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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/298,759 Steering Column Assembly for a Vehicle; filed on 04/11/2023 and amended on 2/12/2026. Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 have been rejected as described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 20-21 refer to a circuit board which is inclined “to align with remote sensor locations”. However, no remote sensor has been established. A sensor has been established in line 16, but its location has not been established. From the Specification, it is clear that the sensor is positioned perpendicular to the end of the output shaft (where the target member is mounted), which would place a circuit board containing the sensors in a perpendicular orientation to the output shafts. This also contradicts claim 12 which establishes a second circuit board which contains the target sensors.
Claim 2 discloses the plane of the circuit board is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the steering column. However, independent claim 1 has previously established that the plane of the circuit board is non-orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the steering column.
Regarding claims 4 and 16. Claim 1 establishes a single circuit board which is non-orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the steering column. Claim 4 (through claims 3 and 1) then establishes the two output shafts as parallel to the circuit board, which would make them non-orthogonal to the steering column longitudinal axis. Claim 16, which depends from claim 1 but does not carry the limitations of claims 3 and 4, establishes the two output shafts as perpendicular to the rotational axis, which is the same as the longitudinal axis, of the steering column. As a result, the limitations of claim 16 contradict the limitations of 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0367076 A1) in view of Wilson-Jones (US 2020/0377142 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses;
A steering column assembly for a vehicle, comprising:
an elongate steering column (steering shaft 190; Fig. 1, paragraph 52) mounted for rotation about its longitudinal axis and configured for attachment to a steering wheel (steering wheel 180) at one end;
a first gear (worm wheel 163; Fig. 2) connected to the steering column at a location spaced from a portion of the steering column where the steering wheel is attached, the first gear configured to rotate with the steering column;
first and second motors (motors 110, 120; Figs. 2-3), each having an output shaft; (Paragraph 53 describes motors 110 and 120 being coaxially connected to worms 161 and 162.)
first and second worm screws (worms 161, 162) directly connected to and rotatable with the output shaft of the first and second motors respectively and engaged with the first gear; (Paragraph 53 describes the worms as engaging with the worm wheel 163.)
PNG
media_image2.png
700
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a control arrangement configured to operate the first and second motors; (Paragraph 38 describes controller 150 as controlling the operation of motors 110 and 120.)
Kim discloses a worm gear arrangement for transmitting force from the electric motor to the steering shaft, but does not disclose a motor position sensor arrangement comprising a target member mounted to a motor shaft and a sensor for detecting the target member; and a substantially planar circuit board inclined to the longitudinal axis of the steering column. However, Wilson-Jones teaches;
a motor position sensor arrangement for sensing the rotational position of the motor output shafts (motor shaft 106; Fig. 4, Wilson-Jones), each sensor arrangement comprising a target member (target 116) fixedly mounted to a respective motor output shaft at a distal shaft end extending beyond the drive gear (gear 108) and opposite the motor (motor 104), (fig. 4 illustrates the target at the opposite end of the motor shaft, from the electric motor.)
the target member (target 116) being positioned outside the motor housing (motor 104) and isolated from electromagnetic fields generated by the motor windings, and a sensor (shaft position sensor 114) for detecting the target member; (Paragraph 59 of Wilson-Jones describes the location of the sensor target at the end of the motor shaft, outside the electric motor housing and located at the opposite end of the motor shaft from the motor. The drive gear located between the motor and the target member.)
wherein the control arrangement comprises a substantially planar circuit board (circuit board 112) carrying one or more electrical and/or electronic components,
the circuit board being positioned to align with the target member locations. (Fig. 4 illustrates a planar circuit board positioned at a perpendicular angle, inclined to the steering column.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kim to include a motor position sensor arrangement comprising a target member mounted to a motor shaft at a distal shaft end extending beyond the drive gear and opposite the motor, a target member positioned outside the motor housing, a sensor for detecting the target member, and a substantially planar circuit board positioned to align with the target member, as taught by Wilson-Jones, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle steering systems. As disclosed by Wilson-Jones, it is well known to include a motor position sensor arrangement comprising a target member mounted to a motor shaft at a distal shaft end extending beyond the drive gear and opposite the motor, a target member positioned outside the motor housing, a sensor for detecting the target member, and a substantially planar circuit board positioned to align with the target member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include a motor position sensor arrangement comprising a target member mounted to a motor shaft at a distal shaft end extending beyond the drive gear and opposite the motor, a target member positioned outside the motor housing, a sensor for detecting the target member, and a substantially planar circuit board positioned to align with the target member as taught by Wilson-Jones, as such a modification would allow for a more compact steering assembly. (paragraph 4 of Wilson-Jones).
Kim in view of Wilson-Jones discloses a circuit board which contains the shaft detection sensor, in a perpendicular arrangement to the motor output shaft and steering column (handwheel shaft 102). But does not disclose a circuit board being inclined at a non-orthogonal, non-parallel angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the steering column. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incline the circuit board to the longitudinal axis of the steering column, at any desired angle which was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2, in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Wilson-Jones teaches;
wherein the plane of the circuit board is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the steering column. (Fig. 4 and paragraph 37, describe the circuit board as being at a perpendicular orientation to the steering column longitudinal axis.)
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses;
wherein rotational axes of the output shafts of the first and second motors are substantially parallel. (Fig. 3 and paragraph 54 describe the motor output shafts as parallel to each other.)
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses;
wherein the first gear (worm wheel 163; Fig. 2) is connected to the steering column (column 190) at the opposite end of the steering column from the steering wheel (wheel 180).
Regarding claim 6, Wilson-Jones teaches;
wherein each target member (target 116) is mounted to one end of a respective motor output shaft (shaft 106). (Fig. 4 and paragraph 59 describe the target as mounted to the end of the motor shaft.)
Regarding claim 7, Wilson-Jones teaches;
wherein each motor (motor 104; Fig. 4) is mounted at one end of a respective motor output shaft (shaft 106).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses;
further comprising a bearing for the output shaft of each motor, located between the respective worm screw and the target member. (Fig. 3 illustrates bearings on both ends of the worm shafts. The modification of Kim based on the teachings of Wilson-Jones would place the bearings between the worm section and the sensor target which would be located on the end face of the shaft.)
Regarding claim 9, Wilson-Jones teaches;
wherein each target member (target 116) comprises a magnetic member. (Paragraph 61 describe the target as a magnet.)
Regarding claim 10, Wilson-Jones teaches a shaft position sensor but does not disclose a variable reluctance resolver. However;
wherein each target member (target 116) comprises a variable reluctance resolver. (Paragraph 61 of Wilson-Jones notes that any sensor and target which is suitable for detecting the rotation of shafts may be utilized. As an example, Wilson-Jones offers a Hall sensor. Both Hall sensors and variable reluctance resolvers use a changing magnetic field to determine shaft position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a variable reluctance resolver in place of a Hall sensor, as both sensors function in a similar manner with regards to a rotating shaft’s position.)
Regarding claim 11, Wilson-Jones teaches;
wherein the sensors (sensor 114; Fig. 4) for detecting the target members are located at or adjacent to ends of the motor output shafts on opposite side of the worm screws from the motors (motor 104).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses;
wherein the worm screws (worms 161, 162; Fig. 3) are positioned on opposite sides of the rotational axis of the first gear (worm wheel 163). (Fig. 3 illustrates the worms at opposite sides of the first gear.)
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses;
wherein the worm screws (worms 161, 162; Fig. 3) are positioned at diametrically opposite sides of the rotational axis of the first gear (worm wheel 163). (Fig. 3 illustrates the worms at opposite sides, across the diameter of the first gear wheel.)
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the worm screws as coaxially connected to the rotating shafts of the motors, but does not disclose that the worm screws are formed as part of the output shafts of the respective motors. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first and second worm screws as part of the output shafts of the first and second motors, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Kim discloses;
wherein the rotational axes of the output shafts (axes along the centerline of worm shafts 161, 162; Fig. 3) of the first and second motors are oriented substantially perpendicularly to the rotational axis of the steering column (steering shaft 190). (Paragraph 53 of Kim describes the worm shafts as being coaxial with the motor output shafts. Fig. 3 illustrates the worm shafts as parallel to the plane of the wheel of the first gear which is perpendicular to the steering shaft around which the first gear wheel rotates. Therefore the rotational axes of the motors are perpendicular to the rotational axis of the steering column.)
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses;
wherein the first and second motors are positioned below the first and second worm screws respectively. (Paragraph 54 of Kim describes the electric motors as coupled to the same ends of the worm shafts (left side of Fig. 3). It does not disclose whether this side is located above or below the worm screws when in the installed position within the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to orient both electric motors either above or below the respective worm screws, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.)
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses;
A vehicle comprising a steering column assembly as claimed in claim 1. (Kim discloses that the dual motor / dual worm steering assist system is for use in a vehicle steering column.)
Regarding claim 19, Wilson-Jones teaches;
wherein each target member (target 116) is mounted to one end of a respective motor output shaft (shaft 106). (Fig. 4 and paragraph 59 describe the target as mounted to the end of the motor shaft.)
Regarding claim 20, Wilson-Jones teaches;
wherein each target member (target 116) comprises a magnetic member. (Paragraph 61 describe the target as a magnet.)
PNG
media_image3.png
688
539
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wilson-Jones as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 20100101889 A1).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Kim in view of Wilson-Jones does not disclose a circuit board which is substantially parallel to the rotational axis of the output shafts of the motors. However, Yamaguchi teaches;
wherein the plane of the circuit board (board 21; Fig. 5) is substantially parallel to the rotational axes of the output shafts (worm shafts 19) of the first and second motors. (Paragraph 40 and Fig. 5 of Yamaguchi demonstrate the plane of the circuit board as being parallel to the axis of rotation of the worm shaft 19 and the output shaft of the motor 30B.)
PNG
media_image4.png
468
633
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kim in view of Wilson-Jones to include a circuit board which is substantially parallel to the rotational axis of the output shafts of the motors as taught by Yamaguchi, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle steering columns. As disclosed by Yamaguchi, it is well known for a vehicle steering column to include a circuit board which is substantially parallel to the rotational axis of the output shafts of the motors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Wilson-Jones to include a circuit board which is substantially parallel to the rotational axis of the output shafts of the motors as taught by Yamaguchi, as such a modification would allow for an overall reduction in the size of the unit. (Paragraph 8 of Yamaguchi).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yamaguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klenk (US 20190150269 A1).
Regarding claim 12
further comprising a second circuit board (circuit board 100; fig. 2B) on which the sensors for detecting the target members are mounted. (Klenk describes a semi-flexible circuit board, consisting of multiple connected boards, which places the sensor units in a remote portion of the circuit board from the connector plugs. This allows for the position of the shaft position sensor in a different orientation from a portion of the circuit board which is parallel to the axis of rotation of the shafts.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kim in view of Wilson-Jones to include a second circuit board on which the sensors for detecting the target members are mounted as taught by Klenk, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle steering columns. As disclosed by Klenk, it is well known for a vehicle steering column to include a second circuit board on which the sensors for detecting the target members are mounted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Wilson-Jones to include a second circuit board on which the sensors for detecting the target members are mounted as taught by Klenk, as such a modification would allow for an overall reduction in the size of the unit. (paragraph 3 of Klenk).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, a combination of Kim and Wilson-Jones includes a bearing, a target and a sensor board positioned at the opposite end of the shaft from a motor. In order to place the target of Wilson-Jones on the end of the motor shaft of Kim, the target would extend beyond the bearing at the end of the motor shaft, opposite the motor. See fig. 1 of Kim, above. Regarding the incline of the circuit board and in consideration of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections describes above, this would be an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, paragraph 61 of Wilson-Jones notes that any sensor and target which is suitable for detecting the rotation of shafts may be utilized. As an example, Wilson-Jones offers a Hall sensor. Both Hall sensors and variable reluctance resolvers use a changing magnetic field to determine shaft position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a variable reluctance resolver in place of a Hall sensor, as both sensors function in a similar manner with regards to a rotating shaft’s position with regards to the target member and the sensor.
Regarding claim 4, applicant argues that the claim specifies the circuit board as arranged at an angle between “10 degrees and 30 degrees”, but the claim does not include this limitation. Kim does not specifically describe a circuit board angle, but discloses the circuit board in a roughly perpendicular arrangement to the steering column shaft as illustrated in fig. 4.
Regarding claim 12, Klenk simply teaches a circuit board consisting of multiple boards which can be placed at angles to one another.
It is also noted that independent claim 1 maps very closely with the independent claim 1 of related application US 18/298,705, which was granted an allowance on 04/23/2026. The only significant difference is with regards to the inclusion of a second circuit board (66/68) at a particular, relative angle. (Application 18/298,705 describes a shaft position sensor which is perpendicular to the shaft, at the end of the shaft, as part of claim 1.) Reference Kim discloses a circuit board, and owing to the functionality of the target and sensor, establishes a related (perpendicular) orientation of the circuit board. Reference Wilson-Jones discloses a torque / angle sensor related to the steering wheel, a sensor to detect an operation state of the feedback motors and a controller to provide feedback to the steering shaft from the feedback motors. Wilson-Jones does not disclose the location or type of the sensors. With the above references, the question of obviousness with regards to the relative angle of the second circuit board remains. Wilson-Jones does not disclose an angle, Kim discloses a perpendicular angle and the present application, as best understood, requires any angle which is not 90 degrees or 180 degrees. It is difficult to see a way in which any angle other than those two, would not be obvious. Said another way, the wide range of angles (being any angle other than 90 and 180) makes it difficult to understand that this is a critical design parameter and is therefore non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill.
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 SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights