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 .
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 21, 22, 24-26, & 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peterson (US 5086861 A).
Regarding claim 1 Peterson teaches a system for adjusting toe of a vehicle wheel (abstract), the system comprising: an outer tie rod configured to couple to a wheel assembly (FIG. 2: 20); an inner tie rod (FIG. 2: 24); an electromechanical actuator arranged in-line with the outer tie rod and the inner tie rod, and configured to adjust the toe of the vehicle wheel (abstract, “An apparatus for moving an object along a linear path, such as a tie rod end in a vehicle steering system”, steering is achieved by altering toe) by altering a distance between the outer tie rod and the inner tie rod (FIG. 2: depicted to enable this action; “An apparatus for moving an object along a linear path, such as a tie rod end in a vehicle steering system”), and comprising: an electric motor (FIG. 2: 34), a ball screw (FIG. 2: 59), a shaft coupler (FIG. 2: 50), a ball nut (FIG. 2: 53), and a bearing pack supporting the ball screw (FIG. 2: 62), wherein the outer tie rod connects to the ball nut (FIG. 2: depicted), and wherein the ball nut is configured to be driven back and forth along the ball screw with low friction (FIG. 2: depicted in this configuration), thereby translating the outer tie rod (FIG. 2: result of depicted structure), further wherein the ball screw is coupled to the electric motor by the shaft coupler; and one or more stay rods rigidly connected to the electromechanical actuator to prevent rotation of the electromechanical actuator relative to the outer tie rod during operation (FIG. 2: stay rods 43).
Regarding claim 25 Peterson teaches a system for adjusting toe of a vehicle wheel (abstract), the system comprising: an outer tie rod configured to couple to a wheel assembly (FIG. 2: 20); an inner tie rod (FIG. 2: 24); an electromechanical actuator arranged in-line with the outer tie rod and the inner tie rod, and configured to adjust the toe of the vehicle wheel (abstract, “An apparatus for moving an object along a linear path, such as a tie rod end in a vehicle steering system”, steering is achieved by altering toe) by altering a distance between the outer tie rod and the inner tie rod (FIG. 2: depicted to enable this action; “An apparatus for moving an object along a linear path, such as a tie rod end in a vehicle steering system”), and comprising: an electric motor (FIG. 2: 34), a ball screw (FIG. 2: 59), wherein the ball screw is configured to be driven to rotate about a central axis (FIG. 2: depicted), a shaft coupler (FIG. 2: 50), coupling the ball screw to the electric motor (FIG. 2: depicted), a ball nut connected to the outer tie rod and configured to be driven back and forth along the ball screw with low friction to translate the outer tie rod (FIG. 2: 53), and a bearing pack supporting the ball screw (FIG. 2: 62); and one or more stay rods rigidly connected to the electromechanical actuator to prevent rotation of the electromechanical actuator relative to the outer tie rod during operation (FIG. 2: 43).
Regarding claims 2 & 26 Peterson teaches an electronic controller configured to control actuation of the electromechanical actuator (FIG. 2: 13).
Regarding claims 5 & 28 Peterson teaches that the electric motor is coupled in-line with the outer tie rod and the inner tie rod (FIG. 2: depicted).
Regarding claims 7 & 29 Peterson teaches an encoder configured to monitor the position of the electromechanical actuator (FIG. 2: 15)
Regarding claims 21 & 30 Peterson teaches that the bearing pack is configured to support radial and thrust loads (FIG. 2: 62 depicted protecting both 63 from thrust loads and 57 from radial loads).
Regarding claim 22 Peterson teaches that the ball screw is configured to be driven to rotate about its central axis by the electric motor (FIG. 2: depicted in this configuration).
Regarding claims 24 & 31 Peterson teaches that the one or more stay rods couple the electric motor to the outer rod (FIG. 2: depicted).
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.
Claim(s) 23 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 5086861 A) in view of Ramirez (US 9216625 B2).
Regarding claims 23 & 27 Peterson does not explicitly teach that the electronic controller is configured to adjust toe when the electronic controller also adjusts camber or caster by controlling a camber or caster adjusting unit. However, Ramirez does teach adjusting a camber angle along with a toe angle (column 3, lines 11-31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the camber adjustment of Ramirez with the suspension system of Peterson in order to optimize the forces acting on the wheel (Ramirez, column 2, lines 13-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument that Peterson is not “configured to adjust the toe of the vehicle wheel by altering a distance between the outer tie rod and the inner tie rod” is not persuasive because it is configured to adjust the toe of the vehicle (in the same way that it is able to adjust the steering) by altering a distance between the outer and inner tie rods (this is what the actuator and ball screw assembly does by extending the length of the ball screw which is positioned between the two tie rods).
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 extension fee 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 MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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, Paul N Dickson can be reached on (571)272-7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614