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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 40-78 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-39 are cancelled.
Claims 40, 44, 46, 48, 63, 66-68, 71, and 76 are amended.
Claims 40-78 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17 December 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 22 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 40, 43-44, 46, 48, 63, 66-68, and 70-71 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph have been fully considered, and the rejections are withdrawn.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 40-47, 49-51, 53, 58, 61, 64, 66, 68-71, and 74-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2002/0108804 A1) in view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0153508 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 3’) and in further view of Koike et al. (US Publication 2020/0332846 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Park teaches a steering device for steering a vehicle comprising: a movable steering unit, a movement of the steering unit being configured to be braked by at least one magnetorheological braking device (Park: Para. 55; steering wheel of the steer-by-wire system using the semi-active actuator according to the embodiment further comprises another steering column under a steering column, where a magneto-rheological brake); the at least one magnetorheological braking device having a stationary holder and at least two brake components (Park: Para. 42, 55, Fig. 2; magneto-rheological brake; one of the jigs is attached to the steering wheel and the other one of the jigs is attached to the vehicle body); at least one of the at least two brake components being rotatable by the steering unit and at least one other of the two brake components being non- rotatably connected to the stationary holder (Park: Para. 15-16; one of the jigs being centrally fixed to the steering wheel, and the other one of the jigs being fixed to the vehicle body); the at least two brake components being continuously rotatable relative to one another about an axis of rotation (Park: Para. 45; when the steering wheel is rotated, the rotor is rotated also within the housing in which the magneto-rheological fluid is contained); a first brake component of the at least two brake components extending along the axis of rotation and having a core made of a magnetically conductive material (Park: Para. 39; the magneto-rheological brake, the rotor is fixed to a protruded outer periphery of the steering column); a second brake component of the at least two brake components having a hollow casing part extending around the first brake component (Park: Para. 39, Fig. 3; defines a space together with the rotor and the core where the magneto-rheological fluid is contained); at least one circumferential gap filled at least partially with a magnetorheological medium being formed between the first and second brake component (Park: Para. 14; the plurality of cores, wherein the rotor, the plurality of cores and the housing define a space for containing a magneto-rheological fluid).
Park doesn’t explicitly teach the at least one circumferential gap having a plurality of axially spaced brake gap sections.
However Battlogg 3, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the at least one circumferential gap having a plurality of axially spaced brake gap sections (Battlogg 3: Para. 153, 248; it is used on a steering column, the device can be used for the purpose of braking the steering around the middle location; magnetic field goes axially through the gap and/or the rotating bodies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because a steering column magnetorheological device brake smoothing the steering and increasing the driving comfort (Battlogg 3: Para. 153).
Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach being at least three brake gap sections or at least two differently shaped braking gap sections; a disk contour being formed between the hollow casing part and the core in a first braking gap section of the at least three brake gap sections; and a differently shaped disk contour being formed between the hollow casing part and the core in a second braking gap section of the at least three brake gap sections.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches being at least three brake gap sections or at least two differently shaped braking gap sections (Koike: Para. 100; the four slits 323a, 323b, 323c, and 323d serve as magnetic gaps); a disk contour being formed between the hollow casing part and the core in a first braking gap section of the at least three brake gap sections (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7; a third yoke, which serves as an upper casing); and a differently shaped disk contour being formed between the hollow casing part and the core in a second braking gap section of the at least three brake gap sections (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7; the first yoke is disposed on one side of the magnetic disc and the second yoke is disposed on the other side of the magnetic disc).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 41, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 40, wherein: at least one third brake gap section of the at least three brake gap sections is …….. between the first brake gap section and the second brake gap section (Park: Para. 58, Fig. 7; the second steering column is connected to the lower end of the first torsion spring, the second torsion spring is connected to the lower end of the second steering column; a straight line is defined between the steering wheel and a portion of the vehicle body connected to the second torsion springs); and the first brake gap section has a first electric coil and the second brake gap section has a separately controllable second electrical coil (Park: Para. 39, 62; current regulating unit includes a first current regulator for powering the first magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the first magneto-rheological brake and a second current regulator for powering the second magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the second magneto-rheological brake; plurality of cores are situated at both sides of the rotor to be spaced apart from the sides of the rotor by a predetermined interval, and wound with coils).
Park doesn’t explicitly teach arranged axially.
However Battlogg 3, in the same field of endeavor, teaches arranged axially (Battlogg 3: Para. 153, 248; it is used on a steering column, the device can be used for the purpose of braking the steering around the middle location; magnetic field goes axially through the gap and/or the rotating bodies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because a steering column magnetorheological device brake smoothing the steering and increasing the driving comfort (Battlogg 3: Para. 153).
Regarding claim 42, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 40, further comprising at least one drive device for generating a drive torque for the active movement of the steering unit, the drive device having at least one electric motor arranged at least substantially radially within an outer circumference of the gap (Park: Para. 70; the wheel steering motor of a steering actuator unit according to an angle of the steering wheel detected by the first rotation angle sensor to steer the wheels along a desired driving direction).
Regarding claim 43, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 40, further comprising an actuator configured for converting a steering movement carried out with the steering unit into a vehicle movement (Park: Para. 70; the wheel steering motor of a steering actuator unit according to an angle of the steering wheel detected by the first rotation angle sensor to steer the wheels along a desired driving direction), wherein the steering unit and the actuator are configured to be operatively connected electrically and/or electromagnetically (Park: Para. 52; the controller receives rotational displacement data from the rotation angle sensor for detecting the rotation angle c of the steering wheel so as to control a wheel steering motor of the steering system connected with the controller).
Regarding claim 44, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 40, wherein the braking device has a braking torque when the at least one magnetorheological medium is actively influenced and a basic torque when the magnetorheological medium is influenced in an inactive manner (Park: Para. 64; the first torsion springs 70a as energy storing components are connected between the first magneto-rheological brake 30a and the second magneto-rheological brake 30b for reducing the passive constraint ranges A so that energy applied by the driver can be stored in the first torsion springs 70a to vary the range of reaction force which is realizable).
Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach the basic torque is at least 50 times lower than a maximum braking torque that can be provided.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the basic torque is at least 50 times lower than a maximum braking torque that can be provided (Koike: Para. 133; when no magnetic field is generated by the coils; the connecting shaft portion connected to the shaft portion hardly receives a braking force).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 45, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 40, wherein the first brake gap section is assigned a first electrical coil and the second brake gap section is assigned a separately controllable second electrical coil (Park: Para. 39, 62; current regulating unit includes a first current regulator for powering the first magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the first magneto-rheological brake and a second current regulator for powering the second magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the second magneto-rheological brake; plurality of cores are situated at both sides of the rotor to be spaced apart from the sides of the rotor by a predetermined interval, and wound with coils).
Regarding claim 46, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 40, comprising at least one steering control unit for controlling the at least one magnetorheological braking device depending on a position of the steering unit and/or a movement parameter of the steering unit and/or an operating state of the vehicle (Park: Para. 51; magneto-rheological brake, which provides steering reaction force to the steering wheel to make the driver feel a suitable amount of steering force, is controlled with the amount of current by the controller according to an angular velocity d and a rotation angle c to generate steering torque a similar to the predetermined reference steering torque), and wherein the at least two brake gap sections can be controlled separately by the steering control unit (Park: Para. 62; current regulating unit includes a first current regulator for powering the first magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the first magneto-rheological brake and a second current regulator for powering the second magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the second magneto-rheological brake).
Regarding claim 47, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 46, wherein the steering control unit is configured to select at least one brake gap section of the at least two brake gap sections depending on the level of a braking torque to be set and/or at least to combine two of the braking gap sections and thus to brake the movement of the steering unit (Park: Para. 39, 62; current regulating unit includes a first current regulator for powering the first magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the first magneto-rheological brake and a second current regulator for powering the second magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the second magneto-rheological brake; plurality of cores are situated at both sides of the rotor to be spaced apart from the sides of the rotor by a predetermined interval, and wound with coils).
Regarding claim 49, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein the steering control unit is configured to block mobility of the steering unit (Koike: Para. 136; the rotation of the shaft portion of the brake applying unit is stopped in the end-stop state) and the only with the second brake gap section and/or with a combination of at least two braking gap sections is configured to provide a braking torque required to block mobility of the steering unit (Koike: Para. 136; the rotation of the shaft portion of the brake applying unit is stopped in the end-stop state).
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steering control unit is configured to block mobility of the steering unit and the only with the second brake gap section and/or with a combination of at least two braking gap sections is configured to provide a braking torque required to block mobility of the steering unit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 50, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein the steering control unit is configured to have an end stop for the mobility of the steering unit at least predominantly provided by the second brake gap section and/or with a combination of at least two brake gap sections.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steering control unit is configured to have an end stop for the mobility of the steering unit at least predominantly provided by the second brake gap section and/or with a combination of at least two brake gap sections (Koike: Para. 136; the rotation of the shaft portion of the brake applying unit is stopped in the end-stop state).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 51, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein the steering control unit is configured: to brake or block mobility of the steering unit as a function of a driver assistance system to prevent critical steering movements; and to select at least one braking gap section of the at least two braking gap sections to control the braking or blocking.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steering control unit is configured: to brake or block mobility of the steering unit as a function of a driver assistance system to prevent critical steering movements (Koike: Para. 136; the rotation of the shaft portion of the brake applying unit is stopped in the end-stop state); and to select at least one braking gap section of the at least two braking gap sections to control the braking or blocking (Koike: Para. 46; a group of coils including two adjacent air-core coils 153b and 153c and other two air-core coils 153f and 153g that are symmetric to the air-core coils 153b and 153c about the rotational axis AX is defined as phase A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 53, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 47, wherein the steering control unit is configured to adjust the braking torque based on the position at which the steering unit is held (Park: Para. 51; magneto-rheological brake, which provides steering reaction force to the steering wheel to make the driver feel a suitable amount of steering force, is controlled with the amount of current by the controller according to an angular velocity and a rotation angle to generate steering torque a similar to the predetermined reference steering torque).
Regarding claim 58, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach further comprising at least one retentivity device and/or at least one permanent magnet unit which is configured to maintain a braking torque with at least one of the at least two brake gap sections without the supply of electric current.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising at least one retentivity device and/or at least one permanent magnet unit which is configured to maintain a braking torque with at least one of the at least two brake gap sections without the supply of electric current (Koike: Para. 12; no cogging torque is generated in a rotating operation in which the coils are not energized; not only cogging due to variation in magnetic attraction force but also a rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet can be prevented).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 61, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 40, further comprising at least one drive device configured for generating a drive torque for actively moving the steering unit (Park: Para. 42; the steering wheel is applied with restoring force toward the original position due to elasticity of the torsion springs when the driver rotates the steering wheel).
Regarding claim 64, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 61, wherein the steering control unit is configured to at least approximately compensate for fluctuations in the drive torque of the drive device by adjusting the braking torque (Park: Para. 11; a suitable amount of steering reaction force is supplied to a steering wheel by using a magneto-rheological brake as the semi-active actuator, by which stability can be promoted even if a driver input is removed, and a driver can feel smoothness in steering).
Regarding claim 66, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein the first electrical coil and the second electrical coil are each received between the hollow casing part and the core and are each wound around the axis of rotation.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first electrical coil and the second electrical coil are each received between the hollow casing part and the core and are each wound around the axis of rotation (Koike: Para. 58; first coil is a coil including a conductive wire wound around the central axis; second coil is also a coil including a conductive wire wound around the central axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 68, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein the third braking gap portion is formed through at least one ring contour, which is arranged between the hollow casing part and the core.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the third braking gap portion is formed through at least one ring contour, which is arranged between the hollow casing part and the core (Koike: Para. 140, Fig. 2; the fixed member, to which the air-core coils 153a to 153h are fixed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 69, Park doesn’t explicitly teach arranged axially.
However Battlogg 3, in the same field of endeavor, teaches arranged axially (Battlogg 3: Para. 153, 248; it is used on a steering column, the device can be used for the purpose of braking the steering around the middle location; magnetic field goes axially through the gap and/or the rotating bodies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because a steering column magnetorheological device brake smoothing the steering and increasing the driving comfort (Battlogg 3: Para. 153).
Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein the first electrical coil is ……. between the first brake gap section and the ring contour and wherein the second electrical coil is ………. between the ring contour and the second brake gap section.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first electrical coil is ……… between the first brake gap section and the ring contour and wherein the second electrical coil is ………. between the ring contour and the second brake gap section (Koike: Para. 140, Fig. 2; the air-core coils 153a to 153h, which serve as torque applying coils and which are formed of non-magnetic windings, and the fixed member, to which the air-core coils 153a to 153h are fixed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 70, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein the ring contour is designed as a separate part and wherein the magnetic fields of the first electric coil and the second electric coil run through the ring contour.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ring contour is designed as a separate part and wherein the magnetic fields of the first electric coil and the second electric coil run through the ring contour (Koike: Para. 140, Fig. 2; the air-core coils 153a to 153h, which serve as torque applying coils and which are formed of non-magnetic windings, and the fixed member, to which the air-core coils 153a to 153h are fixed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 71, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach a sensor configured for detecting a relative angle of rotation between the core and the hollow casing part; and/or a sensor for detecting a relative axial position of the hollow casing part to the brake component.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sensor configured for detecting a relative angle of rotation between the core and the hollow casing part; and/or a sensor for detecting a relative axial position of the hollow casing part to the brake component (Koike: Para. 47, 121; switching between the above-described two phases, that is, phase A and phase B, occurs every time the rotating body rotates 120 degrees; the rotation angle of the encoder disc and the rotating body on which the encoder disc is provided is detected).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 74, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein the at least three brake gap sections is at least four brake gap sections.
However Koike, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least three brake gap sections is at least four brake gap sections (Koike: Para. 41; eight air-core coils 153a to 153h are arranged at constant angular intervals along a circle centered on the rotational axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
Regarding claim 75, Park teaches the steering device according to claim 40, wherein the at least one magnetorheological braking device is at least two magnetorheological braking devices (Park: Para. 62; current regulating unit includes a first current regulator for powering the first magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the first magneto-rheological brake and a second current regulator for powering the second magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the second magneto-rheological brake).
Claims 48, 52, 54, 60, 63, 65, 67, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2002/0108804 A1) in view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0153508 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 3’), Koike et al. (US Publication 2020/0332846 A1), and in further view of Battlogg (US Publication 2013/0175132 A1).
Regarding claim 48, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the steering control unit is configured to generate a braking torque for braking the movement of the steering unit at least predominantly with the first braking gap section if a vehicle speed is above a limit value.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steering control unit is configured to generate a braking torque for braking the movement of the steering unit at least predominantly with the first braking gap section if a vehicle speed is above a limit value (Battlogg: Para. 12; strength of the transmittable torque is dependent on various parameters, thus, e.g., the operating distance or the torque introduction distance, respectively, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Regarding claim 52, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the steering control unit is configured to take into account a user property for setting the braking torque.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steering control unit is configured to take into account a user property for setting the braking torque (Battlogg: Para. 218; arbitrary haptic signals can thus be output depending on the activation according to the position, rotational angle, angular velocity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Regarding claim 54, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the steering control unit is configured to generate a haptically perceptible feedback on the steering unit with a defined sequence of braking torques.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steering control unit is configured to generate a haptically perceptible feedback on the steering unit with a defined sequence of braking torques (Battlogg: Para. 102; a haptic interface with variable detent torques; a low or high torque and/or small or large pattern/ripple).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Regarding claim 60, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the gap has a maximum diameter of less than 100 mm.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the gap has a maximum diameter of less than 100 mm (Battlogg: Para. 44; free distance is preferably greater than 1/300 of the external diameter of the inner component and/or greater than 1/500 of the internal diameter of the outer component; free distance is preferably greater than 30 .mu.m and in particular less than 200 .mu.m).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Regarding claim 63, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the at least one magnetorheological braking device, in the event of a failure of the drive device, can provide a braking torque which is at least as high as its drive torque.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one magnetorheological braking device, in the event of a failure of the drive device, can provide a braking torque which is at least as high as its drive torque (Battlogg: Para. 76; in the case of overload clutches, this behavior is very advantageous. The maximum force (triggering force) or the maximum torque (triggering torque) can be preset via the magnetic field).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Regarding claim 65, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the disk contour has at least one star contour, and, in the area of the star contour, a variable gap height over the circumference of the braking gap section, and wherein magnetic field concentrators are arranged on the star contour and protrude radially into the braking gap section.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the disk contour has at least one star contour, and, in the area of the star contour, a variable gap height over the circumference of the braking gap section (Battlogg: Para. 234, Fig. 15; a magnetorheological transmission device, which has an outer component and an inner component; an MRF is located in a gap between the two components), and wherein magnetic field concentrators are arranged on the star contour and protrude radially into the braking gap section (Battlogg: Para. 234, Fig. 15; protrusions, which act as radial projections, protrude from the component embodied as the shaft).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Regarding claim 67, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the first electric coil and the second electric coil are designed differently and wherein the first electric coil and the second electric coil are in at least one Distinguish parameters from a group of parameters, which group includes as parameters a wire diameter and wire cross-section, a number of windings, a winding window, a type of winding, a coil width, a coil diameter and a material.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first electric coil and the second electric coil are designed differently and wherein the first electric coil and the second electric coil are in at least one Distinguish parameters from a group of parameters, which group includes as parameters a wire diameter and wire cross-section, a number of windings, a winding window, a type of winding, a coil width, a coil diameter and a material (Battlogg: Para. 62, 101; use of two separately activatable coils; manufacture at least one part from different materials, to obtain locally differing magnetic properties).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Regarding claim 73, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein a magnetic field strength that can be generated in the gap is greater than 500 kA/m.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a magnetic field strength that can be generated in the gap is greater than 500 kA/m (Battlogg: Para. 64; the permanent magnet to at least partially consist of a hard magnetic material, whose coercive field strength is greater than 1 kA/m and in particular greater than 5 kA/m).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2002/0108804 A1) in view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0153508 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 3’), Koike et al. (US Publication 2020/0332846 A1), and in further view of Healy et al. (US Publication 2023/0271508 A1).
Regarding claim 55, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the steering control unit is configured to determine user behavior using at least one algorithm of machine learning and to setting the braking torque based on the determined user behavior.
However Healy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steering control unit is configured to determine user behavior using at least one algorithm of machine learning and to setting the braking torque based on the determined user behavior (Healy: Para. 70-72; estimated and/or predicted driver-applied torque in an energy optimization algorithm; total estimated torque may include computing a driver input torque e.g., throttle/braking of the powered vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and predicted driver-applied torque based on driver behavior (Healy: Para. 70-72) with a reasonable expectation of success because specified trailer braking torque in an energy optimized algorithm is based on predicted driver-applied torque calculated from past driver behavior (Healy: Para. 70-72).
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2002/0108804 A1) in view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0153508 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 3’), Koike et al. (US Publication 2020/0332846 A1), and in further view of Ashtiani et al. (A review on the magnetorheological fluid preparation and stabilization).
Regarding claim 56, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the magnetorheological medium has at least one metallic powder and wherein the metallic powder has a volume fraction of at least 50%.
However Ashtiani, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the magnetorheological medium has at least one metallic powder and wherein the metallic powder has a volume fraction of at least 50% (Ashtiani: Pg. 719, Col. 2 Lines 3-9; amount of metallic particles in an MRF can reach to 50 vol%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) and metallic particles in an MRF at 50% (Ashtiani: Pg. 719 Col. 2 Lines 3-4) with a reasonable expectation of success because 50% volume of silica coated iron particles in mineral oil without further additives is the upper limit of particles concentration in such an MRF (Ashtiani: Pg. 719 Col. 2 Lines 3-21).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2002/0108804 A1) in view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0153508 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 3’), Koike et al. (US Publication 2020/0332846 A1), Ashtiani et al. (A review on the magnetorheological fluid preparation and stabilization), and in further view of Battlogg (US Publication 2013/0175132 A1).
Regarding claim 57, Park, Battlogg 3, Koike, and Ashtiani don’t explicitly teach wherein the metallic powder is provided with a coating.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the metallic powder is provided with a coating (Battlogg: Para. 184; ferromagnetic particles are preferably carbonyl iron powder; particles can also have a special coating).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248), circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7), metallic particles in an MRF at 50% (Ashtiani: Pg. 719 Col. 2 Lines 3-4), and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2002/0108804 A1) in view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0153508 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 3’), Koike et al. (US Publication 2020/0332846 A1), and in further view of Uba et al. (US Patent 4,346,151).
Regarding claim 59, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach further comprising at least one safety device configured to remove the magnetorheological medium at least partially from the gap.
However Uba, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising at least one safety device configured to remove the magnetorheological medium at least partially from the gap.
Uba teaches a safety release valve on a closed liquid battery container (Uba: Col. 4 Line 66 - Col. 5 Line 4, Col. 5 Lines 5-8; ). The valve is a resealable safety valve with a pressure threshold that can be used to release excess pressure while protecting outer electrical connections (Uba: Col. 3 Lines 49-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known resealable safety valve to safely remove magnetorheological medium at least partially from the gap.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248), circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7), and safety valve (Uba: Col. 4 Line 66 – Col. 5 Line 4) with a reasonable expectation of success because a resealable safety valve as part of a liquid tight battery allows for release of excess pressure while protecting outer electrical connections (Uba: Col. 3 Lines 49-55).
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2002/0108804 A1) in view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0153508 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 3’), Koike et al. (US Publication 2020/0332846 A1), and in further view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0378131 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 2’).
Regarding claim 62, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein a maximum braking torque of the second brake gap section is at least twice a maximum drive torque of the drive device.
However Battlogg 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a maximum braking torque of the second brake gap section is at least twice a maximum drive torque of the drive device (Battlogg 2: Para. 8; in commercially available products, the base torque is 0.4 to 0.6 Nm; maximum torque of these units is between 5 and 12 Nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248), circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7), and the base torque being at least twice the maximum torque (Battlogg 2: Para. 8) with a reasonable expectation of success because SBW magnetorheological fluid brakes with a maximum torque more than twice the base torque are commercially available (Battlogg 2: 8).
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2002/0108804 A1) in view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0153508 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 3’), Koike et al. (US Publication 2020/0332846 A1), Battlogg (US Publication 2013/0175132 A1), and in further view of Harada et al. (US Publication 2014/0051020 A1).
Regarding claim 72, Park, Battlogg 3, and Koike don’t explicitly teach wherein the magnetorheological medium contains individual magnetically polarizable particles.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the magnetorheological medium contains individual magnetically polarizable particles (Battlogg: Para. 18; magnetorheological medium having magnetically polarizable particles).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248), circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7), and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Park, Battlogg 3, Koike, and Battlogg don’t explicitly teach a magnetic field strength between the individual magnetically polarizable particles is greater than 300 kA/m.
However Harada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a magnetic field strength between the individual magnetically polarizable particles is greater than 300 kA/m (Harada: Para. 135; magnetic iron oxide particles was expressed by the value measured using a vibration sample magnetometer "VSM-3S-15" manufactured by Toei Kogyo Co., Ltd., by applying an external magnetic field of 795.8 kA/m).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248), circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7), haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102), and 795.8 kA/m magnetic field particles (Harada: Para. 135) with a reasonable expectation of success because magnetic iron oxide particles with a magnetic field of 795.8 kA/m are commercially available (Harada: Para. 135).
Claims 76-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2002/0108804 A1) in view of Battlogg (US Publication 2016/0153508 A1, here within ‘Battlogg 3’) and in further view of Battlogg (US Publication 2013/0175132 A1).
Regarding claim 76, Park teaches a Method for operating a steering device, the method comprising: providing a magnetorheological braking device with two braking components (Park: Para. 42, Fig. 2; one of the jigs is attached to the steering wheel and the other one of the jigs is attached to the vehicle body), the two braking components being continuously rotatable about an axis of rotation relative to one another (Park: Para. 45; when the steering wheel is rotated, the rotor is rotated also within the housing in which the magneto-rheological fluid is contained), with a first braking component extending along the axis of rotation and having a core made of a magnetically conductive material (Park: Para. 39; the magneto-rheological brake, the rotor is fixed to a protruded outer periphery of the steering column), and the second brake component having a casing part extending around the first brake component (Park: Para. 39, Fig. 3; defines a space together with the rotor and the core where the magneto-rheological fluid is contained), and at least three circumferential brake gap sections are formed between the first and the second brake component which are ………. from one another and at least partially filled with a magnetorheological medium (Park: Para. 58, Fig. 7; the second steering column is connected to the lower end of the first torsion spring, the second torsion spring is connected to the lower end of the second steering column; a straight line is defined between the steering wheel and a portion of the vehicle body connected to the second torsion springs); generating, with a first electric coil, a controlled magnetic field in a first and a third braking gap section (Park: Para. 39, 62; current regulating unit includes a first current regulator for powering the first magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the first magneto-rheological brake and a second current regulator for powering the second magneto-rheological brake to control resistance force against rotation of the second magneto-rheological brake; plurality of cores are situated at both sides of the rotor to be spaced apart from the sides of the rotor by a predetermined interval, and wound with coils).
Park doesn’t explicitly teach axially spaced apart.
However Battlogg 3, in the same field of endeavor, teaches axially spaced apart (Battlogg 3: Para. 153, 248; it is used on a steering column, the device can be used for the purpose of braking the steering around the middle location; magnetic field goes axially through the gap and/or the rotating bodies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248) and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because a steering column magnetorheological device brake smoothing the steering and increasing the driving comfort (Battlogg 3: Para. 153).
Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach generating, independently, with a second electric coil, a controlled magnetic field in a second and the third brake gap section in order to generate braking effects of different strength depending on a speed.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generating, independently, with a second electric coil, a controlled magnetic field in a second and the third brake gap section in order to generate braking effects of different strength depending on a speed (Battlogg: Para. 12; strength of the transmittable torque is dependent on various parameters, thus, e.g., the operating distance or the torque introduction distance, respectively, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, or the slip, and the magnetorheological fluid and in particular also the strength of the magnetic field).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248), and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Regarding claim 77, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein different fast braking effects are generated with the first electric coil and the second electric coil.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein different fast braking effects are generated with the first electric coil and the second electric coil.
Battlogg teaches using two separately activatable coils in their brake, and the desire to obtain locally different magnetic properties between the coils. The different magnetic properties can be achieved by manufacturing the second coil from a different material than the first coil (Battlogg: Para. 62, 101). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that two electric coils manufactured with different materials in order to achieve different magnetic properties would inherently have different fast braking effects.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248), and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Regarding claim 78, Park and Battlogg 3 don’t explicitly teach wherein braking effects of different energy efficiency are generated with the first electric coil and the second electric coil.
However Battlogg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein braking effects of different energy efficiency are generated with the first electric coil and the second electric coil.
Battlogg teaches using two separately activatable coils in their brake, and the desire to obtain locally different magnetic properties between the coils. The different magnetic properties can be achieved by manufacturing the second coil from a different material than the first coil (Battlogg: Para. 62, 101). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that two electric coils manufactured with different materials in order to achieve different magnetic properties would inherently have different energy efficiencies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55) with axial gaps (Battlogg 3: Para. 248), and haptic braking (Battlogg: Para. 102) with a reasonable expectation of success because the torque strength is dependent on the operating distance, the operating surface, the number of the clutch plates, the relative speed, and the magnetorheological fluid (Battlogg: Para. 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 40-78 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s attorney argues that the prior arts do not teach “a plurality of axially spaced brake gap sections.”
In response to the applicant’s argument above, new prior art Battlogg 3 teaches axially oriented gaps that can be used in a steering column brake (Battlogg 3: Para. 153, 248).
The applicant next argues that no obvious combination and/or modification of the cited prior art would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to at least the claimed limitations of “the at least one circumferential gap having a plurality of axially spaced brake gap sections, being at least three brake gap sections or at least two differently shaped gap sections.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Park teaches a steering column with a magneto-rheological brake (Park: Para. 55). Battlogg 3 teaches that it is also possible that the magnetic field goes axially through the gap and/or the rotating bodies used in a steering column for the purpose of braking (Battlogg 3: Para. 153, 248). Koike teaches the first coil that generates the magnetic field, the four slits serve as magnetic gaps so that the magnetic flux of the magnetic field is restrained from passing through the four slits in the radial direction (Koike: Para. 55, 100, Fig. 7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when modifying Park’s magneto-rheological steering column brake with a magnetic field designed in the axial direction smoothing the steering and increasing the driving comfort (Battlogg 3: Para. 153), and circumferential gaps and disk contours (Koike: Para. 55, Fig. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because two groups of energized air-core coils are used, no cogging torque is generated by the non-energized coil, and rotational resistance due to a magnetic attraction force of a permanent magnet is prevented (Koike: Para. 140).
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Park’s magneto-rheological brake, Battlogg3’s axial gaps, and Koike’s coil configuration reads on applicant’s steering device with a magnetorheological braking device and method for operating a steering device. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663