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. 18/488,964; Steer-By-Wire Road Wheel Actuator Ball Screw Anti-Rotation Mechanism; filed on 10/17/2023. Claims 1 - 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3 and 10 refer to an anti-rotation device while the Specification refers to an anti-rotation mechanism. It is unclear if the “mechanism” is a component of the “device” or if these are equivalent terms. If both terms are intended to refer to the same, complete structure, the naming convention should be maintained throughout. For clarity, the Abstract, Summary and Claims use the terms “anti-rotation device”, while the Title, Background and Description use “anti-rotation mechanism”. For this examination, the terms will be treated as equivalent and referring to the complete structures as illustrated in figs. 3 and 26.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klinger (DE 10 2020 102 212 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Klinger discloses;
A steer-by-wire steering system for a vehicle comprising:
a rack (drive rod 4; fig. 2) moveable in an axial direction; and
an anti-rotation device (rotation lock 5; figs. 2,3, paragraph 22) disposed proximate an outer surface of the rack, the anti-rotation device comprising; (Fig. 2 illustrates the anti-rotation device as position above, and external to the steering rack.)
a yoke (carrier element 12) having a bearing journal extending therefrom;
a bearing (roller bearings 10a,b) disposed on the bearing journal; and
a running surface (groove wall 8a,b) disposed within a rack housing (housing 2) and extending in a longitudinal direction of the rack, wherein the bearing is positioned to move along the running surface during operation. (Paragraph 22 describes the outer ring to the rolling bearings as moving along the groove walls.)
Regarding claim 2, Klinger discloses;
further including a biasing member (torsion spring 14) contacting the yoke and a slider member to apply a torque on the yoke during operation. (Klinger uses a second roller bearing positioned by the spring to apply a torque to the yoke during operation.)
Regarding claim 3, Klinger discloses;
A steering system for a vehicle, comprising:
a rack (drive rod 4; fig. 2) moveable in an axial direction;
an anti-rotation device (rotation lock 5; figs. 2,3, paragraph 22) disposed about an outer surface of the rack, the anti-rotation device comprising;
a yoke (carrier element 12) having a bearing journal extending therefrom;
a first bearing (bearing 10a; fig. 2, 3, paragraph 22) disposed on the bearing journal;
a second bearing (bearing 10b) disposed on the bearing journal; and
a running surface in a rack housing, the running surface extending in a longitudinal direction of the rack,
the running surface (groove wall 8a,b) having a first side and a second side opposite the first side,
wherein the first bearing (10a) is positioned to contact and move along the first side (8a) of the running surface and the second bearing (10b) is positioned to contact and move along the second side (8b) of the running surface during operation.
Regarding claim 4, Klinger discloses;
wherein the first bearing does not contact the second side of the running surface. (Fig. 3 illustrates the first bearing as contacting only the first side due to the torsional force provided by spring (14) as illustrated in fig. 2)
Regarding claim 5, Klinger discloses;
wherein the second bearing does not contact the first side of the running surface. (Fig. 3 illustrates the second bearing as contacting only the second side due to the torsional force provided by spring (14) as illustrated in fig. 2)
Regarding claim 6, Klinger discloses;
wherein the first bearing and the second bearing rotate about a common axis of rotation. (Fig. 2 illustrates both bearing as pivoting about a common center of the carrier element 12.)
Regarding claim 9, Klinger discloses;
wherein the steering system is a steer-by-wire steering system. (Klinger describes a rear wheel, steering actuator system which typically includes a motor or gearbox (paragraph 18, fig. 4), indicating a steer-by-wire application.)
Regarding claim 10, Klinger discloses;
A steering system for a vehicle, comprising:
a rack (drive rod 4; fig. 2) moveable in an axial direction;
an anti-rotation device (rotation lock 5; figs. 2,3, paragraph 22) disposed about an outer surface of the rack, the anti-rotation device comprising; (Fig. 2 illustrates the anti-rotation device as position above, and external to the steering rack.)
a yoke (carrier element 12) having a bearing journal extending therefrom;
a first bearing (bearing 10a; fig. 2, 3, paragraph 22) disposed on the bearing journal; a second bearing (bearing 10b) disposed on the bearing journal; and
a pair of running plates (groove wall 8; fig. 3) comprising a first plate (wall 8a) and a second plate (wall 8b) at least partially disposed within a rack housing (housing 2), (Klinger, paragraph 22, utilizes two opposing surfaces as the plates on which the bearings run. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the running plates as separate components from the housing, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.)
the running plates extending in a longitudinal direction of the rack, (Fig. 2 illustrates the running plates for the bearings as extending in a longitudinal vehicle direction along the axial direction of the rack.)
the running plates disposed on opposing sides of the first and second bearing, (Fig. 2 illustrates the running plates for the bearings as opposing each other on opposites sides of the first and second bearings.)
wherein the first bearing (10a) is positioned to contact and move along the first plate (8a) and the second bearing (10b) is positioned to contact and move along the second plate (8b) during operation.
Regarding claim 11, Klinger discloses;
wherein the first bearing does not contact the second plate. (Fig. 3 illustrates the first bearing as contacting only the first side due to the torsional force provided by spring (14) as illustrated in fig. 2)
Regarding claim 12, Klinger discloses;
wherein the second bearing does not contact the first plate. (Fig. 3 illustrates the second bearing as contacting only the second side due to the torsional force provided by spring (14) as illustrated in fig. 2)
Regarding claim 13, Klinger discloses;
wherein the first bearing and the second bearing rotate about a common axis of rotation. (Fig. 2 illustrates both bearing as pivoting about a common center of the carrier element 12.)
Regarding claim 16, Klinger discloses;
wherein the steering system is a steer-by-wire steering system. (Klinger describes a rear wheel, steering actuator system which typically includes a motor or gearbox (paragraph 18, fig. 4), indicating a steer-by-wire application.)
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.
PNG
media_image2.png
387
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7, 8, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinger (DE 10 2020 102 212 A1) in view of Burckert (DE 10 2017 103 975 A).
Regarding claim 7, Klinger discloses a yoke (carrier element 12) for the roller bearings, but does not disclose a through hole where the rack extends through the yoke. However, Mathias teaches;
wherein the yoke (clamping rings 3, 4; fig. 1, paragraph 24) has a through bore bounded by an inner clamp surface and
the rack (rack 1) extends through the through bore with the inner clamp surface being brought into clamped, fixed engagement with the rack to prevent relative movement between the yoke and the rack. (Klinger discloses an anti-rotation device fixed to the rack and moving with the rack while bearing against the surrounding housing. Burckert discloses a yoke (clamping rings 3,4) which encompasses the rack but does not clamp to it. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the clamping yokes of Burckert to clamp the carrier element and roller bearings to the rack allowing the roller bearings of Klinger move with the rack and along the housing. Since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results and the steering rack would continue to function as intended.)
Regarding claim 8, Klinger in view of Burckert does not disclose the through bore as textured to increase friction. However, texturing of a surface to increase the friction between surfaces is well known and would have been within the skill level of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Klinger discloses a yoke (carrier element 12) for the roller bearings, but does not disclose a through hole where the rack extends through the yoke. However, Mathias teaches;
wherein the yoke (clamping rings 3, 4; fig. 1, paragraph 24) has a through bore bounded by an inner clamp surface and
the rack (rack 1) extends through the through bore with the inner clamp surface being brought into clamped, fixed engagement with the rack to prevent relative movement between the yoke and the rack. (Klinger discloses an anti-rotation device fixed to the rack and moving with the rack while bearing against the surrounding housing. Burckert discloses a yoke (clamping rings 3,4) which encompasses the rack but does not clamp to it. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the clamping yokes of Burckert to clamp the carrier element and roller bearings to the rack allowing the roller bearings of Klinger move with the rack and along the housing. Since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results and the steering rack would continue to function as intended.)
Regarding claim 15, Klinger in view of Burckert does not disclose the through bore as textured to increase friction. However, texturing of a surface to increase the friction between surfaces is well known and would have been within the skill level of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinger (DE 10 2020 102 212 A1).
Regarding claim 17; Klinger does not disclose a plate which is W-shaped. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the plate of whatever form or shape 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. Further, such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results, and the running plate would continue to function as intended and guide the roller bearings of the anti-rotation device alone its linear track.
Regarding claim 18; Klinger does not disclose a plate which is L-shaped. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the plate of whatever form or shape 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. Further, such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results, and the running plate would continue to function as intended and guide the roller bearings of the anti-rotation device alone its linear track.
Conclusion
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614