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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: (1) Herzog does not disclose a spindle nut at all. (2) Even if one were to substitute Jeon's spindle nut and toothed belt for Herzog's gearwheel/rack mechanism, the sensors in Herzog (rotor position sensor 4 and multi-turn sensor 7) would still be detecting the rotational position of the rotor, not the rotational position of the spindle nut. Herzog's entire sensor concept is built around detecting the rotor position and deriving the output element position therefrom via a known gear ratio. See Herzog, paragraphs [0015], [0028], [0038]. This is fundamentally different from what is claimed-a detection device that directly or indirectly detects the rotational position of the spindle nut itself through a magnetic target object rotationally coupled to the spindle nut; (3) Claim 1 requires that the magnetic target object is "directly or indirectly rotationally coupled to the spindle nut" such that the detection device detects "a rotational position of the spindle nut." In Herzog, the transmitter element (5) is coupled to the rotor (2A) for conjoint rotation. See Herzog, paragraph [0035]. Merely replacing the output-side mechanism with a spindle nut does not change the fact that Herzog's sensors remain directed at the rotor. The proposed combination therefore fails to arrive at the claimed configuration in which the magnetic target object is rotationally coupled to the spindle nut and the detection device detects the rotational position of the spindle nut; (4) the proposed modification would render Herzog unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Herzog's rotor position sensor serves a dual purpose-it both determines the absolute position of the output element (via the known gear ratio) and provides position information for electrical commutation and space vector modulation of the electric motor. See Herzog, paragraph [0035]. If the proposed modification were to redirect the sensors away from the rotor and instead couple the magnetic target object to the spindle nut-as required by claim 1 - this would destroy Herzog's ability to use the rotor position sensor for motor commutation, which is one of its core intended purposes.
In response to (1), the examiner has acknowledged this. Herzog et al. however explicitly discloses “(t)he mechanical power transmission device can be a gearing or a lever mechanism, or a belt drive.” (paragraph 19) which is why substituting the motor pully/belt/nut system of Jeon into Herzog et al. would be appropriate.
In response to (2), the fact that “the sensors in Herzog (rotor position sensor 4 and multi-turn sensor 7) would still be detecting the rotational position of the rotor, not the rotational position of the spindle nut” does not prevent the modified system in Herzog et al. from determining the rotational position of the rotor from the rotational position of the magnetic target object. Herzog et al. explicitly discloses “(t)he rotating element in the mechanic power transmission device is coupled to the rotor for conjoint rotation, in particular. When the rotor turns, it turns with it.” (Paragraph 14.) Furthermore, Herzog et al. states “Alternatively or additionally, the multi-turn sensor is used for counting the number of incremental rotations of the rotor or the rotating element in the mechanical power transmission device. By way of example, it is used for counting the number of half, quarter, or one eighth rotations (rotational increments) when the respective component (rotor, element) rotates.” (Paragraph 11; emphasis added.)
In response to (3), the response is similar to the argument in (2). The fact that “(m)erely replacing the output-side mechanism with a spindle nut does not change the fact that Herzog's sensors remain directed at the rotor. The proposed combination therefore fails to arrive at the claimed configuration in which the magnetic target object is rotationally coupled to the spindle nut and the detection device detects the rotational position of the spindle nut” does not prevent the modified system in Herzog et al. from determining the rotational position of the rotor from the rotational position of the magnetic target object. Herzog et al. explicitly discloses “(t)he rotating element in the mechanic power transmission device is coupled to the rotor for conjoint rotation, in particular. When the rotor turns, it turns with it.” (Paragraph 14.) Furthermore, Herzog et al. states “Alternatively or additionally, the multi-turn sensor is used for counting the number of incremental rotations of the rotor or the rotating element in the mechanical power transmission device. By way of example, it is used for counting the number of half, quarter, or one eighth rotations (rotational increments) when the respective component (rotor, element) rotates.” (Paragraph 11; emphasis added.)
In response to (4), the proposed modification would not render Herzog unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because the sensors in Herzog et al. would still be determining the position of the rotor. Paragraph 14 states “(t)he rotating element in the mechanic power transmission device is coupled to the rotor for conjoint rotation, in particular. When the rotor turns, it turns with it.” Paragraph 11 states “(a)lternatively or additionally, the multi-turn sensor is used for counting the number of incremental rotations of the rotor or the rotating element in the mechanical power transmission device. By way of example, it is used for counting the number of half, quarter, or one eighth rotations (rotational increments) when the respective component (rotor, element) rotates.” Paragraph 19 states “(t)he mechanical power transmission device can be a gearing or a lever mechanism, or a belt drive.” Herzog et al. clearly describes being able to derive the rotational position of a belt drive using the sensor detected position of a rotor and Jong teaches the details of a belt drive.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog et al. (US 2020/0044591) in view of Jeon (US 2022/0348250).
With respect to claims 1-2, Herzog et al. discloses a steering system (fig. 1) for a vehicle, comprising a linearly displaceable steering rod (1), a gearwheel (3a; paragraph 11) which is coupled to the steering rod and which is rotatable to displace the steering rod (1), and having a detection device (4, 7, 8) for detecting a rotational position of the gearwheel (3a; paragraph 11), wherein the detection device (4, 7, 8) comprises a magnetic target object (5), which is directly or indirectly rotationally coupled to the gearwheel (3a; paragraph 11), a magnetic sensor (4) for detecting a rotational position of the magnetic target object (5) (paragraph 24), and a revolution counter (7) for detecting a number of revolutions of the magnetic target object (5), wherein the magnetic sensor (4) and the revolution counter (7) are present in a common integrated circuit (8) (paragraph 39; “The sensors 4, 7 can thus be combined to form a sensor module. The sensors 4, 7 can also be formed on the same semiconductor chip”). (Fig. 1, paragraphs 10-41.) Herzog et al. discloses a gearwheel in an embodiment and also discloses the drive could be a belt drive (paragraph 19) but does not give specifics of the belt drive. Jeon teaches of a spindle nut (311) which is coupled to the steering rod (111) and which is rotatable to displace the steering rod (111) (fig. 2); wherein the steering system comprises a drive motor (115) for rotating the spindle nut (311), wherein the drive motor (115) is connected to the spindle nut (311) via a toothed belt (314; fig. 3), which is in engagement with a motor shaft (115a; 313 fig. 5) of the drive motor (115) and the spindle nut (311). (Figs. 1-12, paragraphs 23-76.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Jeon into the invention of Herzog et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently move the rack assembly. (Paragraphs 35-39.) Furthermore, because both Herzog et al. and Jeon teach methods to translate a rack assembly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (motor pulley/belt/nut pulley) for the other (rotor/gearwheel) in order to achieve the predictable result of appropriately translating the rack member. By using the teachings of Jeon into Herzog et al.; Herzog et al., as modified would disclose a detection device (4, 7, 8) for detecting a rotational position of the spindle nut (311; taught by Jeon); and a magnetic target object (5), which is directly or indirectly rotationally coupled to the gearwheel (3a; paragraph 11) spindle nut (311; taught by Jeon).
With respect to claim 3, Herzog et al., as modified, discloses the magnetic target object (5) is co- rotationally coupled (paragraph 11) to the motor shaft (2A). (Fig. 1, paragraphs 10-41.)
With respect to claims 4 and 6, Herzog et al., as modified, is silent regarding the magnetic target object is mechanically coupled to the toothed belt. Jeon teaches of the target object being the toothed belt (314) (paragraphs 38-40); wherein the gear wheel (321 or 322) is in toothed engagement with the toothed belt (314) (paragraph 43). (Figs. 1-12, paragraphs 23-76.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Jeon into the invention of Herzog et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently detect the movement position of the rack bar. (Paragraphs 38.) Furthermore, because both Herzog et al. and Jeon teach methods to detect a position of a rack assembly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (based on the motor shaft) for the other (based on a toothed belt) in order to achieve the predictable result of appropriately detecting a position of the rack member.
With respect to claims 10 and 15, Herzog et al., as modified, discloses the steering system has a control unit (6), which is set up to determine a position of the steering rod (1) by using output signals supplied by the magnetic sensor (4) and the revolution counter (7). (Fig. 1, paragraphs 10-41.)
Claims 5, 7, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog et al. and Jeon, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Takayanagi (US 2018/0009476).
With respect to claims 5 and 11, Herzog et al., as modified, is silent regarding the magnetic target object comprises a gear wheel and a permanent magnet fixed to the gear wheel. Takayanagi teaches of the magnetic target object (26, 46) comprises a gear wheel (26) and a permanent magnet (46) fixed to the gear wheel (26). (Figs. 9-14, paragraphs 53-131.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Takayanagi into the invention of Herzog et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently detect the movement position of the gear wheels. (Paragraph 77.)
With respect to claims 7 and 13, Herzog et al., as modified, is silent regarding the magnetic target object comprises a gear wheel and a permanent magnet fixed to the gear wheel, wherein the gear wheel is in toothed engagement with the spindle nut. Takayanagi teaches of the magnetic target object (26, 46) comprises a gear wheel (26) and a permanent magnet (46) fixed to the gear wheel (26). (Figs. 9-14, paragraphs 53-131.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Takayanagi into the invention of Herzog et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently detect the movement position of the gear wheels. (Paragraph 77.) Jeon teaches of the gear wheel (321 or 322) is in toothed engagement with the spindle nut (311) (paragraph 43). (Figs. 1-12, paragraphs 23-76.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Jeon into the invention of Herzog et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently detect the movement position of the rack bar. (Paragraphs 38.) Furthermore, because both Herzog et al. and Jeon teach methods to detect a position of a rack assembly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (based on the motor shaft) for the other (based on a toothed belt) in order to achieve the predictable result of appropriately detecting a position of the rack member.
With respect to claim 9, Herzog et al., as modified, discloses the circuit (8) and the magnetic target object (5) are accommodated in a motor housing (paragraph 39) of the drive motor (2), and the magnetic target object (5) is co-rotationally coupled to a rotor (2A) of the drive motor (2). (Fig. 1, paragraphs 10-41.)
With respect to claim 12, Herzog et al., as modified, is silent regarding the magnetic target object is mechanically coupled to the toothed belt. Jeon teaches of the target object being the toothed belt (314) (paragraphs 38-40); wherein the gear wheel (321 or 322) is in toothed engagement with the toothed belt (314) (paragraph 43). (Figs. 1-12, paragraphs 23-76.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Jeon into the invention of Herzog et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently detect the movement position of the rack bar. (Paragraphs 38.) Furthermore, because both Herzog et al. and Jeon teach methods to detect a position of a rack assembly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (based on the motor shaft) for the other (based on a toothed belt) in order to achieve the predictable result of appropriately detecting a position of the rack member.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog et al. and Jeon, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Mote et al. (US 2022/0268600).
With respect to claims 8 and 14, Herzog et al., as modified, discloses the magnetic target object (5) is arranged outside (fig. 1) the circuit (8) but does not explicitly state the circuit is accommodated in a housing. Mote teaches of a circuit (18) accommodated in a housing (12). (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 26-47.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Mote et al. into the invention of Herzog et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the circuit from outside elements.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights