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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2022 130 072.2, filed on 11/14/2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character 24 has been used to designate both “tie rods” and “bearing”. 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. 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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because it includes a recitation of a reference character in parentheses. Use of references characters in claim language makes it unclear if the structures referenced by the characters should be directly imported into the claim or if a broader term used in the claim should be used. Thus, “spindle axis (A) is axially displaceable” should be and is interpreted as “spindle axis is axially displaceable”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “of” extraneously appears between the words “drive” and “having”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the motor" in line 3. The antecedent basis for this limitation is unclear because both a “motor vehicle” and an “electric motor” are disclosed in line 1 of Claim 10. Therefore it is unclear if “the motor” is referring back to the previously introduced “motor vehicle” or “electric motor”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation “the motor” will herein be understood to refer to the “electric motor”.
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, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawighorst – US 2010/0101350 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Hawighorst teaches a toothed belt pulley for a toothed belt drive of a motor vehicle steering system, comprising:
a gear ring (assembly of 1 including 2 “gear rim”) having an externally encircling toothing (2 “gear rim”) and is attached to a hub body (the assembly of 3 “inner rim”, 4 “supporting element” and 5 “plastic filling”, additionally and underlined for emphasis, Paragraph [0005] – “The invention is embodied by a two-component gear wheel comprising a metallic formed part consisting of a gear wheel with outer gearing… which is connected to the gear rim...”) wherein the gear ring (assembly of 1 and 2) is formed as a plastically formed metallic formed part (Paragraph [0005] – “The metallic formed part according to the invention can be manufactured as… a deep drawn component…”) and the hub body (assembly of 3, 4 and 5) comprises a plastics-material part (Paragraph [0004] - "The plastic material can thereby be provided in the form of a pourable filling or in the form of a plastic formed part." and "The plastic material… serves in each case to fill the interior region of the gear rim and assumes at least partially the function of a conventional wheel body".)
Regarding Claim 7, Hawighorst teaches the toothed belt pulley of Claim 1, wherein the hub body (3, 4, 5 assembly) is connected to the gear ring (assembly of 1 and 2) in a force- fitting and/or form-fitting manner (Paragraph [0005] – “and a plastic filling, which has planar contact at least partially with the inside of the gear rim.”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawighorst in view of Zhou – CN110332298A.
Hawighorst teaches the toothed belt pulley of Claim 1, but does not teach that the formed part includes an extruded part.
Zhou teaches a composite gear and its methods of manufacture, including wherein the formed part of a gear (Zhou – Figure 1, assembly of elements 1 “stainless steel contour layer” and 2 “gear body”) includes an extruded part (Summary of the invention, Paragraph 7 – “Further, the equal-thickness metal cylindrical blank is plastically deformed into a ring gear contour layer of the gear by extruding an equal thickness of the metal cylindrical member from the gap of the gear mold.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of gear design and manufacturing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture the formed metallic part of the composite gear of Hawighorst using the extrusion method as taught by Zhou, yielding predictable results. A person ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate the use of extrusion versus other metal forming methods such as deep drawing for its cost-effectiveness (Summary of the invention, Paragraph 1 – “The object of the present invention is to… provide a composite gear with simple and reliable structure and low cost and a manufacturing method thereof.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawighorst in view of Sigoli et al., hereinafter referred to as Sigoli – DE102010012146A.
Regarding Claim 3, Hawighorst teaches the toothed belt pulley of Claim 1, but does not teach that the formed part is formed from a steel material.
Sigoli teaches a general-purpose multi-part gear with a support element made of a plastic material (Sigoli – Paragraph [0004] – “…support member is provided, which consists of a molded or molded plastic…”) surrounding a bearing element (Paragraph [0004] – “…wherein the support member is arranged concentrically around the bearing element…”) with a steel toothed ring element surrounding the entire assembly (Paragraph [0004] – a toothed element is provided which has an outer toothing and which consists of a sheet metal or a flat steel…”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of gear design and manufacturing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composite gear body of Hawighorst with the steel toothed ring element of Sigoli, yielding predictable results. While Hawighorst discloses a “metallic formed part”, it does not disclose that the metal is steel. It would be advantageous to one ordinarily skilled in the art to manufacture the external metallic toothing from a highly ubiquitous, versatile, and inexpensive material such as steel (Paragraph [0004] – “The tooth element made of sheet metal or flat steel allows a simple and inexpensive production.”).
Claims 4-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawighorst in view of Roling et al., hereinafter referred to as Roling – DE102018201630B4.
Regarding Claim 4, Hawighorst teaches the toothed belt pulley of Claim 1, but does not teach that the gear ring includes a flanged wheel.
Roling teaches a pulley for a belt drive in a steer-by-wire steering system, wherein the gear ring (Roling – Figs. 1-3, element 1) includes a flanged wheel element (Paragraph [0006] – “The pulley consists at least largely of a metallic material for a toothed belt drive, with a hub, a support disk and a ring gear, which has a flanged wheel with the pulley.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of pulley/gear design, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composite gear of Hawighorst with the flanged wheel element of Roling, yielding predictable results. A person ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate adding a flange on a belt pulley wheel to prevent lateral slippage of the belt (Paragraph [0006] – “The flange ensures that the belt does not run down from the flange in operation.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Hawighorst teaches the toothed belt pulley of Claim 1, but does not teach that the hub body comprises a thermoplastic plastics material.
Roling teaches a pulley for a belt drive wherein the gear ring hub body (Roling – element 5) comprises a thermoplastic plastics material (Paragraph [0019] – The plastic used is preferably a thermoset or a thermoplastic material with the abbreviation PBT (polybutylene terephthalate)…”), and additionally teaches where the plastic hub body is injected into the gear ring (Paragraph [0020] – “Figure 4 shows the flange 2 as a single part, which is made of a plastic injection molded part…”), and is connected to a spindle nut (Paragraph [0023] – “Here is the pulley 1 over the central hole 6 connected to a spindle nut, not shown, of a spindle drive…”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of pulley/gear design, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture the plastic portion composite gear of Hawighorst using injection molding with a thermoplastic or thermoset material as taught by Roling, yielding predictable results. A person ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate the mechanical and thermal properties of thermoplastics and thermosets in the high stress and friction environment of a power steering mechanism in a vehicle, and their advantages in manufacturing costs (Paragraph [0007] – “In particular, the flange is made of a thermosetting plastic. This results in advantages in terms of manufacturing and assembly costs and in terms of the weight of the flanged wheel.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Hawighorst as modified by Roling above already teaches the toothed belt pulley of Claim 5, and additionally wherein the hub body is injected into the gear ring (Roling – Paragraph [0020] – “Figure 4 shows the flange 2 as a single part, which is made of a plastic injection molded part…”).
Regarding Claim 8, Hawighorst as modified by Roling above already teaches the toothed belt pulley of Claim 1, and wherein the hub body is connected to a spindle nut (Roling – Paragraph [0023] – “Here is the pulley 1 over the central hole 6 connected to a spindle nut, not shown, of a spindle drive…”).
Regarding Claim 9, Hawighorst additionally teaches that the hub body of the pulley is bonded/connected to an output shaft in a substance-to-substance and/or force-fitting and/or form-fitting manner (Hawighorst – Paragraph [0021] – “The central region… can be attached to an output shaft in a force and/or positively locking manner…”), but does not teach that there is a spindle nut attached between the hub body and output shaft.
Hawighorst as modified by Roling in the rejection of parent Claim 8 above already teaches the pulley-spindle nut assembly of Claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of pulley/gear design, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the force and/or positively locking fitting manner for gear hub bodies of Hawighorst onto the outside surface of the spindle nut assembly of Hawighorst/Roling, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate having an additional fitting mechanism for the pulley gear to more easily facilitate assembly/disassembly or to have separate parts that may have different material properties.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawighorst in view of Chikaraishi et al. (hereinafter referred to as Chikaraishi) – EP1553006A1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Hawighorst teaches the toothed belt pulley of Claim 1, but does not teach a steering drive for a steering system of a motor vehicle, which has an electric motor comprising:
an operative connection from the motor to an actuator element via a toothed belt drive wherein the toothed belt drive has a toothed belt which revolves about toothed belt pulleys.
Chikaraishi teaches a steering drive system of a motor vehicle (Chikaraishi – Paragraph [0001], Lines 5-6 – “The present invention relates to a rack assist type electric power steering apparatus…”) which has an electric motor (element 35, additionally Paragraph [0009], Lines 2-5 – “…an electric motor disposed non-coaxially with said rack shaft…”) comprising:
An operative connection from the motor (35) to an actuator element (element 37 “drive pulley”, additionally Paragraph [0037], lines 22-25 – “The belt housing 31 accommodates a drive pulley 37 fixed to the shaft 36 of the electric motor 35…”) via a toothed belt drive (element 41 “timing belt”, teeth apparent in Fig. 5 and driven by “drive pulley” 37) wherein the toothed belt drive (37) has a toothed belt (41) which revolves around the toothed belt pulleys (Fig. 5, 39 and drive belt pulley 37).
Chikaraishi additionally teaches a threaded spindle (element 61 “male thread groove” and Paragraph [0049], lines 50-51 – “On the rack shaft 23, a male thread groove 61 is formed…”) which in the direction of its spindle axis (A) (Fig. 4, the top point of dimensional element L) is axially displaceable in a housing (element 33 “ball screw housing”) and engages in a spindle nut (element 51 “ball nut”, additionally Paragraph [0009], lines 50-55 – “…there is provided a rack assist type electric power steering apparatus comprising a ball screw mechanism including a ball nut having a female thread groove formed on its inner circumferential surface…”) rotatably mounted (Paragraph [0055], lines 45-46 – “When the ball nut 51 rotates, a thrust force is exerted on the male thread groove 61…”) in a bearing assembly (53 “ball bearing”) in the housing (Fig. 3, all elements disposed within housing 33) wherein the spindle nut (51) is connected to the hub body (element 69 “male spline”) of the toothed belt pulley (Paragraph [0120], lines 12-16 – “On the ball nut 51 side end portion of the driven pulley 39, a female spline 67 is formed, and a male spline 69 engaging the female spline 67 is formed on the ball nut 51. Thus, in the assembled state, the driven pulley 39 and the ball nut 51 rotate together.” That is, the spindle nut 51 is connected to the hub body via the male spline 69).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of designing and manufacturing power steering devices for vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composite gear/pulley of Hawighorst with the electric belt-driven power steering assembly of Chikaraishi, yielding predictable results. A person ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate the advantageous mechanical force, vibrational, thermal, and tooth wear characteristics of a plastic bodied, metal toothed gear versus other gear materials.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikaraishi in view of Hawighorst.
Regarding Claim 12, Chikaraishi teaches a steering system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a steering drive (Chikaraishi – Paragraph [0001], Lines 5-6 – “The present invention relates to a rack assist type electric power steering apparatus…”) having a toothed belt pulley (element 41 “timing belt”, teeth apparent in Fig. 5 and driven by “drive pulley” 37), but does not teach a gear ring having an externally encircling toothing that is attached to a hub body, wherein the gear ring is formed as a plastically formed metallic formed part and the hub body comprises a plastics-material part.
Hawighorst teaches a gear ring (Hawighorst – assembly of 1 including 2 “gear rim”) having an externally encircling toothing (2 “gear rim”) and is attached to a hub body (the assembly of 3 “inner rim”, 4 “supporting element” and 5 “plastic filling”, additionally and underlined for emphasis, Paragraph [0005] – “The invention is embodied by a two-component gear wheel comprising a metallic formed part consisting of a gear wheel with outer gearing… which is connected to the gear rim...”), wherein the gear ring (assembly of 1 and 2) is formed as a plastically formed metallic formed part (Paragraph [0005] – “The metallic formed part according to the invention can be manufactured as… a deep drawn component…”) and the hub body (assembly of 3, 4 and 5) comprises a plastics-material part (Paragraph [0004] - "The plastic material can thereby be provided in the form of a pourable filling or in the form of a plastic formed part." and "The plastic material… serves in each case to fill the interior region of the gear rim and assumes at least partially the function of a conventional wheel body".).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of designing and manufacturing power steering devices for vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composite gear/pulley of Hawighorst with the electric belt-driven power steering assembly of Chikaraishi, yielding predictable results. A person ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate the advantageous vibrational characteristics of a plastic bodied, metal toothed gear versus other gear materials (Hawighorst – Abstract – “…the carrier element acts as anti-vibration element…”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US4804354A – Driving wheel with a belt pulley, Hallerbäck
Discloses a gear wheel for an automotive belt drive with a body molded from a plastic material with a helix of steel embedded in the rim of the gear to control thermal expansion of the plastic body. The steel does not form the teeth of the gear and does not make direct contact with the rotating belt.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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 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.
/Mitchell James Price/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611