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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 5-67 directed towards the previous prior art rejections,
Applicant argues that Schelling (CN 103256884A)’s motion converter/calculation unit is configured to determine the inductance changes in the coil caused by the rack teeth when the rack shaft moves axially relative to the coil, but it instead discloses that such a converter/unit is configured to determine inductance changes because by the mobile element 24 which moves in response to the rotation of the screw rod. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Schelling discloses more than one embodiment, and the embodiment argued by applicant is not the embodiment being relied upon for the rejection. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claim require that the inductance changes that are determined are caused by the rack teeth when the rack shaft moves, and thus even if the motion element argued by applicant is the object actually sensed, if its movement is being caused by the rack teeth that are moving when the rack shaft moves, then the inductance changes are still being caused by the rack teeth when the rack shaft moves as claimed. As explained in paragraph [0013], “Alternatively, the motion transducer can be implemented as a rack that can be longitudinally guided, the rack being positioned such that a first gear of the rotating component meshes with the toothed area of the rack and causes the rack to move tangentially, wherein the moving element can be connected to the rack or implemented as part of the rack. The inductance and/or capacitance of an oscillating circuit can be changed by transmitting the displacement of the screw or rack” (emphasis added). Since the inductance in the coil is being changed by movement of the rack, and thus any rack teeth, the prior art reasonably discloses this claim feature regardless of what is actually being detected
Applicant then argues that the axial span of the coil in Schelling is not less than a pitch of the rack teeth. Applicant argues that the differences in Schelling necessitate an extra part in the form of the mobile element, and also compromise accuracy as Schelling at best only indirectly determines movement of the rack shaft via a gear connected device that is separate from the rack shaft, whereas the invention determines the position of the rack shaft directly from the individual teeth. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claims do not recite nor require the direct measurement of the rack teeth. Applicant does not claim any positive recitation that requires the coil to directly perform a measurement of the rack teeth. Applicant does recite that the calculation unit is configured to determine the inductance changes in the coil cause by the rack teeth when the rack shaft moves, but such a limitation is about the manner in which the calculation unit itself is configured. Any calculation unit that is configured to determine inductance changes in a coil would reasonably be able to determine those inductance changes regardless of why the inductance changed. This is, respectfully, not a positive recitation about the rack or why the inductance itself changed, and instead this feature is about how the calculation unit itself is configured.
Second, even if the above feature were a positive recitation of the manner in which the inductance changes, this feature does not recite any direct measurement of the rack teeth. What this feature would require is that the rack teeth caused inductance changes in some manner, but that manner can be indirect. Moving rack teeth that cause an object of detection to move and induce inductance changes still means that rack teeth are causing those inductance changes.
Lastly, applicant argues that the extra part in the form of the mobile element comprises accuracy, but the Examiner respectfully note that no evidence has been provided to support such an argument. As explained in MPEP 2145(I), attorney argument that relies upon what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know requires evidence. That stated, even if the accuracy of the prior art was less than that of the instant application and thus inferior, there is no requirement that the prior art have the same level of accuracy as applicant. A product can be intentionally inferior of desired reasons for example, but still disclose the claim features. For example, as explained in MPEP 2123(II), “"A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).”
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 8-9,
Applicant argues that support is found in the disclosure for the determination of position based upon changes in inductance and a rotational angle measurement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner acknowledges that movement of the rack will cause a change in inductance, but there is a difference between using the current inductance of the coil as opposed to a change of inductance from one value to another when computing position. What applicant discloses is the determination of a position based upon a current inductance value, not a change of inductance, and a rotational angle value. Meaning, even if the inductance value has changed as the rack moves, the determination of the position is only disclosed to be the current inductance value as it currently is, not change prior value, future expect value, or change from one value to another. This is expressly disclosed in paragraph [0025] which states “The calculation unit 4 calculates the position of the rack shaft 13 based on the rotation angle and inductance of the electric motor 16 detected by the rotation angle sensor 163 … However, this can be determined by referring to the rotation angle of the electric motor 16 in combination with the inductance of the coil 2. The rotation angle of the electric motor 16 corresponding to the inductance of the coil 2 at each position within one pitch of the rack teeth 130a is different for each pitch within the stroke range R” (emphasis added). Nowhere does the disclosure explain that the “change” in inductance itself is used to determine position, and even the cited paragraph [0017] by applicant explains that the calculation unit 4 calculates “the inductance between the coil 2 and the rack shaft,” but an inductance is not a change in inductance. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees because this feature introduces new matter.
As to the remaining arguments directed towards the prior 112(b) rejections,
Not all previous 112 rejections have been addressed, and those rejections that have been overcome by amendment are therefore withdrawn, and those that have not are repeated below. The rejections specifically argued by applicant have been withdrawn as the specific amendments noted by applicant do overcome those rejections.
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 “a calculation unit configured to calculate a position of the rack shaft based on both changes in an inductance of the coil and a rotation angle measurement from the rotation angle sensor, wherein the coil is configured to be arranged to surround at least a part of the rack teeth portion, and the calculation unit is configured to determine the inductance changes in the coil caused by the rack teeth when the rack shaft moves axially relative to the coil” on lines 9-15 introduces new matter.
As explained above, applicant does not originally disclose that the calculation unit is configured to calculate a position of the rack shaft based on “changes in an inductance of the coil.” As explained in paragraph [0025], for example, the calculation unit uses a current inductance value, but not a change of inductance value to calculation any position. Furthermore, the original disclosure does not disclose that the calculation unit is configured to determine the inductance changes,” as it is not disclosed to have any processing or ability to actually determine or otherwise calculate an actual change in inductance. Instead, the calculation unit uses a current inductance value used in combination with the rotation angle of the electric motor 16 as explained in the above paragraph. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above feature in light of the disclosure to mean that the use of inductance to determine a position or the determination of inductance includes the determination and use of inductance changes.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “such that the inductance changes of the coil calculated by the calculation unit changes according to a change in volume of the rack shaft inside the coil” on lines 4-5 introduces new matter.
As explained above, the calculation unit is not originally disclosed to calculate or otherwise determine actual changes in inductance as claimed for the same reasons already explained above. This phrase therefore introduces new matter, because the original disclosure does not disclose that the inductance changes of the coil calculated by the calculation unit changes according to a change in volume of the rack shaft inside the coil.
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 2, 8, 10, and 13-16 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 2,
The phrase “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” on lines 5-6 is indefinite.
1) As best understood, this phrase is re-reciting the feature now added to Claim 1 which states that an axial length of the coil spans less than a pitch of the rack teeth on the last line. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear, as it is unclear what new feature is being recited in the above phrase that was not already recited in Claim 1.
2) As best understood, the axial length of the coil in Claim 1 is the same as the length in the axial direction of the coil in the above phrase, but where these features are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
3) As best understood, the pitch of the rack teeth in Claim 1 is the same as pitch of the rack teeth in the above phrase, but where these features are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
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.
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 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) Applicant claims 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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) No inductance is previously recited, and it is unclear what inductance this phrase is referencing. While inductance changes are recited, there is a difference between an inductance change and an inductance, and more than one change was previously recited, making it unclear what change applicant is referencing if that is what applicant intends.
2) Applicant is claiming that the inductance changes, but where Claim 1 now already recites inductance changes. As best understood, the inductance changes are the same as the inductance changes now recited, but where the above inductance is not reasonably referring to the already recited inductance changes. As such, the difference and relationship between the inductance changes of Claim 1 and those in Claim 16 are unclear.
3) Claim 1 now already recites that the inductance changes in the coil are caused when the rack shaft moves axially relative to the coil, and as such, everything recited in the above phrase is already recited in Claim 1 but using different terminology. It is unclear what new scope features are being recited in this claim that are not already found in Claim 1. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant is expressly reciting that the inductance “changes,” but this is being interpreted as the inductance is intended to change, because any actual change would be a method step of using the coil, which is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
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. That stated, reciting that the inductance “changes” is indefinite because it reasonably recites the use of the of the coil, and where such a use is a method step of using the coil and rack. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
As to Claim 10,
This claim stands rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of its respective parent claim(s), and therefore stands rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
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 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1.
Claim 1 already recites that the inductance changes in the coil caused by the rack teeth when the rack shaft moves axially relative to the coil in the last four lines. Interpreting Claim 1 to continue the conditional use of the rack shaft because an actual use would be indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)), the scope of Claim 16 is such that no new limitation is reasonably being recited in addition to that recited in Claim 1, thus not further limiting Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 vehicle steering device comprising: a rack shaft having a rack teeth portion (Paragraph [0013]), a pinion gear that meshes with the rack teeth portion in an axial direction (Paragraph [0013] / note that the first gear meshing with the rack shaft is reasonably a pinion gear), 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 coil can be placed as claimed and is therefore configured/capable of being arranged as claimed, and 2) the moving element is a rack, and the coil must be surrounding the teeth of the rack instead of the threads of the screw as seen in the figure); an electric motor that drives the pinion gear (Paragraphs [0008],[0013] / note rotating component must be an electric motor driving the first gear/pinion gear, because the gear is being driven by rotation of a steering column and providing “true power-on” measurement capability, which therefore requires a powered motor (power steering) due to the “power-on” feature, as found in all automobile steering devices), a rotation angle sensor (another one of the coils part of the differential measurement, similar to coil (32)) that measures a rotation angle of the 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 changes in an inductance of the coil and a rotation angle measurement from the rotation angle sensor (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 the calculation unit is configured to determine the inductance changes in the coil caused by the rack teeth when the rack shaft moves axially relative to the coil (Paragraphs [0009],[0012],[0013],[0067]).
Schelling does not disclose wherein an axial length of the coil spans less than a pitch of the rack teeth.
However, Schelling does disclose that the resolution of the rotation angle can be predetermined based on many factors including a tooth pitch of the rack (paragraph [0072]), thereby demonstrating that this feature is a result effective variable, as the tooth pitch is being used to control the achievable and desired resolution (see paragraph [0024] for example).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schelling to optimize or change the size of the tooth pitch relative to an axial coil span to therefore include an axial length of the coil spans less than a pitch of the rack teeth given the above disclosure and teaching of Schelling because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)), and because it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), and in order to advantageously utilize a more compact coil that can fit into smaller spaces and thus allow it to be advantageously used with smaller steering angle sensor devices.
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 changes of the coil calculated by the calculation unit 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 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 this feature is a property of the system as the rack shaft will move as the motor rotates, including when it rotates for more than one revolution).
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 the prior art meets this claim when the above condition is not invoked, such as when the rotation angle is not represented by X, and is instead represented by Y or another variable).
As to Claim 12,
Schelling discloses wherein the electric motor is connected to the rotation angle sensor (Figure 1 / note this feature is a property of the system as the rotation angle sensor identified above must connected to part of the same overall device, whether indirectly or directly, to sense the rotation angle as claimed)
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 / note that 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 / note that 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]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schelling (CN 103256884A) as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Nishikubo (US 2009/0120226).
As to Claim 7,
Schelling does not disclose the rack shaft is made of carbon steel having low specific magnetic permeability.
Nishikubo discloses the rack shaft is made of carbon steel having low specific magnetic permeability (Paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schelling to include the rack shaft is made of carbon steel having low specific magnetic permeability as taught by Nishikubo in order to advantageously increase the hardness of the rack shaft as a countermeasure against wear (Paragraph [0015]).
Claims 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schelling (CN 103256884A) as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Nakaura et al. (Nakaura) (JP 2017-19443 A).
Note that the translation of Nakaura comes from the provided English machine translation.
As to Claims 9, 10, and 13,
Schelling does not disclose the electric motor comprises a worm reduction mechanism, 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, 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.
Nakaura discloses the electric motor comprises a worm reduction mechanism (63), 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, 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 (Paragraph [0007],[0045]-[0047] / note that the worm reduction mechanism must have a gear ratio that provides the above feature as it is a property of the system, and a position of the rack is capable of being determined, thus being disclosed by the prior art).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schelling to include the electric motor comprises a worm reduction mechanism, 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, 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 as taught by Nakaura in order to advantageously slow the relative rotation of the motor down and thereby allow a higher sensitivity of detection of the rotation by allowing smaller degrees of rotation to be detected.
Conclusion
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