DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/22/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I illustrated in Figs. 2-14 and defined in claims 1-5 and 7-8 in the reply filed on 4/3/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 6 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the element “a spacing fluctuation suppression structure” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-5 and 7-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, “a spacing fluctuation suppression structure that suppresses fluctuations in a spacing between a facing surface facing the detection object and the detection object in the substrate.”
First, the language of “a spacing fluctuation suppression structure” suggests the presence of a tangible component in addition to the other limitations as claimed. While claim 1 establishes “a spacing fluctuation suppression structure”, no such structural component is clearly identified in the drawings as outlined in the drawing objection above. As best understood by the examiner, the embodiments of Species I of Figs. 2-14 as elected on 4/3/2026 without traverse do not identify any particular structure which would reasonably correspond to “a spacing fluctuation suppression structure”, but rather achieves the claimed result through particular configurations of the claimed “detection object” and “substrate”.
Second, nothing in the claims appears to perform the claimed functional limitation of “suppresses fluctuations in a spacing between a facing surface facing the detection object and the detection object in the substrate.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress) provides multiple definitions for “suppress” with the most relevant being:
“5a to restrain from a usual course or action” and
“4 obsolete : to press down.”
As best understood by the examiner, no fluctuations in spacings are physically being suppressed. As discussed in [0046]-[0049] of the pending specification as filed 1/22/2024, vibrations are present in the vertical direction, e.g. “In particular, when the vehicle is traveling on uneven terrain, vertical vibration is easily transmitted from the steerable wheels 11 through the tie rods 12 to the rack shaft 13” (see [0046]) and “In particular, since the target 2 is provided vertically above the rack shaft 13, and the substrate 3 and the target 2 face each other horizontally, the distance between the substrate 3 and the target 2 can be kept substantially constant even when rack shaft 13 vibrates vertically” (see [0049]). As best understood by the examiner, the target 2 and substrate 3 face each other horizontally while the rack shaft vibrates vertically. Nothing in the embodiments of Species I would “suppress” vertical vibrations and the disclosure is silent regarding horizontal vibrations present in a usual course or action which require suppressing.
Therefore, it is unclear how to reasonably interpret the claims in view of the plain language or determine what specific protection is sought by the applicant since the embodiments of Species 1 fail to identify structure corresponding to “a spacing fluctuation suppression structure” and there do not appear any “fluctuations in a spacing between a facing surface facing the detection object and the detection object in the substrate” which requires suppression during a usual course or action. The only vibrations disclosed are vertical vibrations which are not suppressed and do no cause fluctuations in a spacing as claimed. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be interpreted wherein the detection object and substrate are configured such that “the distance between the substrate 3 and target 2 can be kept substantially constant even when rack shaft 13 vibrates vertically.” See [0049] of the pending specification.
Claim 2 is rejected for similar reasons as recited for claim 1 above since no elements corresponding to “the spacing fluctuation suppression structure” as claimed. The examiner proposes amending the claim to recite, “wherein
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected through a dependence on claim 1. Prior art was not identified which reads on the limitations of claims 2-5, as best understood by the examiner, at the time of examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a spacing fluctuation suppression structure that suppresses fluctuations in a spacing between a facing surface facing the detection object and the detection object in the substrate” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0350728 (Tiemann).
Regarding claim 1, Tiemann teaches a position detection device for detecting a position of a moving member moving forward and backward in a predetermined moving direction (an inductive position measuring unit comprises a scanning unit 10 and a scale unit 1 for detecting the position of an object to be measured 20 which moves in a measurement direction X; see Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a detection object attached to the moving member (scale 10 is attached to moving object 12; see Fig. 3; see [0042]);
a substrate provided with an excitation coil being positioned to face the moving member and parallel to the moving direction of the moving member for generating a magnetic field in an area including the detection object, and a detection coil being interlinked with a magnetic flux of the magnetic field (sensors 11 and 12 are formed on an intermediate layer which acts as a substrate with excitation windings 111, 121 and scanning windings 112, 113, 122, 123 which operate in an equivalent manner as claimed; see [0047] and [0049]; see Figs. 3-4);
a power supply unit for supplying an alternating current to the excitation coil (the excitation windings 111, 121 are energized with a time-changing excitation current; see [0046]-[0049]);
a calculation unit that calculates the position of the moving member based on an output voltage of the detection coil (evaluation unit 13 calculates the position of the moving member based on the measured scanning signals S1, S2; see [0051]); and
a spacing fluctuation suppression structure that suppresses fluctuations in a spacing between a facing surface facing the detection object and the detection object in the substrate (as best understood by the examiner, the sensor of Tiemann comprises all the limitations as claimed including a substrate 16 which passes between a pair of graduation elements 6, 7 in an equivalent manner as disclosed in Fig. 9 and would, therefore, reasonably provide the equivalent functional limitations as claimed in an equivalent manner when the graduation elements vibrate vertically as outlined in [0046]-[0049] of the pending specification; see MPEP 2182; see [0039]; see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Tiemann teaches wherein the detection coil comprises two detection coils provided on the substrate, and phases of the voltages induced in the respective two detection coils while the moving member moves from one moving end to the other moving end are different from each other (a detection coil comprises mutually phase-shifted periodic scanning windings 112, 113; see [0045]).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0350728 (Tiemann) in view of US 4,944,356 (Oslapas).
Regarding claim 8, Tiemann fails to teach wherein the moving member is a rack shaft of a steering device of a vehicle.
Oslapas teaches wherein the moving member is a rack shaft of a steering device of a vehicle (the moving piece is a rack 24 of a steering device; see Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Oslapas into Tiemann in order to gain the advantage of monitoring the precise steering position of the steering gear.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights