DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 5/5/2026, is as follows:
- Claims 1-8, 11-20 are pending.
- Claims 1, 11, 15 have been amended.
- Claims 9-10 have been canceled.
- Claims 21-22 are newly presented
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 with regards to claims 1 amended to incorporate allowable subject matter identified in the previous Office Action has been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim 20 was rejected in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/6/2026. The claim has not been amended in the response and the response doesn’t include an explanation or argument pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The rejection presented in the Non-Final Action is considered proper and is maintained.
This Office Action is made Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent US 11,174,917 by Larson et al., (Larson hereafter).
Regarding claim 20, Larson teaches in Figure 4, a method for assembling the position sensor, the position sensor comprising:
an angle sensor (430 – rotary position sensing device, see col. 16, lines 34-35);
a sensor shaft (extending from 430 and going through 428, 427 and 426 – see annotated Figure 4 below), wherein the sensor shaft is configured to rotate relative to the angle sensor, wherein the angle sensor is configured to sense rotation of the sensor shaft (see col. 16, lines 34-35);
a sensor wheel (427+426, see Figure 4) comprising:
a first wheel-half (426), wherein the first wheel-half comprises a first body and first teeth (along the circumference of 426), wherein the first teeth radially extend from the first body, wherein the first wheel-half is affixed to the sensor shaft (the first wheel- half is affixed to the shaft through a pin), wherein the sensor shaft is configured to rotate with the first wheel (as the sensor shaft rotates, the first wheel-half 426 rotates); and
a second wheel-half (427), wherein the second wheel-half comprises a second body and second teeth (along the circumference of 427), wherein the second teeth radially extend from the second body, wherein the second wheel-half is indirectly supported by the sensor shaft (the sensor shaft supports 427 along axis 444, as illustrated for example, in Figure 2A), wherein the second wheel-half is configured to rotate relative to the sensor shaft and the first wheel-half (the second wheel-half is not affixed to the shaft as the first wheel is and thus, able to rotate with respect to the shaft and the first wheel-half), wherein the second wheel-half is torsionally preloaded to the first wheel-half (through the action of spring 429 – see col. 16, lines 27-29).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
1152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Larson substantially teaches all of the elements recited except for explicitly mentioning the presence of a first bearing affixed to the sensor shaft. However, the use of bearings affixed to rotating shafts is well known in the art. For example, Larson shows in Figure 3B, the use of a bearings (321) that allow for a shaft (320) to rotate with respect to a carrier housing (311).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of bearings as taught by Larson in Figure 3B, to include a bearing affixed to the sensor shaft, in order to allow for a smooth rotation of the shaft with respect to internal portions of the sensor 430.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 11-19 and 21-22 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a position sensor comprising a leg spring, wherein the leg spring comprising a first leg, a second leg, and a coil, wherein the coil connects the first leg and the second leg; wherein the first wheel-half defines a first coil-well, a first leg-catch, and a first travel-well, wherein the first leg-catch and the first travel-well are disposed radially outwards of the first coil-well; wherein the second wheel-half defines a second coil-well, a second leg-catch, and a second travel-well, wherein the second leg-catch and the second travel-well are disposed radially outwards of the second coil-well; wherein the first leg is abutted to the first leg-catch and disposed in the second travel-well, wherein the second leg is abutted to the second leg-catch and disposed in the first travel-well, wherein the coil is disposed in the first coil-well and the second coil-well, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 2-8 and 11-16, the claim is objected as it further limits objected claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a road wheel actuator comprising a position sensor and a ball screw drive comprising a ball screw spindle comprising external spindle-threads; and a ball screw nut comprising internal nut-threads, a nut-bearing, external nut-threads, and a drive section, wherein the ball screw nut is axially constrained to the housing by the nut-bearing, wherein the internal nut-threads couple to the external spindle-threads, wherein rotation of the ball screw nut causes translation of the ball screw spindle relative to the ball screw nut and the housing, wherein the external nut-threads engage the first teeth and the second teeth, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 18-19 and 21-22, the claims are allowed as they further limit allowed claim 17.
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 Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights