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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (US 5,584,765) in view of Daenzer et al (US 10,197,090). Ochiai discloses:
With regard to claim 1 - A steer-by-wire steering system for a vehicle comprising:
a bar 1 extending from a first end to a second end, the bar defining a first groove 4 and a second groove 4 within an outer surface of the bar 1; and
anti-rotation cartridge 2 comprising a sleeve 12 in which a plurality of ball bearings roll.
Ochiai fails to explicitly disclose the sleeve comprising separate wear plates. Daenzer teaches a steer-by-wire steering system for a vehicle comprising:
a bar 14 extending from a first end to a second end, the bar defining a first groove 34 and a second groove 34 within an outer surface of the bar 14; and
anti-rotation cartridge comprising a sleeve 48 containing separate wear plates 24 in which a plurality of ball bearings 22 roll.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Ochiai with the teaching of Daenzer such that the sleeve comprises separate wear plates to provide a shaft with variable tolerances such that it may be used with various sized shaft components.
With regard to claim 2, Ochiai discloses wherein the inner surface of the sleeve 12 contains V-shaped grooves in which the ball bearings are disposed and thus where the wear plates would be disposed.
With regard to claim 3, Ochiai discloses a flange mechanically fastened 23 to the second end of the sleeve 12; and
a travel stop ring 27 operatively coupled to the flange.
With regard to claim 4, Ochiai discloses a flange mechanically fastened 23 to the second end of the sleeve 12; and
a travel stop ring 27 operatively coupled to the flange.
With regard to claim 5, Ochiai discloses a pair of bent tabs 23 extending from the second end of the sleeve 12; and
a travel stop ring 27 operatively coupled to the pair of bent tabs 23.
With regard to claim 8, Ochiai discloses further comprising a travel stop 27 operatively coupled to the sleeve 12, the travel stop 27 containing a radial support bushing 19 to radially support the bar.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai and Daenzer, as applied to claims 1-5 and 8 above, and further in view of Ryne et al (US 9,803,684). Ochiai and Daenzer fail to explicitly disclose a set of ball bearings spaced from each other by a ball carrier operatively coupled to the bar. Ryne teaches a split ball sleeve for ball bearings used in a telescoping shaft assembly comprising a set of ball bearings 22 spaced from each other by a ball carrier 24 operatively coupled to a bar 14. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the steering system of Ohiai and Daenzer with the teaching of Ryne such that the assembly includes a set of ball bearings spaced from each other by a ball carrier operatively coupled to the bar to provide a shaft without the need for extra processing and retention features on the male shaft.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai and Daenzer, as applied to claims 1-5 and 8 above, and further in view of Kurokawa (US 10,717,459).
Ochiai and Daenzer fail to explicitly disclose wherein the bar is formed of steel. Kurokawa teaches a similar assembly to that of Ochiai, comprising a bar 9 that is made of steel (“The inner shaft 9a has a substantially cylindrical cross shape as a whole, which is a hollow shape, and is made of a metal material such as steel.” – column 8, lines 39-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the steering system of Ohiai and Daenzer with the teaching of Kurokawa such that the bar is formed of steel to provide a bar with a desired amount of strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 7 includes the limitation wherein the ball carrier is C-shaped and has a first end and a second end, wherein the first end snaps into the first groove of the bar, wherein the second end snaps into the second groove of the bar. Ryne teaches the ball carrier but, when it is assembled it is not C-shaped and, more importantly, does not snap into grooves on the bar. Kurokawa does teach a C-shaped member that has two ends that snap into grooves in a bar, but the member is not a ball carrier and to modify the teaching reference or Ryne with Kurokawa would be improper. Claim 10, meanwhile defines a first end of the sleeve that defines a sleeve groove and a window, wherein a retaining clip passes through the sleeve groove and the window of the sleeve to engage at least one slot in the wear plates. As the retaining clip is taught by Daenzer, it would require impermissible hindsight to modify the sleeve of Ochiai to include a window to fit the retaining clip of Daenzer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY WILHELM whose telephone number is (571)272-6980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached at 571-272-7742. 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.
/TIMOTHY WILHELM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617 February 20, 2026