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 .
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 “output shaft” 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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
Claim 1: “a deceleration part connected to an output shaft of the steering driving part and configured to transmit the steering driving force”. Examiner notes that claim 2 recites additional structure to the deceleration part removing it from being interpreted under 112(f).
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
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 1-2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0070883 A1 to Du et al (hereinafter Du).
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses an independent steering apparatus (Fig. 2 and Abstract) comprising:
a wheel (2) of a vehicle (Figs. 1-2 & [0049] and [0067]);
a knuckle (1) integrally fixed to the wheel (2) (Figs. 1-2 & [0049] and [0067] disclose the knuckle holds and steers the wheel 2);
a steering driving part (3) configured to generate steering driving force (Fig. 2 & [0060]);
a deceleration part connected to an output shaft (32) of the steering driving part (3) and configured to transmit the steering driving force (Fig. 2 & [0060]); and
a deceleration part housing (31) configured to accommodate the deceleration part (Fig. 2 & [0060] disclose the motor may include a planetary gear reducer and motor is housed by the housing 31, therefore the deceleration part is interpreted as also being housed within the housing 31),
wherein the steering driving part (3) is integrally fixed to the deceleration part housing (31) (Fig. 2 & [0060]), and
the deceleration part housing (31) is integrally fixed to the knuckle (1) (Fig. 2 & [0060]), and
wherein the steering driving force generated by the steering driving part (3) is transmitted to the deceleration part housing (31) through the deceleration part such that the knuckle (1) is rotated (Fig. 2 & [0060]).
Regarding claim 2, Du further discloses claim 1, wherein the deceleration part comprises a planetary gear set (Fig. 2 & [0060]).
Regarding claim 14, Du discloses an independent steering apparatus (Fig. 2 and Abstract) comprising:
a wheel (2) of a vehicle (Figs. 1-2 & [0049] and [0067]);
a knuckle (1) integrally fixed to the wheel (2) (Figs. 1-2 & [0049] and [0067] disclose the knuckle holds and steers the wheel 2);
a steering driving part (3) configured to generate steering driving force (Fig. 2 & [0060]);
a deceleration part connected to an output shaft (32) of the steering driving part (3) and configured to transmit the steering driving force (Fig. 2 & [0060]); and
a deceleration part housing (31) having the deceleration part located therein (Fig. 2 & [0060] disclose the motor may include a planetary gear reducer and motor is housed by the housing 31, therefore the deceleration part is interpreted as also being housed within the housing 31),
wherein the steering driving part (3) is integrally fixed to the deceleration part housing (31) (Fig. 2 & [0060]), and
the deceleration part housing (31) is integrally fixed to the knuckle (1) (Fig. 2 & [0060]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of US 4,877,098 A to Asanuma.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 2, Du further discloses wherein the [output shaft] (32) has a rotational center axis coinciding with a kingpin axis (Fig. 3 & [0054] and [0060]).
While Du makes mention of including a planetary gear set, Du does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the planetary gear set has a rotational center axis coinciding with a kingpin axis.
Asanuma teaches that it was old and well known in the art of vehicle steering, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a planetary gear set (59) to have a rotational center axis (33) coinciding with a kingpin axis (33) (Fig. 2 and col 1 lns 42-55 and col 3 lns 2-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle steering before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering system disclosed by Du to incorporate for the planetary gear set to have a rotational center axis coinciding with a kingpin axis as taught by Asanuma enabling speed reduction from the motor in a compact arrangement, e.g., see col 2 lns 3-7 and col 3 lns 2-16, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of US 2020/0207405 A1 to Kuribayashi.
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 2, Du does not appear to disclose wherein the deceleration part further comprises a plurality of external gear sets or belts.
Kuribayashi teaches that it was old and well known in the art of vehicle steering, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a deceleration part (28) to include a plurality of external gear sets or belts (36) (Figs. 1-2 & [0029], [0042], and [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle steering before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor and speed reduction system disclosed by Du to incorporate for the motor to be disposed offset to the kingpin axis and connected via a speed reducer via a plurality of external gear sets or belts as taught by Kuribayashi in order to downsize the motor via a high reduction enabling a compact platform, e.g., see Kuribayashi [0029], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of US 2007/0267234 A1 to Rogg
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 2, although Du discloses steering motor 3 is connected to the vehicle body, e.g., [0059], Du does not appear to disclose wherein the planetary gear set comprises first, second and third rotating elements, and the first rotating element is connected to a vehicle body so as to be rotationally constrained.
Rogg teaches that it was old and well known in the art of steering systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a planetary gear set comprises first (63), second (66) and third (67) rotating elements, and the first rotating element (63) is connected to a vehicle body (64) so as to be rotationally constrained (Fig. 6 & [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of steering systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering motor including a planetary gearset fixed to a vehicle body disclosed by Du to incorporate the planetary gear set comprises first, second and third rotating elements, and the first rotating element is connected to a vehicle body so as to be rotationally constrained as taught by Rogg in order to achieve a higher torque capacity, e.g., see Rogg [0010], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 5, the modified combination of Du/Rogg further discloses wherein the second rotating element (Rogg - 66) is connected to the output shaft (Du – 32/Rogg - 71) of the steering driving part (Du – 3/Rogg - 70), and the third rotating element (Rogg - 67) is connected to the deceleration part housing (Du – 31/Rogg – 52) (Du – Figs. 2-3/Rogg – Figs. 5-6 & [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 6, the modified combination of Du/Rogg further discloses wherein: the second rotating element (66) is a sun gear (66) connected to the output shaft (Du – 32/Rogg - 71) of the steering driving part (Du – 3/Rogg - 70); the first rotating element (Rogg - 63) is a carrier (Rogg - 63) connected to the vehicle body (Rogg - 64) so as to be rotationally constrained; and the third rotating element (Rogg – 67) is a ring gear (Rogg – 67) connected to the deceleration part housing (Du – 31/Rogg – 52) (Du – Figs. 2-3/Rogg – Figs. 5-6 & [0039]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of US 2024/0124048 A1 to Oh et al (hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 1, Du further discloses a slot part (121) located at an end (12) of the knuckle (1) facing the deceleration part housing (31); and a coupling part (5), wherein each of the coupling part (5) is coupled to the slot part (121) (Figs. 1-3 & [0062]).
Du does not appear to disclose slot parts respectively located at opposite ends of the knuckle facing the deceleration part housing; and coupling parts located in the deceleration part housing, wherein each of the coupling parts is coupled to a corresponding slot part among the slot parts.
Oh teaches that it was old and well known in the art of steering systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, slot parts (110, 120) respectively located at opposite ends of the knuckle (100) facing the deceleration part housing (200,300); and coupling parts (111,121) located in the deceleration part housing (200,300), wherein each of the coupling parts (111,121) is coupled to a corresponding slot part (110,120) among the slot parts (110,120) (Figs. 4,5, and 7 & [0050] and [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of steering systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering system including a steering motor supported on only one side by the knuckle disclosed by Du to incorporate for the knuckle to support the steering motor on opposite ends via disclose slot parts respectively located at opposite ends of the knuckle facing the deceleration part housing; and coupling parts located in the deceleration part housing, wherein each of the coupling parts is coupled to a corresponding slot part among the slot parts as taught by Oh in order to have a simplified configuration, e.g., see Oh [0006], to better support the steering motor by supporting it on opposite ends, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
See the 892 for prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611