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 § 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 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 214506827 U, hereinafter Zhang).
As to claim 1, Zhang teaches a rotor assembly comprising:
a rotor (comprising element 2) having a through hole formed along an axial direction so that a steering shaft 6 is inserted in the through hole of the rotor (¶43; alternatively, it can be considered that a steering shaft is capable of being inserted in the through hole of the rotor);
a gear (comprising element 1 which has gear structure - ¶42) having a substantially ring shape and coupled to the rotor; and
a fixing portion (described below) configured to fix the rotor to the gear, the fixing portion comprising:
at least one first coupling portion 22, 123, 222 configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to the axial direction, the at least one first coupling portion comprising an elastically deformable or flexible hook 22, 222 bent from the rotor (see ¶36, in which element 222 is “an upwardly curved bow-shaped structure”) and a hook groove 123 penetrating the gear or depressed from a surface of the gear in a radial direction such that the hook is inserted in the hook groove (¶35),
wherein the hook includes:
[AltContent: textbox (HGS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (22Y)][AltContent: textbox (123U)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1, inverted)][AltContent: textbox (22X)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
458
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first base portion 22X (see fig. 1 above, which has been inverted to conform with the claimed directional language) extending upward from the rotor and facing an inner circumferential surface of the gear,
a bent portion (comprising a proximal portion of element 222; ¶39 teaches that component 2 is injection molded, meaning that it was flexible or pliable during its production) bent from an end of the first base portion, and
a locking portion (comprising a distal portion of element 222) extending downward from the bent portion and coupled to the hook groove (¶35), and spaced apart from the first base portion (this is because ¶36 teaches wherein element 222 is “an upwardly curved bow-shaped structure”; accordingly the distal portion of curved bow shaped element 222 is distanced from the first base portion).
As to claim 3, Zhang teaches wherein a lower end portion of the locking portion of the hook contacts an upward surface 123U (fig. 1 above) of the hook groove.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (14)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (122X)]
PNG
media_image1.png
458
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, Zhang teaches at least one second coupling portion 22, 22, 221, 221, 122X (fig. 1 above) configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to a rotation direction,
wherein the at least one second coupling portion includes:
a supporting rib 122X (the supporting rib being situated at one side of groove 122) protruding inward from an inner circumferential surface (e.g., of shoulder 13 - ¶39 and fig. 2) of the gear, and
a pair of press-fit ribs (22, 221 and 22, 221 – fig. 1 and ¶37; alternatively, the pair of press fit ribs is a pair of elements 221, 221) provided at the rotor, wherein the supporting rib is disposed between the pair of press-fit ribs (¶37).
As to claim 5, Zhang teaches wherein at least one of the pair of press-fit ribs (22, 221 and 22, 221; alternatively, the pair of press fit ribs is a pair of elements 221, 221) ) includes:
a second base portion (22Y in fig. 1 above; alternatively, if elements 221, 221 are the press-fit ribs, the second base portion is a non-trapezoidal part of the press fit rib 221 - ¶32) extending upward from the rotor, and
one coupling protrusion (i.e. a protruding side portion of the trapezoidal shape of element 221 - ¶32) protruding from a side surface (e.g. broad side surface of element 22Y; alternatively, if elements 221, 221 are the press-fit ribs, then the side surface is a side surface of the non-trapezoidal part of element 221) of the second base portion in a circumferential direction (i.e. substantially and/or partially the circumferential direction; it is noted that the phrase “circumferential direction” is considered to refer to the direction of protrusion) and contacting a side surface of the supporting rib (¶32).
As to claim 6, Zhang teaches wherein an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined (¶32).
[AltContent: textbox (OCS2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (OCS1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (T)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
760
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Zhang teaches wherein:
the gear further includes a rotation support T (being either the gear teeth of the gear or a circumferential portion indicated in fig. 4 above) protruding outward from an outer circumferential surface (either surface OSC1 or OSC2 in fig. 4 above) of the gear, wherein at least a part of the rotation support is contactable with a housing (the rotation support is capable of being contacted with a housing).
As to claim 8, Zhang teaches at least one second coupling portion 22, 22, 221, 221, 122X (fig. 1 above) configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to a rotation direction,
wherein:
the at least one first coupling portion comprises a plurality of first coupling portions and the at least one second coupling portion comprises a plurality of second coupling portions (see fig. 1 and ¶37), and
the plurality of first coupling portions and the plurality of second coupling portions are alternately arranged along a circumferential direction between the rotor and the gear (see fig. 1 and ¶37).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
As to claim 5, Zhang teaches wherein at least one of the pair of press-fit ribs (22, 221 and 22, 221; alternatively, the pair of press fit ribs is a pair of elements 221, 221) ) includes:
a second base portion (22Y in fig. 1 above; alternatively, if elements 221, 221 are the press-fit ribs, the second base portion is a non-trapezoidal part of the press fit rib 221 - ¶32) extending upward from the rotor, and
one coupling protrusion (i.e. a protruding side portion of the trapezoidal shape of element 221 - ¶32) protruding from a side surface (e.g. broad side surface of element 22Y; alternatively, if elements 221, 221 are the press-fit ribs, then the side surface is a side surface of the non-trapezoidal part of element 221) of the second base portion in a circumferential direction (i.e. substantially and/or partially the circumferential direction; it is noted that the phrase “circumferential direction” is considered to refer to the direction of protrusion) and contacting a side surface of the supporting rib (¶32).
If Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach one coupling protrusion protruding from a side surface of the second base portion in a circumferential direction and contacting a side surface of the supporting rib, such a difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as explained next.
It has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
In the instant specification, pg. 15 lines 14-23 discloses,
“An upward surface of each coupling protrusion 162b may include a press-fit guide surface 162c that is inclined. The press-fit guide surface 162c may be provided at the upward surface of the coupling protrusion 162b and inclined upward toward a side surface of the second base portion 162a. Accordingly, the press-fit guide surface 162c may enable the supporting rib 161 to easily enter or be inserted between the pair of second base portions 162a, and the coupling protrusions 162b to be easily pressed to or support the supporting rib 161. Also, a downward surface of the coupling protrusion 162b may have an angle corresponding to an angle that is perpendicular to the side surface of the second base portion 162a, thereby preventing the gear 120 from departing or falling out from the rotor 110 in the axial direction.”
Accordingly, the disclosed press-fit ribs are shaped to facilitate insertion of a support rib therebetween and to provide retention in the axial direction. Zhang teaches, at ¶32,
“The guide pin 221 can be formed into an axially extending inverted trapezoidal structure, and the guide groove 122 is formed into an inverted trapezoidal space that matches the inverted trapezoidal structure.
Thus, during the process of inserting the plug 22 into the slot 121, the guide pin 221 with its inverted trapezoidal structure is conveniently aligned with the inverted trapezoidal space of the guide groove 122; and as the guide pin 221 is inserted, the guide groove 122 gradually limits the movement of the guide pin 221, and finally clamps the guide pin 221, thereby achieving stable assembly between the first component 1 and the second component 2.”
As detailed above, in Zhang, the shapes of the supporting ribs 122X and the press-fit ribs (the plurality of 22, 221) are configured to facilitate insertion and axial retention relative to each other, meaning they provide a similar function to the disclosed support ribs and press-fit rib protrusions. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the shapes of the press-fit ribs and/or the supporting ribs to be configured wherein the elements 221 each comprise one or more coupling protrusions protruding from a side surface thereof in a circumferential direction and contacting a side surface of the supporting rib, as an obvious change in shape(s) of the supporting ribs and/or press-fit ribs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang such that one or more elements of the at least one second coupling portion is shaped to have one or more coupling protrusions protruding from a side surface of elements 221 in a circumferential direction and contacting a side surface of the supporting rib, since such a modification would be a mere change in shape(s) in Zhang for the predictable result that the rotor and gear are still successfully held together in the axial and circumferential directions.
Zhang as modified teaches one coupling protrusion protruding from a side surface of the second base portion (comprising element 22Y and a portion of element 221 from which protrusions extend) in a circumferential direction and contacting a side surface of the supporting rib 122X.
As to claim 6, Zhang teaches wherein an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined (¶32; alternatively, Zhang as modified teaches wherein an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined, as a result of the change in shape, for having one or more protrusions that facilitate relative insertion, as discussed in the rejection of claim 5).
If Applicant argues that Zhang as modified does not teach wherein an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined,
It has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
In the instant specification, pg. 15 lines 14-23 discloses,
“An upward surface of each coupling protrusion 162b may include a press-fit guide surface 162c that is inclined. The press-fit guide surface 162c may be provided at the upward surface of the coupling protrusion 162b and inclined upward toward a side surface of the second base portion 162a. Accordingly, the press-fit guide surface 162c may enable the supporting rib 161 to easily enter or be inserted between the pair of second base portions 162a, and the coupling protrusions 162b to be easily pressed to or support the supporting rib 161. Also, a downward surface of the coupling protrusion 162b may have an angle corresponding to an angle that is perpendicular to the side surface of the second base portion 162a, thereby preventing the gear 120 from departing or falling out from the rotor 110 in the axial direction.”
Accordingly, the disclosed press-fit ribs are shaped to facilitate insertion of a support rib therebetween and to provide retention in the axial direction. Zhang teaches, at ¶32,
“The guide pin 221 can be formed into an axially extending inverted trapezoidal structure, and the guide groove 122 is formed into an inverted trapezoidal space that matches the inverted trapezoidal structure.
Thus, during the process of inserting the plug 22 into the slot 121, the guide pin 221 with its inverted trapezoidal structure is conveniently aligned with the inverted trapezoidal space of the guide groove 122; and as the guide pin 221 is inserted, the guide groove 122 gradually limits the movement of the guide pin 221, and finally clamps the guide pin 221, thereby achieving stable assembly between the first component 1 and the second component 2.”
Accordingly, in the modified Zhang, the shapes of the press-fit rib protrusions are configured to facilitate insertion and axial retention relative to the supporting ribs, meaning they provide a similar function to the disclosed press-fit rib protrusions. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the shapes of the press-fit ribs and/or the press-fit rib protrusions to be configured wherein an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined, as an obvious change in shape(s) of the press-fit ribs and/or press-fit rib protrusions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang such that an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined, since such a modification would be a mere change in shape(s) in Zhang for the predictable result that the rotor and gear are still successfully held together in the axial and circumferential directions.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Woo (KR 102452164 B1) and Schoepe et al. (KR 101746312 B1, hereinafter Schoepe).
As to claim 9, Zhang teaches the limitations of the claim except for a sleeve having substantially a hollow shape and disposed in the gear to rotate together with the steering shaft,
wherein the sleeve has a metal material and the gear has a plastic material.
Woo teaches a sleeve 310 having substantially a hollow shape and disposed in the gear (which comprises elements 321-323 – fig. 3; in the translation, see pg. 7 at lines 25-27) to rotate together with the steering shaft (in the translation, see pg. 7 at lines 15-18),
wherein the sleeve has a metal material (in the translation, see pg. 7 at line 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhang such that the gear is attached to the steering shaft via a metal sleeve having substantially a hollow shape and disposed in the gear as taught by Woo since such modification would be a simple substitution of one method of attaching a gear element to a steering shaft for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
As to the limitation that the gear has a plastic material,
Schoepe teaches a gear made of a plastic material (in the translation, see fig. 2 and lines 3-5 from the bottom of pg. 10; also see lines 15-16 on pg. 10 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the gear of plastic as taught by Schoepe since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one gear material for another for the predictable result that torque and/or a steering angle are still successfully detected.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Woo and Schoepe as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Hoppe et al. (WO 2021140006 A1, hereinafter Hoppe).
As to claim 10, Zhang as modified teaches wherein the at least one first coupling portion further includes a hook guide surface HGS (fig. 1 of Zhang above) provided at a lower end portion of an inner circumferential surface of the gear.
Zhang as modified does not teach wherein an inner diameter of the hook guide surface increases gradually downward.
[AltContent: textbox (HGS2)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
370
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hoppe teaches a hook guide surface HGS2 (fig. 6 above) cooperating with a hook 36, wherein an inner diameter of the hook guide surface increases gradually downward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang as modified such that the hook guide surfaces each have a portion thereof with an inner diameter that increases gradually downward a taught by Hoppe, since such a modification would be a change in the shapes of the guide surfaces for the predictable result that the hooks are still successfully inserted.
Zhang as modified teaches wherein the at least one first coupling portion further includes a hook guide surface (similar to surface HGS2 of Hoppe) provided at a lower end portion of an inner circumferential surface of the gear,
wherein an inner diameter of the hook guide surface increases gradually downward.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe et al. (WO 2021140006 A1, hereinafter Hoppe) in view of Son (KR 20230029181 A) and Zhang et al. (CN 214506827 U, hereinafter Zhang).
As to claim 11, Hoppe teaches a rotor assembly comprising:
a rotor (comprising element 12; note that ¶39 teaches that element 12 comprises locking device 18) having a through hole (fig. 2) formed along an axial direction so that a steering shaft is inserted in the through hole of the rotor (a steering shaft is capable of being inserted in the through hole);
a gear (comprising element 20; ¶41) having substantially a ring shape (fig. 1) and coupled to the rotor (fig. 8); and
a fixing portion (described below) configured to fix the rotor to the gear, the fixing portion comprising:
at least one first coupling portion 24, 26 configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to the axial direction (¶40), the at least one first coupling portion comprising a hook 24 protruding outward from an outer circumferential of the gear,
wherein the rotor assembly further comprises
at least one second coupling portion 40, 42 configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to a rotation direction (¶47, fig. 3 and fig. 16),
[AltContent: textbox (SR)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
306
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least one second coupling portion includes
a supporting rib SR (fig. 16 above); and
a pair of press-fit ribs 42, 42 provided at the rotor (¶47), wherein the supporting rib is disposed between the pair of press-fit ribs.
Hoppe does not teach an elastically deformable or flexible hook rib having a hook groove penetrating the rotor or depressed from a surface of the rotor in a radial direction, wherein the hook is inserted in the hook groove of the hook rib,
wherein the supporting rib protrudes inward from an inner circumferential surface of the gear,
wherein one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of press-fit ribs protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs.
Son teaches hook elements 211A (fig. 3) configured to elastically deform hook ribs 223 (fig. 4) when the hook elements are inserted into the hook ribs (¶34; fig. 2 shows the hook elements after being inserted into the hook ribs), wherein the hook ribs are elastically deformable or flexible and have a hook groove 223a penetrating the rotor or depressed from a surface of the rotor in a radial direction, wherein the hook is inserted in the hook groove of the hook rib.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hoppe such that the at least one first coupling portion comprises hook elements that engage with hook ribs, and also such that the at least one first coupling portion comprises elastically deformable or flexible hook ribs, as taught by Son, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of fixing rotor assembly elements together with hooks for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully sensed.
Regarding the limitation wherein the supporting rib protrudes inward from an inner circumferential surface of the gear,
Zhang teaches at least one second coupling portion 22, 22, 221, 221, 122X (fig. 1 above) configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to a rotation direction,
wherein the at least one second coupling portion includes:
a supporting rib 122X (the supporting rib being situated at one side of groove 122) protruding inward from an inner circumferential surface (e.g., of shoulder 13 - ¶39 and fig. 2) of the gear, and
a plurality of press fit ribs comprising a pair of press-fit ribs (22, 221 and 22, 221 – fig. 1 and ¶37) provided at the rotor, wherein the supporting rib is disposed between the pair of press-fit ribs (¶37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hoppe as modified to have at least one second coupling portion that includes a supporting rib protruding inward from an inner circumferential surface of the gear, and a plurality of press fit ribs comprising pair of press-fit ribs provided at the rotor, wherein the supporting rib is disposed between the pair of press-fit ribs, as taught by Zhang, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one at least one second coupling portion for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully sensed.
Regarding the limitation of wherein one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of press-fit ribs protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs,
it has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
In the instant specification, pg. 15 lines 14-23 discloses,
“An upward surface of each coupling protrusion 162b may include a press-fit guide surface 162c that is inclined. The press-fit guide surface 162c may be provided at the upward surface of the coupling protrusion 162b and inclined upward toward a side surface of the second base portion 162a. Accordingly, the press-fit guide surface 162c may enable the supporting rib 161 to easily enter or be inserted between the pair of second base portions 162a, and the coupling protrusions 162b to be easily pressed to or support the supporting rib 161. Also, a downward surface of the coupling protrusion 162b may have an angle corresponding to an angle that is perpendicular to the side surface of the second base portion 162a, thereby preventing the gear 120 from departing or falling out from the rotor 110 in the axial direction.”
Accordingly, the disclosed press-fit ribs are shaped to facilitate insertion of a support rib therebetween and to provide retention in the axial direction. Zhang teaches, at ¶32,
“The guide pin 221 can be formed into an axially extending inverted trapezoidal structure, and the guide groove 122 is formed into an inverted trapezoidal space that matches the inverted trapezoidal structure.
Thus, during the process of inserting the plug 22 into the slot 121, the guide pin 221 with its inverted trapezoidal structure is conveniently aligned with the inverted trapezoidal space of the guide groove 122; and as the guide pin 221 is inserted, the guide groove 122 gradually limits the movement of the guide pin 221, and finally clamps the guide pin 221, thereby achieving stable assembly between the first component 1 and the second component 2.”
As detailed above, in Zhang, the shapes of the supporting ribs 122X and the press-fit ribs (the plurality of 22, 221) are configured to facilitate insertion and axial retention relative to each other, meaning they provide a similar function to the disclosed support ribs and press-fit rib protrusions. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the shapes of the press-fit ribs and/or the supporting ribs to be configured wherein the elements 221 each comprise one or more coupling protrusions protruding from at least a side surface thereof in a circumferential direction and contacting a side surface of the supporting rib, as an obvious change in shape(s) of the supporting ribs and/or press-fit ribs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hoppe as modified such that one or more elements of the at least one second coupling portion is shaped to have one or more coupling protrusions protruding from a side surface of elements 221 (Zhang) in a circumferential direction and contacting a side surface of the supporting rib, since such a modification would be a mere change in shape(s) in the modified Hoppe for the predictable result that the rotor and gear are still successfully held together in the axial and circumferential directions.
Hoppe as modified teaches an elastically deformable or flexible hook rib 223 (Son) having a hook groove 223a (Son) penetrating the rotor or depressed from a surface of the rotor in a radial direction, wherein the hook 211A is inserted in the hook groove of the hook rib (similar to fig. 2 of Son),
wherein one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of press-fit ribs (i.e. from at least one side of elements 221 of Zhang) protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs (i.e. along the circumferential direction of the rotor assembly).
If Applicant argues that the modified Hoppe’s one or more coupling protrusions do not protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs, such an alleged difference between the prior art and claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as explained next.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). In this case, rearranging at least one of the first and second coupling portions of the modified Hoppe so that two second coupling portions are adjacent to each other, such that the one or more coupling protrusions protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs, would not have modified the operation of the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hoppe as modified, by rearranging at least one of the first and second coupling portions of the modified Hoppe, so that two second coupling portions are adjacent to each other, such that the one or more coupling protrusions protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs, since such a modification would be a mere rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that the rotor and gear are still successfully held together in the axial and circumferential directions.
[AltContent: textbox (FBP)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
374
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12, Hoppe as modified teaches wherein the hook rib includes:
a first base portion FBP (fig. 4 of Son above) extending upward from the rotor (in the modified Hoppe, Son’s first base portion extends upward) and facing an outer circumferential surface of the gear, and
the hook groove penetrating the first base portion or depressed from a surface of the first base portion in the radial direction.
As to claim 13, Hoppe as modified teaches wherein an upper end portion S3 (fig. 7 of Son) of the hook contacts a downward surface of the hook groove (see ¶38 of Son; alternatively, an upper end portion S3, in Son, of the hook is capable of being used to contact a downward surface of the hook groove).
As to claim 15, Hoppe as modified teaches wherein the at least one of the pair of press-fit ribs (22, 221 and 22, 221 of Zhang) includes
a second base portion (22Y, 221 in fig. 1 of Zhang above) extending upward from the rotor, and
one or more coupling protrusions (in the rejection of claim 11, each of the press fit ribs, wherein a pair of elements 21, 221 of Zhang is one press fit rib, was modified such that element 21 has one or more coupling protrusions extending from the sides thereof) protruding from a side surface (e.g. of element 22 of Zhang) of the second base portion in a circumferential direction and contacting a side surface of the supporting rib (¶32 of Zhang).
As to claim 16, Zhang teaches wherein an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined (¶32 of Zhang).
If Applicant argues that Hoppe as modified does not teach wherein an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined,
It has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
In the instant specification, pg. 15 lines 14-23 discloses,
“An upward surface of each coupling protrusion 162b may include a press-fit guide surface 162c that is inclined. The press-fit guide surface 162c may be provided at the upward surface of the coupling protrusion 162b and inclined upward toward a side surface of the second base portion 162a. Accordingly, the press-fit guide surface 162c may enable the supporting rib 161 to easily enter or be inserted between the pair of second base portions 162a, and the coupling protrusions 162b to be easily pressed to or support the supporting rib 161. Also, a downward surface of the coupling protrusion 162b may have an angle corresponding to an angle that is perpendicular to the side surface of the second base portion 162a, thereby preventing the gear 120 from departing or falling out from the rotor 110 in the axial direction.”
Accordingly, the disclosed press-fit ribs are shaped to facilitate insertion of a support rib therebetween and to provide retention in the axial direction. Zhang teaches, at ¶32,
“The guide pin 221 can be formed into an axially extending inverted trapezoidal structure, and the guide groove 122 is formed into an inverted trapezoidal space that matches the inverted trapezoidal structure.
Thus, during the process of inserting the plug 22 into the slot 121, the guide pin 221 with its inverted trapezoidal structure is conveniently aligned with the inverted trapezoidal space of the guide groove 122; and as the guide pin 221 is inserted, the guide groove 122 gradually limits the movement of the guide pin 221, and finally clamps the guide pin 221, thereby achieving stable assembly between the first component 1 and the second component 2.”
Accordingly, in the modified Hoppe, the shapes of the press-fit rib protrusions are configured to facilitate insertion and axial retention relative to the supporting ribs, meaning they provide a similar function to the disclosed press-fit rib protrusions. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the shapes of the press-fit ribs and/or the press-fit rib protrusions to be configured wherein an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined, as an obvious change in shape(s) of the press-fit ribs and/or press-fit rib protrusions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hoppe as modified such that an upper surface of each of the one or more coupling protrusions is inclined, since such a modification would be a mere change in shape(s) in Hoppe as modified for the predictable result that the rotor and gear are still successfully held together in the axial and circumferential directions.
As to claim 17, Hoppe teaches wherein the gear further comprises a rotation support (comprising gear teeth – see ¶41 and fig. 12; additionally or alternatively, the rotation support comprises elements 28) protruding outward from an outer circumferential surface of the gear, wherein at least a part of the rotation support is contactable with a housing (at least a part of the rotation support is capable of being contacted with a housing).
As to claim 18, Hoppe as modified teaches at least one second coupling portion 22, 22, 221, 221, 122X (Zhang) configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to a rotation direction (¶47, fig. 3 and fig. 16 in Hoppe)
wherein:
the at least one first coupling portion comprises a plurality of first coupling portions (¶40- Hoppe) and the at least one second coupling portion comprises a plurality of second coupling portions (¶47 - Hoppe),
the plurality of first coupling portions and the plurality of second coupling portions are alternately arranged along a circumferential direction between the rotor and the gear (figs. 2-3, 9 and 16 in Hoppe).
As to claim 20, Hoppe teaches wherein a surface of a lower portion of the hook is inclined (see fig. 8).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe in view of Son and Zhang as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Woo (KR 102452164 B1).
As to claim 19, Hoppe teaches a sleeve 17 having substantially a hollow shape and disposed in the gear (¶44) to rotate together with the steering shaft (the sleeve is capable of being used to rotate together with a steering shaft).
Hoppe as modified does not teach wherein the sleeve has a metal material and the gear has a plastic material.
Woo teaches a sleeve 310 having substantially a hollow shape and disposed in the rotor (which comprises elements 321, 330, 340 – fig. 4; in the translation, see pg. 7 at lines 25-27) to rotate together with the steering shaft (in the translation, see pg. 7 at lines 15-18),
wherein the sleeve has a metal material (in the translation, see pg. 7 at line 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hoppe as modified to have the metal sleeve of Woo, wherein the rotor is attached to a steering shaft via the metal sleeve having substantially a hollow shape and disposed in the rotor as taught by Woo, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one sleeve for another, at least for the advantage that metal is a durable material and for the predictable result that torque is still successfully sensed, and/or wherein the sleeve of Woo provides a simple and well-known method of attaching a rotor to a shaft for the predictable result that torque is still successfully sensed.
As to the limitation that the gear has a plastic material,
An alternative embodiment of Hoppe teaches wherein the gear (comprising element 20) has a plastic material (see ¶51, which teaches that the gear comprises injection-molded plastic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hoppe as modified such that the gear has a plastic material and is made through injection molding as taught by the alternative embodiment of Hoppe since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of making the gear for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected, and/or that injection molding is a rapid and/or low-cost method of production.
Hoppe as modified teaches a sleeve 310 (Woo) having substantially a hollow shape and disposed in the gear to rotate together with the steering shaft (in the translation of Woo, see pg. 7 at lines 15-18; alternatively, the sleeve of Woo is capable of being used to rotate together with a steering shaft).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 7-8, that “ Zhang does not disclose that "the hook includes: a first base portion extending upward from the rotor and facing an inner circumferential surface of the gear, a bent portion bent from an end of the first base portion, and a locking portion extending downward from the bent portion, coupled to the hook groove, and spaced apart from the first base portion" as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). The Office Action indicates that "Zhang teaches a first base portion 22X a locking portion (comprising a distal portion of element 222)" (Office Action: pages 3-4). However, Fig. 1 of Zhang, annotated by the Examiner, illustrates that the fixing hook 222 of Zhang protrudes directly from the portion 22X of Zhang. By way of contrast, claim 1 requires "a locking portion…spaced apart from the first base portion" (emphasis added). Accordingly, the fixing hook 222 of Zhang protruding directly from the portion 22X is not an identical or completely detailed disclosure of "a locking portion … spaced apart from the first base portion" as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). The Applicant notes that "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the claim.' Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989)" MPEP §2131 (emphasis added).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. ¶36 of Zhang teaches wherein the element 222 is “an upwardly curved bow-shaped structure.” Accordingly, Zhang teaches a locking portion (a tip portion of the bow shaped structure 222) extending downward from the bent portion, coupled to the hook groove, and spaced apart from the first base portion" as recited in claim 1.
Applicant argues on pgs. 8-9 that “claim 1 is not anticipated by Izumiya, and claims 3-8 depend from claim 1. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that claims 3-8 are not anticipated by Zhang at least by way of their dependencies from claim 1, and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the §102 rejections of claims 3-8.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. There is no rejection based on an Izumiya reference. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments regarding Zhang are unpersuasive. Accordingly, all the prior art rejections relying on Zhang are proper.
As to claim 11, Applicant argues on pg. 10 that “The Office Action contends that "Hoppe teaches a pair of press-fit ribs 42, 42" (Office Action: page 19). However, Fig. 16 of Hoppe, annotated by the Examiner, reproduced below does not teach that one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of the adjusting means 42 of Hoppe protrude toward another of the pair of the adjusting means 42. Accordingly, Hoppe fails to disclose, teach or suggest that "the rotor assembly further comprises at least one second coupling portion configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to a rotation direction, wherein the at least one second coupling portion includes: a supporting rib protruding inward from an inner circumferential surface of the gear; and a pair of press-fit ribs provided at the rotor, wherein the supporting rib is disposed between the pair of press-fit ribs, and wherein one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of press-fit ribs protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs" as recited in claim 11 (emphasis added).”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The modified Hoppe teaches the limitations cited by Applicant.
On pg. 11, Applicant argues that “In the Office Action, it is also asserted that "Zhang teaches a pair of press-fit ribs (22, 221 and 22, 221 - fig. 1 and 37; alternatively, the pair of press fit ribs is a pair of elements 221, 221)" (Office Action: pages 19-20). However, Fig. 1 of Zhang, annotated by the Examiner, copied below does not teach that one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of the inserts 22 of Zhang protrude toward another of the pair of the inserts 22. Accordingly, Zhang fails to disclose, teach or suggest that "the rotor assembly further comprises at least one second coupling portion configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to a rotation direction, wherein the at least one second coupling portion includes: a supporting rib protruding inward from an inner circumferential surface of the gear; and a pair of press-fit ribs provided at the rotor, wherein the supporting rib is disposed between the pair of press-fit ribs, and wherein one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of press-fit ribs protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs" as recited in claim 11 (emphasis added).”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). After the addition of Zhang, the prior art combination was further modified to teach the limitations “one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of press-fit ribs protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs.”
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that “Nothing in Son discloses, teaches or suggests that "the rotor assembly further comprises at least one second coupling portion configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to a rotation direction, wherein the at least one second coupling portion includes: a supporting rib protruding inward from an inner circumferential surface of the gear; and a pair of press-fit ribs provided at the rotor, wherein the supporting rib is disposed between the pair of press-fit ribs, and wherein one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of press-fit ribs protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs" as recited in claim 11 (emphasis added).”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Son was not relied on for the features cited by Applicant.
On pgs. 12-13, Applicant argues that “Accordingly, Hoppe, Son, and Zhang, individually or in combination, do not disclose, teach or suggest that "the rotor assembly further comprises at least one second coupling portion configured to fix the rotor to the gear with respect to a rotation direction, wherein the at least one second coupling portion includes: a supporting rib protruding inward from an inner circumferential surface of the gear; and a pair of press-fit ribs provided at the rotor, wherein the supporting rib is disposed between the pair of press-fit ribs, and wherein one or more coupling protrusions protruding from one of the pair of press-fit ribs protrude toward another of the pair of press-fit ribs" as recited in claim 11 (emphasis added).”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because for at least the reasons explained above by the Examiner.
Applicant argues on pg. 13 that “For at least the foregoing reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 21 is not obvious over Hoppe in view of Son, and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of §103 rejection of claim 11.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. There is no claim 21. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument regarding claim 11 is unpersuasive for at least all the reasons explained above with respect to claim 11.
Applicant argues on pg. 13 that “"If an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious." In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Arguments set forth above for claim 1 with respect to the §102 rejection can be used, mutatis mutandis, to show that claim 1 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. §103, and, as discussed above, claim 11 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. Claims 5-6, 9-10 and 12-20 depend from claim 1 or 11. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that claims 5-6, 9-10 and 12-20 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 at least by way of their dependencies from claim 1 or 11, and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the §103 rejections of claims 5-6, 9-10 and 12-20.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because all the prior art rejections are proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights