DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1 – 8 and 13 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2011/0204588 A1) in view of Post (DE 102013209376 A1).
For claim 1, Yang discloses a connection rod unit 210 of a vehicle steering device, comprising:
a connection rod 220 and
an attachment 210b [which is secured directly to the connection rod] (page 3, paragraph [0040]) and [which has a tooth arrangement (page 3, paragraph [0036]), but does not explicitly disclose
wherein the attachment is produced from a plastics material.
Post discloses [a rack 42 comprising a rod made of carbon fiber reinforced plastic; a row of teeth 46 was formed on the rod by means of hot forming; the row of teeth or a toothed strip is formed with several teeth 48, which are covered with a strength layer 50] (page 14, paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the carbon fiber reinforced plastic with teeth and strength layer of Post with the attachment of Yang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a more lightweight rack, thus improving overall fuel efficiency of the vehicle.
For claim 2, Yang et al. modified as above discloses the connection rod unit wherein the connection rod has a receiving portion 235 [for the attachment in which the attachment is received] (page 3, paragraph [0040]).
For claim 3, Yang et al. modified as above discloses the connection rod unit [wherein the connection rod has in the receiving portion a retention geometry 235 for locking the attachment] (figs. 3 and 4, page 3, paragraph [0040]).
For claim 4, Yang et al. modified as above discloses the connection rod unit wherein the retention geometry has at least one opening 235 [which is provided in a base region of the receiving portion] (fig. 3) and into which an associated connection element 230 [which protrudes from the attachment protrudes] (figs. 3 and 4).
For claims 5 and 13, Yang et al. modified as above discloses the connection rod unit [wherein the receiving portion has locking profiles at mutually opposing side regions] (fig. 3).
For claims 6 and 14, Yang et al. modified as above discloses the connection rod unit [wherein the attachment has at opposing sides locking elements 230] (fig. 4, page 3, paragraph [0040]).
For claims 7 and 15, Yang et al. discloses the connection rod unit [wherein the locking elements are continuations which are integrally formed on the remainder of the attachment and which engage in the locking profiles] (fig. 3 and 4).
For claims 8 and 16, Yang et al. discloses the connection rod unit [wherein a tooth head face or tooth head line which is arranged on a tooth head of the tooth arrangement between a first tooth flank and a second tooth flank is orientated substantially parallel with a lower side of the attachment] (figs. 2 – 4).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2011/0204588 A1) in view of Post (DE 102013209376 A1), and further in view of Husain et al. (US 6,899,196 B2).
For claims 10 and 18, Yang et al. modified as above does not explicitly disclose the connection rod unit wherein a gear of a sensor which meshes with the tooth arrangement is provided to establish the connection rod movement.
Husain et al. discloses a steer-by-wire system 10 comprising [a rack 20 comprises teeth that engage a pinion gear 24 that is driven by an electric motor 26] (col. 3, lines 11 – 13); [a sensor 62 may comprise a pinion gear coupled to the rack so as to rotate in response to lateral movement of the rack] (col. 4, lines 14 – 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the steer-by-wire system of with sensor and pinion gears of Husain et al. with the connection rod and attachment of Yang et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a more simple and efficient vehicle structure via eliminating mechanical steering parts, thus reducing overall installation and maintenance costs.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2011/0204588 A1) in view of Post (DE 102013209376 A1), and further in view of Watanabe (JP 2012081944 A).
For claim 12, Yang et al. modified as above does not explicitly disclose the connection rod unit wherein the plastics material is one of polyamide or polyoxymethylene.
Watanabe discloses a rack shaft 23; and [a surface-treated member 23 is applied to an outer circumferential surface of each sliding contact portion of the rack shaft and slides between the rack guides 21; the surface-treated member is a member formed from a smooth elastic material (for example, a fluororesin material, a polyacetal resin material (for example, polyoxymethylene, a nylon resin material, a urethane resin material) or a metal material)] (page 16, paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the polyoxymethylene material of Watanabe with the attachment of Yang et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for high tensile strength, stiffness, and impact resistance, thus improving overall durability and reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 allowed.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose a tooth head of the tooth arrangement between a first tooth flank and a second tooth flank is orientated substantially perpendicularly to a lower side of the attachment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach “a separate plastic attachment that is secured to a connection rod; the rack in Post is an integral plastic component, not a separate attachment secured to a metal connection rod”. However, Yang et al. teaches a separate attachment 210b secured to a connection rod 220, but does not explicitly disclose any type of material used for the attachment or connection rod. Post has been incorporated to teach a rack provided with carbon fiber reinforced plastic. Therefore, in view of the modification above, the separate attachment 210b and the connection rod 220 of Yang et al. would be made of the carbon fiber reinforced plastic and a strength layer 50 attached to at least the separate attachment. Additionally, the claims as presented does not require the separate attachment to be secured to a metal connection rod.
Applicant argues the proposed combination improperly relies on hindsight reconstruction and Post teaches away from such a combination. Applicant states one would not be motivated to selectively apply plastic material only to Yang’s separate attachment while maintaining the two-piece structure of Yang. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights