DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed May 4, 2026 for the above identified patent application.
After Final Amendment
Applicant’s after final amendment has not been entered because it does not put the application in condition for allowance. Specifically, the indicated allowability of claim 28 (in rejection of 2/2/26) is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Engels et al. (USP 10,501,111). The claim rejections below are applied to the claims set filed on November 21, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 4, 2026. These drawings are approved.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “leaf spring” (claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-15, 17, 19, 25, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engels et al. (USP 10,501,111).
Engels teaches a steering system for a vehicle, comprising: at least one first steering gear (actuator 4) and at least one first steering mechanism (components supporting the wheel 2 for movement and corresponding linkage between 4 and 2) for steering at least one first vehicle wheel (2), wherein the first steering gear is coupled to the first steering mechanism; at least one second steering gear (actuator 5) and at least one second steering mechanism (components supporting the wheel 3 for movement and corresponding linkage between 5 and 3) for steering at least one second vehicle wheel (3), wherein the second steering gear is coupled to the second steering mechanism; at least one tensioning mechanism (6) coupled to the first steering gear and to the second steering gear such that the first steering gear and the second steering gear are pre-tensionable (capable of being tensioned) with respect to each other, in an idle state and oppositely.
Engles disloses “The bendable shaft therefore has an elasticity of torsion in such a way that a usual steering angle difference, which occurs during trouble-free operation, between the mechanically intercoupled steering actuators 4 and 5 is compensated for, essentially in the absence of transfer, by the shaft 6, and a steering angle difference exceeding the usual difference effectuates a transfer of the torque between the intercoupled steering actuators 4 and 5.” Column 6, lines 40-50.
Claim 14: Engels illustrates (Fig. 1) the tensioning mechanism (6) is linked to the first steering mechanism and to the second steering mechanism.
Claim 15: Engels teaches the tensioning mechanism, in a mounted state, is elastically pre-tensionable and/or pre-tensioned.
Claim 17: Engels teaches the tensioning mechanism comprises at least one elastic spring (the elastic torsion shaft is considered a spring).
Claim 19: Engels teaches the elastic spring (the elastic torsion shaft) is a radial spring (resilient in a radial direction).
Claim 25: Engels teaches the first steering gear (4) is coupled to at least one first electric motor, with the second steering gear (5) being coupled to at least one second electric motor. Column 6, lines 26-29.
Claim 26: Engels teaches the second steering gear is drivable exclusively by the second electric motor.
Claim 28: Engels teaches the tensioning mechanism elastically (the elastic torsion shaft) pre-tensions the first and second steering gears in opposite directions in a rest state (inasmuch as the claimed device pretensions the steering gears via a torsion shaft) to eliminate steering play between the first and second steering gears and the first and second steering mechanisms.
Claim(s) 13-18, 21, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheppard (USP 3,826,328).
Sheppard teaches a steering system for a vehicle, comprising: at least one first steering gear (u1) and at least one first steering mechanism (20,25) for steering at least one first vehicle wheel (W1), wherein the first steering gear is coupled to the first steering mechanism; at least one second steering gear (u2) and at least one second steering mechanism (20a,25a) for steering at least one second vehicle wheel (W2), wherein the second steering gear is coupled to the second steering mechanism; at least one tensioning mechanism (30) coupled to the first steering gear and to the second steering gear (via 22) such that the first steering gear and the second steering gear are pre-tensionable (springs 37 and 38 are pre-loaded, line 10 of column 6) with respect to each other, in an idle state and oppositely.
Claim 14: Sheppard teaches the tensioning mechanism (30) is linked to the first steering mechanism and to the second steering mechanism.
Claim 15: Sheppard teaches the tensioning mechanism, in a mounted state, is elastically pre-tensionable and/or pre-tensioned.
Claim 16: Sheppard teaches the tensioning mechanism comprises at least one longitudinal adjustment mechanism and/or telescopic mechanism.
Claim 17: Sheppard teaches the tensioning mechanism comprises at least one elastic spring (37,38).
Claim 18: Sheppard teaches the elastic spring is an axial spring.
Claim 21: If component U1 is considered the second gear and U2 is considered the first gear of Sheppard, then it is understood the second steering gear is smaller than the first steering gear in at least one dimension (such as, 47 is smaller in an axial direction than 45, Fig. 1).
Claim 27: If component U1 is considered the second gear and U2 is considered the first gear of Sheppard, then the first steering gear has at least one mechanical through-drive, via which the first steering gear is couplable to at least one steering column (via 28) and to a vehicle steering wheel.
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.
Claim(s) 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard (USP 3,826,328), as applied to claim 13 above.
Sheppard does not teach the elastic spring as a radial spring or a leaf spring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to form the elastic spring as a radial spring and/or a leaf spring, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of the different types of springs for their use in the mechanical art and the selection of any of these known equivalents for providing a pre-load would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 21-24, Sheppard shows the first steering gear and the second steering gear having different structure (comparing 45 and 47, Fig. 1), wherein the second steering gear inherently has at least one dimension that is smaller than one dimension of the first steering gear. Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical art to configure the second steering gear of Sheppard with a dimension that is any one of 10%, 20%,25% smaller than a dimension of the first steering gear, motivation being to better fit the units into a predetermined space of the vehicle, to accommodate a predetermined input torque from a steering wheel, or to provide a hydraulic device having a predetermined operating capacity.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard (USP 3,826,328), as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Di Giusto et al. (USPub 2014/0209407).
Sheppard does not teach the first steering gear having an electric motor, the second steering gear having an electric motor, wherein the second steering gear is drivable exclusively by the second electric motor. Di Giusto teaches a steering arrangement having a first motor (9) and a second motor (11) for exclusively steering a respective vehicle wheel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the hydraulic components of the first and second steering gear of Sheppard with first and second motors, as taught by Di Giusto, motivation being to provide a simpler steering arrangement having less components for steering the vehicle wheels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection under 35 USC 102
Applicant argues Sheppard does not disclose "at least one tensioning mechanism coupled to the first steering gear and to the second steering gear such that the first steering gear and the second steering gear are pre-tensionable with respect to each other, in an idle state and oppositely."
It is understood Sheppard teaches a resilient mechanism (tension mechanism 30) located in the tie rod (22), a first end of the tie rod connected to a first steering gear (u1) via a first steering mechanism (20,21,25), a second end of the tie rod connected to a second steering gear (u2) via a first steering mechanism (20a,21a,25a), the resilient mechanism (tension mechanism 30) coupled to the first steering gear (via the first steering mechanism) and to the second steering gear (via the second steering mechanism) such that the first steering gear and the second steering gear are pre-tensionable (capable of being pre-tensioned) with respect to each other, in an idle state and oppositely.
With respect to the above claim language, it is clear that:
1) The resilient mechanism (tension mechanism 30) is coupled (via 20,21,25) to the first steering gear (u1) and the second steering gear (u2); and
2) The first steering gear (u1) and the second steering gear (u2) are pre-tensionable (capable of being tensioned) with respect to each other, in an idle state and oppositely."
Applicant argues the resilient mechanism (tension mechanism 30) does not impose any preload, bias, or opposite pre-tension on any steering gear. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Specifically, claim 13 does not recite the structure or function of “pre-load” or “bias.” Further, claim 13 recites the language “pre-tensionable” which does not require the device to be pre-tensioned, but only requires the device to be capable of being pre-tensioned. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the resilient mechanism (tension mechanism 30) does not act in an idle state, and does not generate oppositional pre-tensioning of the gearboxes. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. As described above, Claim 13 only requires the tension mechanism to be capable of pre-tensioning the steering gear. If applicant intends to define the steering gear as being pre-tensioned, then it is suggested the claim term “pre-tensionable” be changed to “pre-tensioned.”
For example, if the first steering gear (u1) and the second steering gear (u2) are in the idle state (de-energized); it is understood a first outside force can be applied to the first vehicle wheel (W1, Fig. 1) to bias the first wheel to rotate in a clock-wise direction (around 13), and a second outside force can be applied to the second vehicle wheel (W2, Fig.1) to bias the second wheel to rotate in a counter-clockwise direction (around 14), the tensioning mechanism (30) coupled (indirectly) to the first steering gear and to the second steering gear, such that the first steering gear and the second steering gear are pre-tensionable (capable of being tensioned) with respect to each other, in an idle state and oppositely.
In view of the foregoing, the prior art to Sheppard teaches a steering arrangement having structure that inherently meets each and every claim limitation, including a pair of steering gears capable of being “pre-tensionable” with respect to each other, in an idle state and oppositely.
Claim Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons Sheppard does not teach the limitations of the independent claim. However, as described above, the above arguments are not persuasive and fail to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claims 21-24, it is acknowledged Sheppard does not specifically teach the claim limitations. However, the relative size of each steering gear is not considered inventive. As described above, Sheppard shows the first steering gear and the second steering gear having different structure (comparing 45 and 47, Fig. 1), wherein the second steering gear inherently has at least one dimension that is smaller than one dimension of the first steering gear. Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical art to configure the second steering gear of Sheppard with a dimension that is any one of 10%, 20%,25% smaller than a dimension of the first steering gear, motivation being to better fit the units into a predetermined space of the vehicle, to accommodate a predetermined input torque from a steering wheel, or to provide a hydraulic device having a predetermined operating capacity.
Regarding claims 25-27, Sheppard does not teach the first steering gear having an electric motor, the second steering gear having an electric motor, wherein the second steering gear is drivable exclusively by the second electric motor. Di Giusto teaches a steering arrangement having a first motor (9) and a second motor (11) for exclusively steering a respective vehicle wheel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the hydraulic components of the first and second steering gear of Sheppard with first and second motors, as taught by Di Giusto, motivation being to provide a simpler steering arrangement having less components for steering the vehicle wheels.
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 WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights