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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
For Claim 5, structure such as male/female threaded fasteners (and their orientation) that may allow the two sliding elements to be “screwed on” the push rod is omitted.
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 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2013 216 880 B4 to Schlegel.
Regarding Claim 1, Schlegel teaches a linear actuator comprising:
a housing (1, Figs. 1-2, [0025-0027]),
a push rod (“spindle nut” 10) guided in the housing (Figs. 1-3, [0025]), and
an anti-rotation mechanism (assembly including “sliding strips” 14, Fig. 2, [0028-0030]) which is effective between the housing (1) and the push rod (10, through “contact tracks” 12 embedded into 10, disposition depicted in Figs. 1-2, [0028]), the anti-rotation mechanism (above described assembly) comprising two sliding elements (symmetric duplicate instances of 14, Figs. 2-3) arranged on opposite circumferential sides of the push rod (arrangement depicted in Figs. 2-3), each of the two sliding elements (14) contacting an inner wall of the housing (“contact tracks” 12, Fig. 2, [0028]) and
the two sliding elements (14) are arranged on flattened abutment faces of the push rod (“grooves” 18, flatness depicted in Fig. 2, [0029-0030]) and are immovably connected to the push rod in a circumferential direction and in an axial direction (via “screw bolt” 24, Fig. 2, [0029]), wherein a distance between the abutment faces is smaller than the diameter of the push rod (reduction in diameter formed via “side walls” 34 which radially extend into the 10).
Regarding Claim 2, Schlegel further teaches wherein the inner wall (12) of the housing (1) is arranged axially parallel to the flattened abutment faces (axial extension of 18 depicted in Fig. 3, parallel axial extension of 12 depicted in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Schlegel further teaches wherein each of the two sliding elements (14) is mounted on a pin (“screw bolt” 24, Fig. 2, [0029]) protruding from each of a corresponding one of the flattened abutment faces (24 protrudes radially inwards orthogonal to 18 as depicted in Fig. 2, [0029]).
Regarding Claim 4, Schlegel further teaches wherein the two sliding elements (14) each have a rectangular shape (overall rectangular profile of 14 depicted in Fig. 3) and an extension of each of the two sliding elements in a longitudinal direction of the push rod (extension of 14 parallel to “longitudinal axis” 8, Fig. 3) is greater than an extension of each of the two sliding elements in a tangential direction of the push rod (extension of 14 perpendicular to 8, relative dimensions depicted in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Schlegel further teaches wherein the two sliding elements (14) are screwed on the push rod (via “screw bolt” 24, Figs. 2-3, [0029]).
Regarding Claim 11, Schlegel further teaches wherein the pin (24) is an integral part of the push rod (i.e., the pin serves an integral function in disallowing the movement of the sliding elements, Fig. 2, [0029]).
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 6-7, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlegel in view of US Pub. 2020/0079419 A1 to Shiino et al., hereinafter Shiino.
Regarding Claim 6, Schlegel teaches the steering actuator according to Claim 1 including two sliding elements (Schlegel – “sliding strips” 14), but does not teach that the sliding elements are mounted resiliently on the push rod.
In the same field of endeavor of steering actuators, Shiino teaches a push rod (Shino – “steering shaft” 17, Figs. 1-2) disposed within a housing (“housing space” 11a, Figs. 1-2, [0013-0016]) and having two sliding elements (“first and second bush parts” 24a and 24b, Fig. 2, [0029]) mounted resiliently on the push rod (via “O-rings” 43a and 43b, Fig. 2, [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the linear actuator and sliding elements of Schlegel with the resilient mounting O-rings of Shiino, yielding predictable results. A skilled artisan would recognize the beneficial contact sealing and vibration damping characteristics of a resilient member (such as an O-ring) between two sliding elements to improve the accuracy of displacement sensors or other sensitive electronic equipment (Shiino – [0065]).
Shiino further teaches wherein the two sliding elements (24a and 24b, analogous to Schlegel – 14) are mounted resiliently on the push rod (17, analogous to Schlegel – 10) via an O-ring (43a and 43b, Fig. 2, [0031]) inserted between each of the two sliding elements (insertion depicted between 24a and 24b and 11a, Fig. 2).
Shiino further teaches wherein the steering actuator is configured as an actuator of a rear-axle steering system ([0002-0003]).
Shiino further teaches wherein the O-ring (43a or 43b) is configured to provide radial movement of the two sliding elements relative to the push rod ([0064] – “…compressed state…”, implying radial movement of sliding elements during compression).
Regarding Claim 7, Schlegel as modified by Shiino above already teaches wherein the two sliding elements (“first and second bush parts” 24a and 24b, analogous to Schlegel – 14) are mounted resiliently on the push rod (17, analogous to Schlegel – 10) via an O-ring (43a and 43b, Fig. 2, [0031]) inserted between each of the two sliding elements (insertion depicted between 24a and 24b and 11a, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Schlegel as modified by Shiino above already teaches wherein the steering actuator is configured as an actuator of a rear-axle steering system (Shiino – [0002-0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, Schlegel as modified by Shiino above already teaches wherein the O-ring (Shiino – 43a or 43b) is configured to provide radial movement of the two sliding elements relative to the push rod ([0064] – “…compressed state…”, implying radial movement of sliding elements during compression).
Regarding Claim 13, Schlegel teaches a steering actuator, comprising:
a housing (1, Figs. 1-2, [0025-0027]),
a push rod (10) configured to be linearly displaced within the housing ([0025] – “…linear movement device…”) via an electric motor and a screw drive ([0025]), the push rod (4) having:
a first sliding element (first of 14, i.e., the top instance of 14 in Fig. 2) immovably connected (via top “screw bolt” 24, Fig. 2) to the push rod (10) in a circumferential direction (via contact with top instance of 18 in circumferential direction depicted in Fig. 2) and an axial direction (axial extension of top instance of 18 depicted in Fig. 3) of the push rod, and
a second sliding element (second, bottom instance of 14 in Fig. 2) immovably connected (via bottom “screw bolt” 24, Fig. 2) to the push rod in the circumferential direction (via contact with bottom instance of 18 in circumferential direction depicted in Fig. 2) and the axial direction (axial extension of bottom instance of 18 is symmetric to top instance, Fig. 3) of the push rod, and
the first sliding element and the second sliding element (both instances of 14) slidably engaging an inner wall of the housing (via “contact track” 12, Fig. 2) so as to prevent rotation of the push rod ([0028]).
Schlegel does not teach that each of the first sliding element and the second sliding element are resiliently mounted to the push rod.
In the same field of endeavor of steering mechanisms, Shiino teaches wherein the first sliding element and second sliding element (24a and 24b, analogous to both instances of Schlegel – 14) are mounted resiliently on the push rod (via “O-rings” 43a and 43b, Fig. 2, [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the linear actuator and sliding elements of Schlegel with the resilient mounting O-rings of Shiino, yielding predictable results. A skilled artisan would recognize the beneficial contact sealing and vibration damping characteristics of a resilient member (such as an O-ring) between two sliding elements to improve the accuracy of displacement sensors or other sensitive electronic equipment (Shiino – [0065]).
Shiino further teaches wherein the first sliding element (Shiino – 24a, analogous to first of Schlegel – 14) and the second sliding element (Shiino – 24b, analogous to second of Schlegel – 14) are resiliently mounted to the push rod (Shiino – via 43a and 43b, Fig. 2, [0031]) so that the first sliding element and the second sliding element have mobility in a radial direction of the push rod ([0064] – “…compressed state…”, implying radial movement of sliding elements during compression).
Regarding Claim 14, Schlegel as modified by Shiino above already teaches wherein the first sliding element (Shiino – 24a, analogous to first of Schlegel – 14) and the second sliding element (Shiino – 24b, analogous to second of Schlegel – 14) are resiliently mounted to the push rod (Shiino – via 43a and 43b, Fig. 2, [0031]) so that the first sliding element and the second sliding element have mobility in a radial direction of the push rod ([0064] – “…compressed state…”, implying radial movement of sliding elements during compression).
Regarding Claim 16, Schlegel as modified by Shiino further teaches wherein:
the first sliding element (Schlegel – first of 14) is mounted on a first radially outwardly protruding pin (corresponding first of 24, Fig. 2, [0029]) of the push rod (through 10, Fig. 2), and
the second sliding element (second of 14) is mounted on a second radially outwardly protruding pin (corresponding second of 24, Fig. 2, [0029]) of the push rod (through 10, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Schlegel teaches a steering actuator, comprising:
a housing (1, Figs. 1-2, [0025-0027]),
a push rod (10) configured to be linearly displaced within the housing ([0025] – “…linear movement device…”) via an electric motor and a screw drive ([0025]), the push rod (4) having:
a first sliding element (first of 14, i.e., the top instance of 14 in Fig. 2) immovably connected (via top “screw bolt” 24, Fig. 2) to the push rod (10) in a circumferential direction (via contact with top instance of 18 in circumferential direction depicted in Fig. 2) and an axial direction (axial extension of top instance of 18 depicted in Fig. 3) of the push rod, and
a second sliding element (second, bottom instance of 14 in Fig. 2) immovably connected (via bottom “screw bolt” 24, Fig. 2) to the push rod in the circumferential direction (via contact with bottom instance of 18 in circumferential direction depicted in Fig. 2) and the axial direction (axial extension of bottom instance of 18 is symmetric to top instance, Fig. 3) of the push rod, and
the first sliding element and the second sliding element (both instances of 14) slidably engaging an inner wall of the housing (via “contact track” 12, Fig. 2) so as to prevent rotation of the push rod ([0028]).
Schlegel does not teach that the first sliding element and the second sliding element are mounted on the push rod so as to be radially movable relative to the push rod.
In the same field of endeavor of steering mechanisms, Shiino teaches wherein the first sliding element and second sliding element (24a and 24b, analogous to both instances of Schlegel – 14) are mounted on the push rod (Shiino – via 43a and 43b, Fig. 2, [0031]) so as to be radially movable relative to the push rod ([0064] – “…compressed state…”, implying radial movement of sliding elements during compression).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the linear actuator and sliding elements of Schlegel with the resilient mounting O-rings (providing radial movement) of Shiino, yielding predictable results. A skilled artisan would recognize the beneficial contact sealing and vibration damping characteristics of a resilient member having the capacity for radial motion (such as a compressible O-ring) between two sliding elements to improve the accuracy of displacement sensors or other sensitive electronic equipment (Shiino – [0065]).
Regarding Claim 18, Schlegel as modified by Shiino further teaches wherein the first sliding element and the second sliding element (Schlegel – both instances of 14) are mounted to a respective first flat surface and a second flat surface of the push rod (respective instances of “grooves” 18, flatness depicted in Fig. 2, [0029-0030]).
Regarding Claim 19, Schlegel as modified by Shiino further teaches wherein the first flat surface and the second flat surface of the push rod (Schlegel – both instances of 18, flatness depicted in Figs. 2-3) are parallel with the inner wall of the housing (12, parallel disposition depicted in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 20, Schlegel as modified by Shiino further teaches the steering actuator further comprising:
a first pin (Schlegel – first of 24) extending radially outwardly from the first flat surface (first of 18, radial extension depicted in Fig. 2), the first sliding element (first of 14) mounted on the first pin (mounting depicted in Fig. 2, [0029]), and
a second pin (second of 24) extending radially outwardly from the second flat surface (second of 18, radial extension depicted in Fig. 2), the second sliding element (second of 14) mounted on the second pin (mounting depicted in Fig. 2, [0029]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlegel in view of Shiino as applied to Claims 6-7, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 above, and further in view of US Pub. 2008/0314190 A1 to Miyawaki et al., hereinafter Miyawaki.
Regarding Claim 8, Schlegel as modified by Shiino above teaches two sliding elements (Shiino – 24a and 24b, analogous to Schlegel – 14) but does not teach that the two sliding elements are constructed from a material selected from a group of materials consisting of polymer sliding materials and sliding compact materials.
In the same field of endeavor of vehicle steering mechanisms, Miyawaki teaches a telescoping shaft for a steering actuator having sliding elements (Miyawaki – “resin rods” 41, 42, and 43, Figs. 2-5, [0047-0051]) wherein the sliding elements are constructed from a material selected from a group of materials consisting of polymer sliding materials and sliding composite materials ([0079] – “…the resin rods… can be formed from a synthetic resin…” which is also compressible, and interpreted to be made of polymer materials, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the steering actuator of Schlegel/Shiino with the synthetic resin polymer sliding elements of Miyawaki, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize the beneficial reduced frictional resistance and elastic deformation capabilities of polymeric materials inserted between two male/female telescoping torque transmitting shafts, as compared to metal-metal sliding contact, reducing undesirable binding and providing smooth operation (Miyawaki – [0010-0011, 0014]).
Miyawaki additionally teaches wherein the inner wall (“inner periphery” 28, Fig. 2, [0042-0044) of the housing (“outer shaft” 11, Fig. 2, [0035-0036]) which contacts the sliding elements (41, 42, and 43, contact depicted in Fig. 4) is constructed from a light metal material ([0041]).
Regarding Claim 9, Schlegel in view of Shiino and in further view of Miyawaki above already teaches wherein the inner wall (“inner periphery” 28, Fig. 2, [0042-0044) of the housing (“outer shaft” 11, Fig. 2, [0035-0036]) which contacts the sliding elements (41, 42, and 43, contact depicted in Fig. 4) is constructed from a light metal material ([0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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 of record, specifically Shiino, does not teach that either of the O-rings are arranged between either of the sliding elements and the push rod.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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.
/Mitchell James Price/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights