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 .
This action is in response to the communications filed 2/2/2026 and 1/12/2026.
Note, the amendment of 2/2/2026 clearly presumes that the amendment filed 1/12/2026 was entered, as applicant makes additional changes to Claim 1 in amendment of 2/2/2026, with the changes from 1/12/2026 present in this amendment.
However, other claims, such as Claims 2 and 3, are indicated as “currently amended” and contain claim amendments in the amendment of 2/2/2026, but where these amendments were already made in the amendment of 1/12/2026. As such, no new amendments for these claims were made in the amendment filed 2/2/2026. The Examiner respectfully notes that only claim amendments currently being made in the amendment being filed should be indicated, and that previous amendments previously made in a prior art amendment should not be re-indicated as amendments as they have already been made. The Examiner is presuming that the claims submitted on 2/2/2026 are the claims applicant intends to have examined, regardless of any differences between the amendments of 2/2/2026 and 1/12/2026. All further amendments should be based upon the amendment of 2/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 and 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the amendment filed 2/2/2026,
With regard to the arguments on pages 5-6 directed towards the previous prior art rejections,
Applicant argues that Schelling (CN 103256884A) does not disclose a rotation angle sensor that measures a rotation angle of an electric motor that drives the pinion gear. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
What applicant is claiming is a positive recitation of a rotation angle sensor that can be used to measure a rotation angle of an electric motor that drives the pinion gear. Reciting “that measures” is the same as reciting “for measuring” as it does not recite or require a configuration of the sensor, and instead only requires a sensor capable of being used for this purpose.
With that stated, Schelling discloses a differential coil configuration in which two distinct coils are used to make a direct measurement of the movement of the linear movement of rack (paragraphs [0011],[0013]) which is an indirect measurement of the rotation angle of the rotating shaft (Paragraph [0009]). As such, the coils are reasonably both able to and in fact are making indirect measurements of the rotation angle. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
As to the amendment filed 1/12/2026,
With regard to the arguments on pages 6-7 directed towards the previous prior art rejections,
Applicant argues that Schelling does not disclose the calculation unit calculates a position of the rack shaft based on both the inductance of the coil and a rotation angle. However, Schelling expressly discloses that it is the rotation of the gear that moves the rack shaft, an inductance in the coil changes based on movement of the rack shaft, and where this change in inductance is used as a measure of the rotation angle of the gear (see paragraphs [0009],[0012]). As such, any calculation of the rotation angle must be based on both the rotation angle of the gear moving the rack shaft and the inductance of the coil. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments pertaining the previous 112 rejections in both amendments,
No specific arguments have been provided. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant has made amendments, notes that those amendments have overcome the previous 112 rejections are withdrawn, and those rejections not overcome are repeated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “wherein the coil is configured to be arranged to surround at least a part of the rack teeth portion, and to sense an inductance change when the rack shaft moves relative to the coil” on the last three lines introduces new matter.
The issue being raised is that no coil is originally disclosed to “sense” or have the ability to sense an inductance. As is well-known in the art, a device that senses something is providing its own unique signal representing that other feature being sensed. For example, a magnetic sensor configured to sense a magnetic field will provide an electrical signal indicative of the magnetic field, but that magnetic field itself is not part of the sensor and in fact is not any aspect of the sensor. The magnetic field and sensor are completely distinct features, and the magnetic sensor is not sensing an aspect of itself, such as its own internal resistance. Note that no other “inductance” would reasonably exist, as inductance is a property of an inductor, and not a tooth, magnetic field, or any other disclosed claim feature. As such, when applicant claims inductance change, it is being interpreted to mean an inductance change of the coil.
Here, what applicant is doing to putting a current into a coil, which in turn is generating a magnetic field as all coils will. That magnetic field is inducing a current (eddy currents) in the teeth of the rack shaft, and these eddy currents are causing the teeth of the rack shaft to then generate their own induced magnetic field, which is merely a weaker magnetic field that opposes the magnetic field of the coil. As the teeth move, this weaker eddy current induced magnetic field will itself induce a current in the coil, but where this current is opposite to the current from the power supply unit, thus weakening the current in the coil. This weaking, or change of current in the coil, is what is then output from the coil as a indication of the movement of the rack shaft.
A coil has a natural inductance, as all coils are defined in terms of their own inductance in the same way that capacitors are defined in terms of capacitance. The natural inductance of the coil is dependent, in part, on the current in the coil. As such, when the current in the coil changes due to the induced magnetic field from the teeth influencing it, the inductance of the coil changes. However, the coil is not sensing its own inductance, in the same way the output a resistor would not sense its own resistance. The coil can provide an output indicative of the change of inductance in the coil, but it does not “sense” this inductance or change of inductance.
While a long explanation, the above was provided to provide context as to why claiming a coil sensing its own inductance is not reasonably disclosed, and that the coil can at most provide a signal, such as a current or voltage, that is inductance of the change of inductance. This is essentially explained in paragraph [0017] of the instant application.
The above feature therefore introduces new matter, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret a coil that senses inductance to be a coil that senses a separate and distinct inductance from the coil itself, and such a feature is not reasonably disclosed.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “the electric motor includes the rotation angle sensor” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter.
1) The original disclosure explains “The electric motor 16 has a stator 161 and a rotor 162, and the rotor 162 rotates in unison with the motor shaft 160 with respect to the stator 161. The rotation angle of the rotor 162 relative to the stator 161 is detected by the rotation angle sensor 163” in paragraph [0015]. As seen in Figure 1, the motor includes a stator and rotor, as explained above. While the rotation sensor may be on the motor as seen, the motor itself is not originally disclosed to include the sensor. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
2) One reasonable way the motor can include the sensor, would be to require the motor as part of the position detection device. However, the motor and its rotating rotor are objects to be detected, and not any object that performs actual sensing or detection. To the extent that the motor is intended to be required in the claim, this feature introduces new matter as the motor is not originally disclosed to be part of the position detection device as explained above.
As to Claims 2, 3, and 6-16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s), and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “a calculation unit configured to calculate a position of the rack shaft based on both an inductance of the coil and a rotation angle measurement” on lines 7-8 is indefinite.
Applicant has added that the calculation unit is configured to calculate a position based on a rotational angle measurement. However, applicant distinctly recites this rotational angle measurement from the rotation angle sensor and its ability to measure a rotation angle as now recited on lines 5-6. As best understood, in light of the disclosure, when claiming a rotation angle measurement, this measurement must come from the rotation angle sensor, and in fact must be the already recited measure of a rotation angle. However, both the rotation angle sensor and its measure of a rotation angle on lines 5-6 are distinctly recited from the above rotation angle measurement on line 8, but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between the above rotational angle measurement and the prior recited rotation angle sensor and its measure of a rotation angle are therefore unclear.
The phrase “wherein the coil is configured to be arranged to surround at least a part of the rack teeth portion, and to sense an inductance change when the rack shaft moves relative to the coil” on the last three lines is indefinite.
1) For the purpose of brevity, the above explanation regarding the coil and inductance under the 112(a) rejection is incorporate herein. The above phrase is further indefinite because it is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the coil is configured to sense “an inductance change” as claimed. First, applicant distinctly recites this inductance change from the coil, but where no other element of the disclosure can reasonably provide an inductance. A tooth, rack shaft, or other claim elements do not reasonably provide an inductance. Instead, inductance is a property of a coil (i.e. an inductor). As such, the relationship and difference between the claimed inductance change and all other structural features of the claim are indefinite, as it is unclear how this inductance change is related to any of the other features, especially the distinctly recited coil.
2) Second, to the extent that applicant intends this phrase to refer to the inductance change of the coil, similar to that noted in the 112(a) rejection above, a coil does not reasonably “sense” its own inductance, and instead can at most provide an indication of a change of this inductance by way of a current or voltage. But, a coil cannot reasonably sense an inductance, especially its own inductance, or any change thereof. It is therefore unclear what applicant means by this phrase. That stated, for the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that applicant is referring to the changing inductance of the coil, and that a coil providing a signal indicative of such a change reasonably meets the claim features.
3) Applicant already recites “an inductance of the coil” on lines 7-8. As best understood, this inductance is intended to be the inductance that changes when applicant later claims “inductance changes” in the above phrase. This is further evidenced by the fact that applicant previously recited “the inductance changes.” However, these two inductance recitations are now being distinctly recited when they are not distinct, rendering the difference and relationship between these distinct inductance recitations indefinite. It is unclear of this phrase is intended to refer to a new inductance or to changes of the previous inductance. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the inductance changes were intended to be changes of the previously recited inductance.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “the inductance of the coil” on line 2 is indefinite.
Applicant now recites two distinct “inductance” recitations in Claim 1, but where as best understood, both refer to an inductance of the coil. As such, it is unclear what inductance this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “the calculation unit calculates the position of the rack shaft based on a rotation angle of an electric motor that drives the pinion gear and the inductance of the coil” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
At issue here is that applicant is positively reciting the action of calculating by the calculation unit, but where such a recitation amounts to a method step of calculating by an apparatus component of an apparatus claim. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” While reciting the calculation unit is “configured to” calculate is proper, as it merely describes a function of the calculation unit, positively reciting the calculation unit “calculates” is indefinite as it positively requires the use of the calculation unit in an apparatus claim. Furthermore, by reciting a method step, the phrase further makes unclear whether the rack shaft, electric motor, and pinion gear are or are not positively recited in the claim. As explained previously, this claim is directed towards what the position detection device comprises and its related function. Because the position detection device does not include the rack shaft, electric motor, or pinion gear, reciting these features in the above manner is also indefinite because the scope of the claim is unclear, and thus indefinite. As such, this claim is indefinite, because it is unclear what structural features are required in the claim, and because it is unclear if the actual use of the apparatus is required in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that the calculation unit is configured to calculate the above position, and thus does not require any of the structural features other than the calculation unit and what it itself is configured to do.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “wherein the position detection device is configured to detect the position of a rack shaft made of carbon steel having low specific magnetic permeability” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) First, applicant is claiming the overall preamble device is configured to perform a detection distinctly from any structural feature claimed or unclaimed. It is unclear what specific features of the preamble device, either claimed or unclaimed, participate in or are otherwise required to cause the position detection device to be configured in the claimed manner. For example, it is unclear if the coil, combination of the coil and calculation unit, or a combination of other claimed components are configured to perform these function.
2) Applicant is claiming “a rack shaft” in the above phrase, but applicant already recites “a rack shaft” on lines 1-2 of Claim 1. As best understood, these two rack shafts are referring to the same rack shaft but are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these two distinctly recited rack shafts are therefore unclear.
3) It is unclear what features of this claim should be given patentable weight. The rack shaft is not part of the invention, as rack was stated to not be part of the invention in the amendment filed 1/12/2026. However, most of the details of this claim are directed towards the rack shaft and the specific of the shaft. It is therefore unclear what features of this claim should be given patentable weight. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this claim to mean that the position detection device must reasonably be capable of detecting a rack shaft as claimed, but where the claim is directed towards the configuration of the position detection device itself, and thus no rack shaft or specifics thereof are required.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “wherein the electric motor rotates more than one revolution (360°) while the rack shaft moves for one pitch of the plurality of rack teeth” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) The electric motor was initially introduced as part of an intended use of the rotation angle sensor of Claim 1, where applicant claims “a rotation angle sensor that measures a rotation angle of an electric motor that drives the pinion gear.” As such, neither the motor nor pinion gear were positively recited, and instead, applicant was only claiming the manner in which the rotation angle sensor can be used. The Examiner further notes that neither the electric motor nor pinion gear were originally disclosed to be part of the position detection device. In fact, applicant expressly acknowledges this by stating that the pinion gear and rack form no part of the invention in the amendment filed 1/12/2026.
As further explained by applicant in paragraph [0011], “ As shown in FIG. 1, the steering device 10 comprises a stroke sensor 1, left and right tie rods 12 respectively connected to steerable wheels 11 (left and right front wheels), a rack shaft 13 having a rack teeth portion 130 in an axial direction, a cylindrical housing 14 accommodating the rack shaft 13, a worm reduction mechanism 15 having a pinion gear 151 meshed with the rack teeth portion 130 of the rack shaft 13, an electric motor 16 that applies a moving force in the vehicle width direction to the rack shaft 13 via the worm reduction mechanism 15, a steering wheel 17 operated by the driver, a steering angle sensor 18 that detects the steering angle of the steering wheel 17, and a steering controller 19 that controls the electric motor 16 based on the steering angle detected by the steering angle sensor 18” (emphasis added).
Paragraph [0010] states “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a vehicle equipped with a steer-by-wire steering device 10 having a stroke sensor 1 as a position detection device according to a first embodiment of the present invention,” thus explaining that the position detection device is actually the stroke sensor, and thus it is the components that actually perform sensing that define the position detection device, in light of the disclosure. Such an explanation is further reasonable as a position detection device would reasonably be directed towards those elements actually use for position detection, and not any object actually being detected. For example, the rack is not reasonably part of the position detection device, as it is the object being detected and does not itself perform any position detection. This is essentially acknowledged by applicant’s express explanation that he pinion gear and rack form no part of the invention.
The above explanation is presented because each of the features found in this claim are solely directed towards a component that is not part of the position detection device. The electric motor and rack shaft were not positively recited, and are not part of the position detection device, in light of the disclosure. As such, it is unclear whether the above claim features are intended to be positively recited. Because the entirety of the above claim features are solely directed towards components neither positively recited nor part of the actual position detection device, they are being interpreted such that the position detection device must reasonably be able to be used with these components, but that none of what is recited in this claim is required.
2) The above phrase is further indefinite because applicant is reciting that the electric motor “rotates” and that the rack shaft “moves” in the above claim. Such limitations require the use of these claim features because stating something rotates or moves are method steps of use as they are reciting an “action” of the structural feature. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), reciting a use of apparatus claim components within an apparatus claim is indefinite. There is a difference between reciting what that electric motor is “configured to rotate” in contrast with reciting that it actually rotates.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “wherein the electric motor comprises a worm reduction mechanism” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
The electric motor was initially introduced as part of an intended use of the rotation angle sensor of Claim 1, where applicant claims “a rotation angle sensor that measures a rotation angle of an electric motor that drives the pinion gear.” As such, neither the motor nor pinion gear were positively recited, and instead, applicant was only claiming the manner in which the rotation angle sensor can be used. The Examiner further notes that neither the electric motor nor pinion gear were originally disclosed to be part of the position detection device. In fact, applicant expressly acknowledges this by stating that the pinion gear and rack form no part of the invention in the amendment filed 1/12/2026.
As further explained by applicant in paragraph [0011], “ As shown in FIG. 1, the steering device 10 comprises a stroke sensor 1, left and right tie rods 12 respectively connected to steerable wheels 11 (left and right front wheels), a rack shaft 13 having a rack teeth portion 130 in an axial direction, a cylindrical housing 14 accommodating the rack shaft 13, a worm reduction mechanism 15 having a pinion gear 151 meshed with the rack teeth portion 130 of the rack shaft 13, an electric motor 16 that applies a moving force in the vehicle width direction to the rack shaft 13 via the worm reduction mechanism 15, a steering wheel 17 operated by the driver, a steering angle sensor 18 that detects the steering angle of the steering wheel 17, and a steering controller 19 that controls the electric motor 16 based on the steering angle detected by the steering angle sensor 18” (emphasis added).
Paragraph [0010] states “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a vehicle equipped with a steer-by-wire steering device 10 having a stroke sensor 1 as a position detection device according to a first embodiment of the present invention,” thus explaining that the position detection device is actually the stroke sensor, and thus it is the components that actually perform sensing that define the position detection device, in light of the disclosure. Such an explanation is further reasonable as a position detection device would reasonably be directed towards those elements actually use for position detection, and not any object actually being detected. For example, the rack is not reasonably part of the position detection device, as it is the object being detected and does not itself perform any position detection. This is essentially acknowledged by applicant’s express explanation that he pinion gear and rack form no part of the invention.
The above explanation is presented because each of the features found in this claim are solely directed towards a component that is not part of the position detection device. The electric motor and rack shaft were not positively recited, and are not part of the position detection device, in light of the disclosure. As such, it is unclear whether the above claim features are intended to be positively recited. Because the entirety of the above claim features are solely directed towards components neither positively recited nor part of the actual position detection device, they are being interpreted such that the position detection device must reasonably be able to be used with these components, but that none of what is recited in this claim is required.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “wherein the electric motor comprises a worm reduction mechanism having a gear ratio configured to provide a unique rotation angle of the electric motor during the movement of the rack shaft for each pitch of the plurality of rack teeth” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
The electric motor was initially introduced as part of an intended use of the rotation angle sensor of Claim 1, where applicant claims “a rotation angle sensor that measures a rotation angle of an electric motor that drives the pinion gear.” As such, neither the motor nor pinion gear were positively recited, and instead, applicant was only claiming the manner in which the rotation angle sensor can be used. The Examiner further notes that none of the electric motor, rack shaft, or other structure features other than the coil recited in this claim were originally disclosed to be part of the position detection device. In fact, applicant expressly acknowledges this by stating that the pinion gear and rack form no part of the invention in the amendment filed 1/12/2026.
As further explained by applicant in paragraph [0011], “ As shown in FIG. 1, the steering device 10 comprises a stroke sensor 1, left and right tie rods 12 respectively connected to steerable wheels 11 (left and right front wheels), a rack shaft 13 having a rack teeth portion 130 in an axial direction, a cylindrical housing 14 accommodating the rack shaft 13, a worm reduction mechanism 15 having a pinion gear 151 meshed with the rack teeth portion 130 of the rack shaft 13, an electric motor 16 that applies a moving force in the vehicle width direction to the rack shaft 13 via the worm reduction mechanism 15, a steering wheel 17 operated by the driver, a steering angle sensor 18 that detects the steering angle of the steering wheel 17, and a steering controller 19 that controls the electric motor 16 based on the steering angle detected by the steering angle sensor 18” (emphasis added).
Paragraph [0010] states “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a vehicle equipped with a steer-by-wire steering device 10 having a stroke sensor 1 as a position detection device according to a first embodiment of the present invention,” thus explaining that the position detection device is actually the stroke sensor, and thus it is the components that actually perform sensing that define the position detection device, in light of the disclosure. Such an explanation is further reasonable as a position detection device would reasonably be directed towards those elements actually use for position detection, and not any object actually being detected. For example, the rack is not reasonably part of the position detection device, as it is the object being detected and does not itself perform any position detection. This is essentially acknowledged by applicant’s express explanation that he pinion gear and rack form no part of the invention.
The above explanation is presented because each of the features found in this claim are solely directed towards a component that is not part of the position detection device. The electric motor and rack shaft were not positively recited, and are not part of the position detection device, in light of the disclosure. As such, it is unclear whether the above claim features are intended to be positively recited. Because the entirety of the above claim features are solely directed towards components neither positively recited nor part of the actual position detection device, they are being interpreted such that the position detection device must reasonably be able to be used with these components, but that none of what is recited in this claim is required.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “wherein when the rotation angle of the electric motor during the movement of the rack shaft for one pitch of the plurality of rack teeth is represented by X and X is expressed as 360xn+u(0) (n is an integer, 0<u<360), the reduction ratio of the worm reduction mechanism is set in such a manner that none of ax1,ax2, ax3, ... uxm (m is a number of the rack teeth located inside the coil during a movement from one moving end to another moving end of a stroke range) is a multiple of 360” on lines 1-7 is indefinite.
The electric motor was initially introduced as part of an intended use of the rotation angle sensor of Claim 1, where applicant claims “a rotation angle sensor that measures a rotation angle of an electric motor that drives the pinion gear.” As such, neither the motor nor pinion gear were positively recited, and instead, applicant was only claiming the manner in which the rotation angle sensor can be used. The Examiner further notes that none of the electric motor, rack shaft, or other structure features other than the coil recited in this claim were originally disclosed to be part of the position detection device. In fact, applicant expressly acknowledges this by stating that the pinion gear and rack form no part of the invention in the amendment filed 1/12/2026.
As further explained by applicant in paragraph [0011], “ As shown in FIG. 1, the steering device 10 comprises a stroke sensor 1, left and right tie rods 12 respectively connected to steerable wheels 11 (left and right front wheels), a rack shaft 13 having a rack teeth portion 130 in an axial direction, a cylindrical housing 14 accommodating the rack shaft 13, a worm reduction mechanism 15 having a pinion gear 151 meshed with the rack teeth portion 130 of the rack shaft 13, an electric motor 16 that applies a moving force in the vehicle width direction to the rack shaft 13 via the worm reduction mechanism 15, a steering wheel 17 operated by the driver, a steering angle sensor 18 that detects the steering angle of the steering wheel 17, and a steering controller 19 that controls the electric motor 16 based on the steering angle detected by the steering angle sensor 18” (emphasis added).
Paragraph [0010] states “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a vehicle equipped with a steer-by-wire steering device 10 having a stroke sensor 1 as a position detection device according to a first embodiment of the present invention,” thus explaining that the position detection device is actually the stroke sensor, and thus it is the components that actually perform sensing that define the position detection device, in light of the disclosure. Such an explanation is further reasonable as a position detection device would reasonably be directed towards those elements actually use for position detection, and not any object actually being detected. For example, the rack is not reasonably part of the position detection device, as it is the object being detected and does not itself perform any position detection. This is essentially acknowledged by applicant’s express explanation that he pinion gear and rack form no part of the invention.
The above explanation is presented because each of the features found in this claim are solely directed towards a component that is not part of the position detection device. The electric motor and rack shaft were not positively recited, and are not part of the position detection device, in light of the disclosure. As such, it is unclear whether the above claim features are intended to be positively recited. Because the entirety of the above claim features are solely directed towards components neither positively recited nor part of the actual position detection device, they are being interpreted such that the position detection device must reasonably be able to be used with these components, but that none of what is recited in this claim is required.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “the electric motor includes the rotation angle sensor” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
As explained above, the motor is not part of the position detection device. As such, it is unclear how the above claim phrase should be treated, as it is unclear if reciting that the motor includes the sensor is now intended to require the motor. As such, it is unclear if the motor should be given patentable weight. Similarly, the motor was not positively recited, and instead was introduced as part of the intended use of the rotation angle sensor. Applicant is therefore further limiting a feature that was never positively recited, further rendering it unclear as to whether this feature is or is not required. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the rotation angle sensor can be part of the motor, but that the motor is not required in the claim.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “wherein a position along the axial direction of the rack shaft can be uniquely detected over an entire stroke range R with a resolution corresponding to a product of a resolution of the rotation angle sensor multiplied by the reduction ratio of the worm reduction mechanism” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) The first issue here is that, like noted above, the rack shaft and worm reduction mechanism are not reasonably positively introduced nor actually part of the position detection device. As such, it is unclear what features of this phrase are intended to be given positive weight. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the position detection device must be usable to able to detect a position as claimed, but where neither the actual determination of a position or the above recited components are required in the claim.
2) Applicant a position along the axial direction can be uniquely detected, but where applicant does not recite any structure feature or features that are configured to perform such a detection. Instead, this position detection is being recited completely distinctly from any previously recited device reasonably capable of such a detection, making the relationship between this feature unclear with respect to any of the previously recited features. It is unclear what features are required in the claim that would able to or are otherwise configured to perform the claimed position detection.
3) Similar to the above, this phrase is further indefinite because it is unclear whether this feature is or is not positively recited, and it is unclear how it should be treated. Applicant is essentially reciting a function completely distinct from any structural feature that is configured to or otherwise capable of performing the function. A function by itself is essentially a method step, and as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), method steps of using an apparatus inside an apparatus claim are indefinite. As such, it is unclear how this phrase should be treated.
4) The next issue is that Claim 1 already recites a calculation unit configured to calculate a position of the rack shaft, and as best understood, the above position may be the same as that already recited in Claim 1. It is unclear if applicant has two distinct position determinations in the claim combination, or if the position of Claim 13 is the same as the position of Claim 1.
5) The phrase “the axial direction” on line 2 is indefinite, as no axial direction was previously recited. It is unclear what axial direction this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “the coil is positionable around the periphery of the one axial end on the left side of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant is claiming the manner in which the coil is capable of being positioned, but no periphery of the one axial end, no left side, no vehicle, and none of these features “in the rack teeth portion” were previously claimed. As such, it is unclear what periphery of the one axial end on the left side of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion applicant is referencing.
2) No periphery of one axial end on the left side of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion was previously disclosed to be “in the rack teeth portion, and it is unclear how the coil can surround a portion of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion. No portion of any vehicle is reasonably “in the rack teeth portion.” The Examiner acknowledges Figure 7, but such a feature does not reasonably show any portion of a vehicle “in the rack teeth potion.” It is therefore unclear how such a phrase should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the periphery is of an axial end of a portion of a vehicle shaft that is near the rack teeth portion.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “the coil is positionable around the periphery of the one axial end on the right side of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant is claiming the manner in which the coil is capable of being positioned, but no periphery of the one axial end, no right side, no vehicle, and none of these features “in the rack teeth portion” were previously claimed. As such, it is unclear what periphery of the one axial end on the right side of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion applicant is referencing.
2) No periphery of one axial end on the right side of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion was previously disclosed to be “in the rack teeth portion, and it is unclear how the coil can surround a portion of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion. No portion of any vehicle is reasonably “in the rack teeth portion.” The Examiner acknowledges Figure 7, but such a feature does not reasonably show any portion of a vehicle “in the rack teeth potion.” It is therefore unclear how such a phrase should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the periphery is of an axial end of a portion of a vehicle shaft that is near the rack teeth portion.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “the inductance of the coil changes in accordance with the position of the rack shaft along the axial direction” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) More than one distinct inductance was recited in Claim 1, and it is unclear which inductance this phrase is referencing.
2) Claim 1 already recites inductance changes, and as best understood, these inductance changes would be the same as those recited in the above claim. However, it is unclear if applicant is referring to these changes already recited.
3) It is unclear what features recited above are and are not required. Applicant is not reciting that the inductance of the coil changes as claimed “when used with a rack shaft and the rack shaft is moved along the axial direction.” As such, it is unclear if applicant intends the rack shaft to be positively recited. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the inductance changes when the coil is positioned near a rack shaft that is moved along the axial direction.
4) It is unclear whether applicant intends to positively recite a method step of changing in the inductance by moving the rack shaft or if applicant intends this phrase to merely define what would happen when the coil is positioned adjacent the rack shaft which then subsequently moves. No structural feature is recited to be configured to or otherwise capable of implementing the above claim feature, making it unclear how this phrase should be treated. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the inductance changes when the coil is positioned near a rack shaft that is moved along the axial direction.
As to Claims 2, 3, and 6-16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s), and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-3 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schelling (CN 103256884A).
Note: The cited paragraphs below come from an English machine translation provided with this Office Action.
As to Claim 1,
Schelling discloses A position detection device configured to detect a position of a rack shaft having a rack teeth portion that meshes with a pinion gear in a part in an axial direction, comprising: a coil (one of the coils part of the differential measurement, similar to coil (32)) configured to be arranged around a periphery of the rack shaft (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0050],[0067] / note 1) the rack is not positively required, and the coil can be placed as claimed, and 2) in an alternative embodiment, the moving element is a rack, and the coil must be surrounding the teeth of the rack instead of the threads of the screw); a rotation angle sensor (another one of the coils part of the differential measurement, similar to coil (32)) that measures a rotation angle of an electric motor that drives the pinion gear (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0009],[0050],[0067] / note both coils make measurements that are indicative of the rotation angle of the shaft), and a calculation unit (36) configured to calculate a position of the rack shaft based on both an inductance of the coil and a rotation angle measurement (Paragraphs [0008]-[0010] / note 1) any movement of the rack is based on a rotation and thus an indirect rotation angle measurement from one of the coils, and the calculation must therefore be “based on” the rotation angle of the steering shaft, and 2) the rotational position of the shaft directly correlates to the linear position of the rack shaft, and any determination of the rotational position also must provide the position of the rack shaft as they have a predetermined positional relationship), wherein the coil is configured to be arranged to surround at least a part of the rack teeth portion (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0010],[0067] / note the rotational position of the shaft directly correlates to the linear position of the rack shaft, and any determination of the rotational position also must provide the position of the rack shaft as they have a predetermined positional relationship), and wherein the inductance changes in accordance with the position of the rack shaft relative to the coil (Paragraphs [0009],[0067]).
As to Claim 2,
Schelling discloses the coil is configured to be arranged in such a manner that a central axis line is perpendicular to a tooth trace direction of rack teeth in the rack teeth portion (Figure 1 / note that when the screw is replaced with a rack having teeth as disclosed, the teeth must be in the same direction as the threads of the screw, thus disclosing this feature), and when so arranged, the coil has a length in an axial direction of the rack shaft that is less than a pitch of the rack teeth in the axial direction of the rack shaft (Figure 1 / note that the “length” of the coil in the axial direction must be less than the pitch of the teeth, as the teeth cannot be smaller than the thickness of the coil which is the axial length).
(Note: While the prior art discloses the above claim features, the prior art also discloses these features because applicant is defining the prior art relative to an object that is not present in the claims, and the coil can be used with an object (rack) having dimensions such that the above claim feature would always be met by the prior art, and thus implicit).
As to Claim 3,
Schelling discloses the coil has a cylindrical shape that is positionable around a periphery of one axial end in the rack teeth portion (Figure 1 / note that when the screw is replaced with a rack having teeth as disclosed, the teeth must be arranged to surround the teeth in the same way it is shown to be arranged around the threads of the screw, including the claimed periphery as the rack moves, thus disclosing this feature), such that the inductance of the coil changes according to a change in volume of the rack shaft inside the coil (Paragraphs [0009],[0067] / note any volume change is due to the peaks and valleys from the teeth).
(Note: While the prior art discloses the above claim features, the prior art also discloses these features because applicant is defining the prior art relative to an object that is not present in the claims, and the coil can be used with an object (rack) having dimensions and teeth such that the above claim feature would always be met by the prior art, and thus implicit).
As to Claim 6,
Schelling discloses the rotation angle sensor is a resolver (Paragraph [0050] / note the definition of a resolver is “device whose electrical output is proportional to the angular position of an object such as a rotor” per https://www.yourdictionary.com/resolver. Either coil in paragraph [0050] meets this requirement as both provide outputs that are proportional to an angular position of the rotating shaft, because this rotation is what moves the screw).
As to Claim 7,
Schelling discloses the position detection device is configured to detect the position of a rack shaft made of carbon steel having low specific magnetic permeability (Paragraphs [0008]-[0010] / note the position detection device is reasonably capable of being used to detect a rack shaft made if the claimed manner. Note that as expressly stated by applicant in the amendment filed 1/12/2026, “the rack and pinion gear recited in the preamble of claim 1 form no part of the invention.” As such, the rack shaft, likewise, does not reasonably form part of the invention as it is not part of the position detection device, in light of the disclosure.)
As to Claim 8,
Schelling discloses wherein the electric motor rotates more than one revolution (360°) while the rack shaft moves for one pitch of the plurality of rack teeth (Figure 1 / note that neither the motor nor rack shaft were positively recited and are not part of the position detection device, and the prior art can reasonably be used with these devices and therefore discloses the claim features.).
As to Claim 9,
Schelling discloses wherein the electric motor comprises a worm reduction mechanism (Figure 1 / note that neither the motor nor any aspect of it were positively recited and are not part of the position detection device, and the prior art can reasonably be used with these devices and therefore discloses the claim features.).
As to Claim 10,
Schelling discloses wherein the electric motor comprises a worm reduction mechanism having a gear ratio configured to provide a unique rotation angle of the electric motor during the movement of the rack shaft for each pitch of the plurality of rack teeth (Figure 1 / note that neither the motor nor any aspect of it as well as the rack shaft were positively recited and are not part of the position detection device, and the prior art can reasonably be used with these devices and therefore discloses the claim features.).
As to Claim 11,
Schelling discloses wherein when the rotation angle of the electric motor during the movement of the rack shaft for one pitch of the plurality of rack teeth is represented by X and X is expressed as 360xn+u(0) (n is an integer, 0<u<360), the reduction ratio of the worm reduction mechanism is set in such a manner that none of ax1,ax2, ax3, ... uxm (m is a number of the rack teeth located inside the coil during a movement from one moving end to another moving end of a stroke range) is a multiple of 360 (Figure 1 / note that neither the motor nor any aspect of it as well as the rack shaft were positively recited and are not part of the position detection device, and the prior art can reasonably be used with these devices and therefore discloses the claim features.).
As to Claim 12,
Schelling discloses wherein the electric motor includes the rotation angle sensor (Figure 1 / note that neither the motor nor any aspect of it were positively recited and are not part of the position detection device, and the prior art can reasonably be used with these devices and therefore discloses the claim features.).
As to Claim 13,
Schelling discloses a position along the axial direction of the rack shaft can be uniquely detected over an entire stroke range R with a resolution corresponding to a product of a resolution of the rotation angle sensor multiplied by the reduction ratio of the worm reduction mechanism (Figure 1 / note that neither the motor nor any aspect of it or the rack shaft were positively recited and are not part of the position detection device, and the prior art can reasonably be used with these devices and therefore discloses the claim features. Furthermore, the position of the rack shaft can be determined over the claimed stroke range should the device be used with these structural features, and thus the prior art reasonably meets the claim features.).
As to Claim 14,
Schelling discloses the coil is positionable around the periphery of the one axial end on the left side of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion (Figure 1 / none of the features recited are positively required, and the coil of the prior art can be positioned in the claimed manner and thus disclose the claim.).
As to Claim 15,
Schelling discloses the coil is positionable around the periphery of the one axial end on the right side of the vehicle in the rack teeth portion (Figure 1 / none of the features recited are positively required, and the coil of the prior art can be positioned in the claimed manner and thus disclose the claim.).
As to Claim 16,
Schelling discloses wherein the inductance of the coil changes in accordance with the position of the rack shaft along the axial direction (Paragraphs [0008]-[0012]).
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights