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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-13 and 21 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the biasing means" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the biasing means" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the" in lines 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 18, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220258791 A1 ("Yoo").
Claim 1: Yoo teaches a steering column assembly for a vehicle, comprising: an elongate steering column (223) mounted for rotation about its longitudinal axis and configured for attachment of a steering wheel at one end (para. 26, lines 1-4; Figs. 2 and 4); a gear (233) connected to the steering column at a location spaced from the steering wheel attachment location and configured to rotate with the steering column (Figs 4. and 6); a motor (140) comprising a rotatable output shaft (140a) (Fig. 6); a first worm screw (231) directly connected to and rotatable with the output shaft of the motor and engaged with the gear (231 is connected to 421 with 411; Fig. 6); a damper (612) comprising a rotatable shaft (431) (para. 56, lines 1-3; Fig. 6); a second worm (232) screw directly connected to and rotatable with the shaft of the damper and engaged with the gear (Fig. 6); and control (controller) means configured to operate the motor (para. 34, lines 1-9 - Yoo).
Claim 18: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo further teaches a steering column assembly, comprising motor position sensor means (para. 34, lines 1-5) for sensing the rotational position of the motor output shaft, the sensor means comprising a target member (242) rotatable with the motor shaft (223; para. 37, lines 1-3) and a sensor (224) for detecting the target member (Fig. 2 - Yoo).
Claim 22: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the second worm screw (232) forms part of the rotatable damper shaft (431) (Fig. 6 - Yoo).
Claim 23: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the first and second worm screws (231 and 232) are engaged at diametrically opposed locations with the gear (233) connected to the steering column (223) (Figs. 4 and 6 - Yoo).
Claim 24: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo further teaches a steering column assembly, comprising a housing (110) within which the first and second worm screws (231 and 232) and the gear (233) connecting to the steering column (223) are located (Figs. 4 and 6 - Yoo).
Claim 25: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo further teaches A vehicle comprising a steering column assembly as claimed in claim 1 (Abstract; it is for a steering apparatus for an automobile - Yoo).
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.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258791 A1 ("Yoo") in view of US 3861503 A ("Nash").
Claim 2: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo does not teach a steering column assembly, wherein the damper comprises a fluid chamber configured to receive a damping fluid and a body located within the fluid chamber, the body being configured to move with the rotatable shaft of the damper.
However, Nash teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the damper comprises a fluid chamber (6 chamber) configured to receive a damping fluid (silicone fluid) and a body (8 rotor) located within the fluid chamber (Fig. 1), the body being configured to move with the rotatable shaft of the damper (col. 2, lines 1-4 - Nash). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention Yoo with the features of Nash in order let slippage in the drive occur between the rotor and body (col. 3, lines 37-39).
Claim 3: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Nash further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the body (8) located within the fluid chamber comprises a plurality of projections and/or recesses (14a; Fig. 1) (col. 2, lines 18-21 - Nash).
Claim 4: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Nash further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the body (8) located within the fluid chamber is spaced from the wall of the fluid chamber (2a) (Fig. 1 - Nash).
Claim 5: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Nash further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the body (8) located within the fluid chamber comprises a portion of increased width (central portion of rotor 8; Fig. 1 - Nash).
Claim 6: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Nash further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the body (8) located within the fluid chamber forms part of the rotatable shaft (10) of the damper (col. 2, lines 8-11; Fig. 1- Nash).
Claim 7: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Nash further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the body (8) located within the fluid chamber is attached to the rotatable shaft (10) of the damper (col. 2, lines 8-11; Fig. 1 - Nash).
Claim 8: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo does not teach a steering column assembly, wherein the rotatable shaft of the damper is displaceable longitudinally in the direction of its rotational axis.
However, Nash teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the rotatable shaft (10) of the damper is displaceable longitudinally in the direction of its rotational axis (col. 3, lines 1-5 - Nash). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Yoo with the features of Nash in order let slippage in the drive occur between the rotor and body (col. 3, lines 37-39).
Claim 9: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Nash further teaches a steering column assembly, comprising bearing means (12 roller bearings) configured to allow pivoting or articulation of the rotatable damper shaft (Fig. 1 - Nash).
Claim 10: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Nash further teaches a steering column assembly, comprising bearing means (12 roller bearings) configured to allow pivoting or articulation of the rotatable damper shaft (Fig. 1 - Nash).
Claims 11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258791 A1 ("Yoo") in view of JP 2001163228 A ("Shimizu").
Claim 11: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo does not teach a steering column assembly, comprising biasing means configured to urge the second worm screw towards contact with the gear connected to the steering column.
However, Shimizu teaches a steering column assembly, comprising biasing means (leaf spring 116) configured to urge the second worm screw towards contact with the gear connected to the steering column (Fig. 5) ("the transmission shaft 111 is moved by the elastic force of the leaf spring 116." page 7 of PE2E MTL - Shimizu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention Yoo with the features of Shimizu in order to reduce axial play and backlash while maintaining appropriate friction (page. 7).
Claim 14: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Shimizu further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the biasing means (116) comprises a spring (leaf spring - Shimizu).
Claim 15: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Shimizu further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the spring comprises a leaf spring (leaf spring - Shimizu).
Claim 16: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo does not teach a steering column assembly, comprising a spring acting on the rotatable output shaft of the motor configured to apply a torque to the motor shaft.
However, Shimizu teaches a steering column assembly, comprising a spring (compression spring 62) acting on the rotatable output shaft (35) of the motor (motor 82) configured to apply a torque to the motor shaft (via the connection of 33 onto 34; Fig. 4) ("A guide portion is applied to the rack shaft 35 from the opposite side, and the guide portion is simply pushed by an adjustment bolt via a compression spring. " page. 6 - Shimizu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention Yoo with the features of Shimizuin order to allow the meshing accuracy to be kept high (page. 6).
Claim 17: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Shimizu further teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the spring acting on the rotatable output shaft (35) of the motor comprises a spiral spring (compression spring - Shimizu).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258791 A1 ("Yoo") in view of US 3861503 A ("Nash") and further in view of JP 2001163228 A ("Shimizu").
Claim 12: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Nash further teaches a steering column assembly, comprising bearing means (12) for rotatably mounting the rotatable shaft of the damper (Fig. 1 - Nash). But does not teach, with which the biasing means is engaged.
However, Shimizu teaches biasing means (116) engaged with a rotatable shaft with bearings (114 and 115) (Fig. 5 - Shimizu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention Yoo with the features of Shimizu in order to reduce axial play and backlash while maintaining appropriate friction (page. 7).
Claim 13: The prior teaches the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Yoo does not teach a steering column assembly, wherein the biasing means is engaged with an outer race of the bearing means.
However, Shimizu teaches a steering column assembly, wherein the biasing means (116) is engaged with an outer race of the bearing means (115) (Fig. 5 - Shimizu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention Yoo with the features of Shimizu in order to reduce axial play and backlash while maintaining appropriate friction (page. 7).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258791 A1 ("Yoo") in view of In Re Japikse.
Claim 19: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Yoo further teaches a steering column assembly, comprising position sensor means (para. 34, lines 1-5) for sensing the rotational position of the motor output shaft, the sensor means comprising a target member (242) rotatable with the motor shaft (223; para. 37, lines 1-3) and a sensor (224) for detecting the target member (Fig. 2 - Yoo).
The claim differs only in that the placement of the sensor is on the motor shaft (223) and not the damper shaft (431). This is a rearrangement of parts, where the sensor means would be placed on the damper shaft instead of the motor shaft. Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) With the rearrangement of the sensor means, the device of Yoo would still work for its intended purpose.
Claim 20: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 19 as noted above. Yoo further teaches a steering column assembly, comprising a member (bearings) configured to rotate with the rotatable damper shaft (431) and with respect to which the damper shaft is displaceable along its rotational axis (Fig. 6 - Yoo). But does not teach the target member is mounted on the damper shaft, but with the rearrangement of parts in claim 19, the target member (242) would be mounted on the damper shaft (431) rather than the motor shaft (223)
Claim 21: Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 20 as noted above. Yoo further teaches a steering column assembly, comprising a cup-shaped member (cupped part of housing 120 holding 224) mounted at one end of a shaft (223) and on which the motor position sensor (224) means is mounted (Fig. 6 - Yoo). But does not teach that the shaft would be the rotatable damper shaft, but with the rearrangement of parts in claim 19, the cup part would be the part of the housing (110) of the damper (612) connected to the damper shaft (432).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/Jake Cook/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights