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 .
Drawings
Figures 3A and 3B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (as understood by their description in Para. [0012] as “illustrat[ing] a traditional probe housing”). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “of” is missing from the phrase “wherein a circumference of an inner portion of the bevel snap ring”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “position” is misspelled as “positon” in the phrase “at least one position sensor”
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, 7-12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SWOBODA (DE-202023105665-U1).
Regarding claim 1, SWOBODA teaches an apparatus (Steering System 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a probe housing assembly (Steering Angle Sensor System 9, Fig. 2) of a roadwheel actuator (Steering System 1);
a first spur gear (Sensor Pinion 13, Fig. 2) disposed on a first portion (the lower end of Steering Angle Sensor System 9, Fig. 2) of the probe housing assembly;
a pinion shaft arm (Para. [0027] teaches that Transfer Pinion 12 and Scanning Pinion 11 are coaxially fixed in a rotationally fixed manner, such that, together with Fig. 2, they are understood to be joined by a shaft); and
a second spur gear (Transfer Pinion 12, Fig. 2) disposed on a first portion (the near portion of the implied shaft, Fig. 2) of the pinion shaft arm, the second spur gear (12) being configured to mesh with the first spur gear (13) and to rotate with the pinion shaft arm (being rotationally fixed as taught is Para. [0027]) causing the first spur gear (13) to rotate (Sensor Pinion 13 being meshed with Transfer Pinion 12, Para. [0027] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, SWOBODA teaches a system (Steering System 1, Fig. 1) comprising substantially similar features to the apparatus (1) of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above) and further teaches:
at least one sensor (Steering Angle Sensor 14, Fig. 2) configured to provide measurement data associated with at least one aspect of [the] first spur gear (Steering Angle Sensor 14 being understood to sense an angular position of Sensor Pinion 13, Fig. 2 and Para. [0029]),
a controller (a controller being implicitly taught by numerous instances of the terms “measurement”/ “measured” and “signal”: Paras. [0010], [0015], [0030], [0031], which are functions understood to be carried out by some form of controller, particularly in the construction of a “steer-by-wire” system- Para. [0017]) configured to:
receive the measurement data from the at last one sensor (Para. [0031] teaches measurement signals from Steering Angle Sensor 14); and
determine an angle of the pinion shaft arm based on the measurement data (Para. [0031] teaches determining a steering angle based on sensor measurements, which is understood to involve determining the angle of Transfer Pinion 12, which comprises a pinion shaft arm as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 7, SWOBODA further teaches that the probe housing assembly (9) is configured to house at least one sensor (Steering Angle Sensor 14, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), SWOBODA further teaches that the at least one sensor (14) includes at least one {position} sensor (Steering Angle Sensor 14 being understood to sense an angular position; see also the corresponding claim objection above).
Regarding Claim 9, SWOBODA further teaches that a controller associated with the roadwheel actuator receives at least one measurement from the at least one sensor (see the 102 rejection of claim 12 above, which discusses the teachings of a controller and receiving measurements from Steering Angle Sensor 14).
Regarding Claim 10, SWOBODA further teaches that the controller is configured to determine an angle of the pinion shaft arm based on the at least one measurement (see the 102 rejection of claim 12 above, which discusses the teachings of determining an angle of a pinion shaft from the measurement made by Steering Angle Sensor 14).
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), SWOBODA further teaches that the roadwheel actuator (1) is associated with a steer-by-wire steering system (as taught in Para. [0017]).
Regarding claim 20, SWOBODA teaches a method comprising:
receiving measurement data from at last one sensor (see the 102 rejection of claim 12 above, which discusses the teachings of receiving measurements from Steering Angle Sensor 14) disposed in a probe housing assembly (Steering Angle Sensor System 9, Fig. 2) that includes a first spur gear (Sensor Pinion 13, Fig. 2) configured to mesh with a second spur gear (Transfer Pinion 12, Fig. 2) disposed on a pinion shaft arm that is configured to rotate with the pinion shaft arm causing the first spur gear to rotate, wherein the measurement data is associated with at least one aspect of a first spur gear (Steering Angle Sensor 14 being understood to sense an angular position of Sensor Pinion 13, Fig. 2 and Para. [0029]); and
determining an angle of the pinion shaft arm based on the measurement data (see the 102 rejection of claim 12 above, which discusses the teachings of determining an angle of a pinion shaft from the measurement made by Steering Angle Sensor 14).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWOBODA.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 13-14, (having different dependencies but similar limitations, differing as discussed below), SWOBODA does not teach that the {first spur gear includes 10 teeth [claims 2 and 13]/ second gear includes 11 teeth [claims 3 and 14]}.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the number of gear teeth is directly correlated to a strength of the tooth, the gear ratio between meshed gears, and/ or the smoothness of operating of the gears, which are desirable characteristics of the apparatus (as a “result effective variable”, per MPEP 2143 and 2144.05-II-B). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to modify SWOBODA’s apparatus such that the {first spur gear includes 10 teeth [claims 2 and 13]/ second gear includes 11 teeth [claims 3 and 14]} since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 4-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWOBODA in view of Froese (“What are the technical factors…”).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), SWOBODA does not teach a bevel snap ring.
Froese teaches, in a related article about retaining ring applications (Title), the use of bevel snap rings for securing parts and that they advantageously provide compensate for accumulated tolerances or wear (Section: “Bowed and beveled retaining rings” and image caption therein).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SWOBODA and Froese in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SWOBODA’s apparatus to include a bevel snap ring as suggested by Froese. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of compensating for accumulated tolerances or wear, as taught by Froese and discussed above, that would beneficially make a longer lasting and higher quality apparatus.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), SWOBODA, as modified by Froese, does not teach that the bevel snap ring is larger than the second spur gear.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bevel snap ring of SWOBODA’s apparatus, as modified, larger than the second spur gear, since it has been held that changes in size and/ or proportion of an invention involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), SWOBODA, as modified by Froese, does not teach that the bevel snap ring is removable from the pinion shaft arm with the second spur gear disposed on the first portion of the pinion shaft arm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SWOBODA and Froese in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SWOBODA’s apparatus, as modified, such that the bevel snap ring is removable from the pinion shaft arm with the second spur gear disposed on the first portion of the pinion shaft arm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would, when adding a bevel snap ring to SWOBODA’s apparatus, arrange the ring such that it was removable while the second spur gear was on the pinion shaft arm for the purpose of, for example, using said ring to retain the second spur gear on the pinion shaft arm. This would require that the ring was removable from the shaft while the gear was on the shaft. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of retaining the second spur gear with a bevel snap ring to gain the advantage of compensating for accumulated tolerances or wear, as taught by Froese and discussed in the 103 rejections of claims 4 and 15 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights