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 .
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the curvature" and “the circumferential direction”, which are both introduced in claim 2, upon which claim 4 does not depend. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WALDT (DE-102019208451-A1; see English translation presently attached as NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, WALDT teaches a steer-by-wire system (the embodiment of Steering Gear 1 of Fig. 3 and Para. [0037], which shares features of the first embodiment of Figs. 1 and 2) for a vehicle comprising:
a ball screw (Threaded Spindle 2.2, Fig. 1);
a ball nut (Spindle Nut 3, Fig. 1) threadedly coupled to the ball screw (2.2), wherein rotation of the ball nut (2.2) actuates translation of the ball screw (Para. [0034]); and
a bearing assembly (Roller Unit 10, Fig. 3) comprising:
an inner race (Bearing 14, Fig. 3); and
an outer race (formed by the outer part of Roller Unit 10, Fig. 3) having an outer surface (Lateral Surface 10.1, Fig. 3) disposed within an axial groove (Running Surface 2.5, Fig. 1) defined within the ball screw (2.2) to prevent rotation of the ball screw (Para. [0035]).
Regarding Claim 2, WALDT further teaches that the axial groove (2.5) of the ball screw (2.2) is defined by a curved groove surface (Transition Surfaces 2.6 and 2.7 of Running Surface 2.5 being curved as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, WALDT further teaches that the curvature of the outer race (10) in the circumferential direction of the groove (2.5) corresponds to the curvature of the curved groove surface (the Roller Unit 10 and being Running Surface 2.5 both being substantially straight- i.e. having a curvature of zero- in a circumferential direction of Running Surface 2.5, they can be understood to have a corresponding curvature).
Regarding Claim 5, WALDT further teaches a rack housing (Housing, Para. [0016]) at least partially containing the ball screw (2.2), wherein the bearing assembly (10) is disposed within the rack housing (Paras. [0016]- [0017] teach that the Housing/ Casing surrounds the parts of the Steering Gear 1).
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.
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 3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALDT in view of Wilson ("The Different Features of Cam Followers").
Regarding Claim 3, WALDT further teaches that outer race (10) has curvature in an axial direction (Spindle Axis S, Figs. 1 and 3) of the groove (Roller Unit 10 curving along the direction of Spindle Axis S as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 3).
WALDT does not teach the outer race having curvature in a circumferential direction of the groove.
Wilson, in related teachings about cam follower bearings (Title), teaches a bearing having a curved outer race (Para. 1 of Section: “Outer Ring Styles” teaches crowned- i.e. curved- outer rings- i.e. outer races- for cam followers/ bearings; this curvature is understood to be in a direction that corresponds to a circumferential direction of a groove or guide that the cam follower runs in), and further teaches that curved outer rings advantageously allow the outer ring to make as little contact as possible (Para. 2 of Section: “Outer Ring Styles”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of WALDT and Wilson in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify WALDT’s steer-by-wire system such that the outer race is curved as suggested by Wilson. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of making as little rolling contact as possible as taught by Wilson and discussed above that would beneficially make the roller run smoother.
Regarding Claim 13, WALDT teaches an anti-rotation assembly (Roller Unit 10 of the embodiment of Steering Gear 1 of Fig. 3 and Para. [0037], which shares features of the first embodiment of Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
a linear translating component (Steering Rod 2, Fig. 1) moveable in an axial direction (Spindle Axis S, Fig. 1), the linear translating component (2) defining an axial groove (Running Surface 2.5, Fig. 1) defined by a curved groove surface (Transition Surfaces 2.6 and 2.7 of Running Surface 2.5 being curved as illustrated in Fig. 1); and
a bearing assembly (Roller Unit 10, Fig. 3) in contact with the linear translating component (Roller Unit 10 being in contact with Steering Rod 2, as illustrated in Fig. 1) to prevent rotation of the linear translating component (Para. [0035]), the bearing assembly (10) comprising:
an inner race (Bearing 14, Fig. 3); and
an outer race (formed by the outer part of Roller Unit 10, Fig. 3) having an outer surface (Lateral Surface 10.1, Fig. 3) disposed within the axial groove (2.5) defined within the linear translating component (2) to prevent rotation of the linear translating component (2), wherein outer race (10) has curvature in an axial direction of the groove.
WALDT does not teach the outer race having curvature in a circumferential direction of the groove, but Wilson does (see the 103 rejection of claim 3 above for the teachings of Wilson and motivation to combine them with the WALDT’s steer-by-wire system/ anti-rotation assembly).
Regarding Claim 14, WALDT further teaches that the curvature of the outer race (10) in the circumferential direction of the groove (2.5) corresponds to the curvature of the curved groove surface (the Roller Unit 10 and being Running Surface 2.5 both being substantially straight- i.e. having a curvature of zero- in a circumferential direction of Running Surface 2.5, they can be understood to have a corresponding curvature).
Additionally and alternatively, if an argument may be made that WALDT does not teach that the curvature of the outer race and the curved groove surface correspond in the circumferential direction because, for example, neither the outer race nor the groove surfaced are curved in the circumferential direction, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the straight outer race and groove of WALDT’s steer-by-wire system/ anti-rotation assembly curved, since it has been held that changes in shape of an invention involve only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 15, WALDT, as modified by Wilson, teaches all limitations (see the 102 rejection of claim 5 above, which has similar limitations but different dependencies).
Claim 4 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALDT.
Regarding Claim 4, additionally and alternatively, if an argument may be made that WALDT does not teach that the curvature of the outer race and the curved groove surface correspond in the circumferential direction (see the 102 rejection of claim 4 above) because, for example, neither the outer race nor the groove surfaced are curved in the circumferential direction, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the straight outer race and groove of WALDT’s steer-by-wire system/ anti-rotation assembly curved, since it has been held that changes in shape of an invention involve only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALDT in view of MICHEL (DE-10344726-A1; see English translation presently attached as NPL) and Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALDT, Wilson, and MICHEL.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), WALDT further teaches a component (Pressure Piece 15, Fig. 3) to delash the bearing assembly (Pressure Piece 15 acting to delash Roller Unit 10 as illustrated in Fig. 3).
WALDT or WALDT, as modified by Wilson, does not teach that the inner race is in contact with the delash component.
MICHEL teaches, in another rack and pinion steering system (Abstract), an inner race (Inner Ring 52b, Fig. 2) is in contact with a component (Eccentric Pin 54 of Rotating Shaft 48, Fig. 2 and Para. [0042]) to delash a bearing assembly (Eccentric Pin 54 of Rotating Shaft 48 delashing Rotary Bearing 52 as taught in Paras. [0042]- [0044], specifically Para. [0044]).
The delash component (54) of MICHEL that is in contact with the inner race (52b) is an eccentric pin (being described as an Eccentric Pin 54 in Para. [0042]) (note: these teachings relate to claims 7 and 17 as discussed below).
The delash component (54) of MICHEL is further arranged such that the eccentric pin (54) is disposed within a rack housing (Housing 22, Fig. 2) and is accessible through a compartment cover (Housing Cover 22a, Fig. 2) coupled to the rack housing (as illustrated in Fig. 22a) (note: these teachings relate to claims 8 and 18 as discussed below).
The delash component (54) of MICHEL is further arranged such that the bearing assembly (52) is delashed with an eccentric cam arrangement (the Rotary Bearing 52 being arranged in an eccentric manner as illustrated in Fig. 2), wherein the eccentric cam arrangement (52) includes the inner race (52b) or the outer race being eccentric (both Inner 52b and Outer 52a Rings being arranged eccentrically as illustrated in Fig. 2) (note: these teachings relate to claim 9 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of WALDT, Wilson, and MICHEL in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify WALDT’s steer-by-wire system/ anti-rotation assembly, as modified, such that the inner race is in contact with the delash component as suggested by MICHEL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing an adjustable delashing component to the anti-rotation bearing to maximize the delashing proprieties of the bearing that would beneficially make a smoother operating system.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, and 9, WALDT, as modified by MICHEL, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 6 above for the teachings of MICHEL and motivation to combine them with the WALDT’s steer-by-wire system).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, WALDT, as modified by Wilson and MICHEL, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claims 6 and 16 above for the teachings of MICHEL and motivation to combine them with the WALDT’s steer-by-wire system/ anti-rotation assembly, as modified).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALDT in view of EICH (US-20230246524-A1) and Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALDT, Wilson, and EICH.
Regarding Claims 10, 11, 19, and 20, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing in that claims 10 and 19 are drawn to a tooth positioned on an inner race where claims 11 and 20 are drawn to a tooth positioned on an outer race), WALDT does not teach a tooth or position sensor.
EICH, in a related vehicle system (Abstract), teaches at least one tooth (Para. [0027] teaches using a rotary encoder, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize comprises at least one pole or tooth) disposed on an [inner {claims 10 and 19}/ outer {claims 11 and 20}] race (Para. [0027] teaches placing a rotary encoder on a first bearing ring, which is understood to be either of an inner or an outer ring/ race) of a bearing (Bearing 18, Fig. 1) to be detectable by a position sensor (Angular Position Sensor 21, Fig. 1 and Para. [0027]).
The position sensor (21) of EICH is configured to detect the position of a bearing assembly (Para. [0024]) (note: these teachings related to claim 12, as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of WALDT, Wilson, and EICH in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify WALDT’s steer-by-wire system/ anti-rotation assembly to include a tooth and position sensor as suggested by EICH. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means of monitoring position that would beneficially make a more useful device.
Regarding Claim 12, WALDT, as modified by EICH, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claims 10 and 11 above for the teachings of EICH and motivation to combine them with the WALDT’s steer-by-wire system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611