 50% of its extension, by at most 10° from a rectilinear rolling curve] (page 7, paragraph [0020]).
For claim 10, Bless et al. 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 7, paragraph [0020]).
For claim 11, Bless et al. modified as above discloses 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 discloses 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] (figs. 1a and 1b).
For claim 13, Bless et al. modified as above discloses the serrated component [wherein at least some of the prongs have different sizes] (fig. 2 of Nomura).
For claim 14, Bless et al. modified as above discloses a progressive steering gear comprising a serrated component and [a pinion component 1, 2] (page 8, paragraph [0023]) comprising a plurality of pinion elements 1, 2, [each of which being associated with a respective one of the prong ramps] (page 18, paragraph [0057]) and [being arranged to engage with or disengage from the associated prong ramp in dependence on a respective steering angle] (page 17, paragraph [0056]).
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 18, paragraph [0057]).
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 18, Bless et al. modified as above discloses the steering gear wherein the steering gear further comprises a motor 7 having a motor shaft 8 which is connected to the pinion component in a rotationally fixed manner] (fig. 1, page 8, paragraph [0013] of Nomura) or via a planetary gear.
For claim 21, 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 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] (fig. 1a, page 7, paragraph [0020]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bless et al. (WO 2006079492 A1) in view of Nomura (JP 2005271605 A), 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 disclose 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 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. (WO 2006079492 A1) in view of Nomura (JP 2005271605 A), 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 filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art, Nomura, does not contain any enabling disclosure and the configuration shown in Fig. 2 of Nomura does not work. Applicant provides hypothetical examples in which the applicant assumes the combination would not produce the claimed subject matter.
As stated in the rejection above, the prior art Bless et al. discloses having first 3 and second 4 inclined prong ramp, [wherein the teeth of the first and second racks are respectively at an inclination] (fig. 1). Additionally, the prior art Nomura discloses a plurality of teeth which are at an inclination as shown below. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would alternatively provide the inclined teeth and subsequent pinion gear with teeth of Nomura with the first and second inclined ramps of Bless et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, applicant argues “any desired steering characteristic can and will be implemented by suitably programming the signal processing device; this is yet another reason why the person skilled in the art will not regard Nomura as providing any useful teaching”.
The use of a steering-by-wire is not being utilized or incorporated in the combination of the prior art, Bless et al. and Nomura.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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