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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) forms PTO-1149 filed 09/04/2024 & 08/08/2025. These IDS have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. Examiner recommends deleting “and” and reciting --a belt drive according to claim 1 or an axis-parallel drive according to claim 11--. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 3, 6-10 and 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, the use of the phrase “in particular” in lines 3-4 and 6 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the phrase following “in particular” to be merely exemplary and not being given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6, the use of the phrase “in particular” in line 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the phrase and/or structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the phrase following “in particular” to be merely exemplary and not being given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, the use of the phrase “in particular” in lines 4 and 6 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the phrase following “in particular” to be merely exemplary and not being given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, the use of the phrase “in particular” in line 8 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the phrase following “in particular” to be merely exemplary and not being given patentable weight.
Also regarding claim 8, the line 9 limitation “the temperature sensor” and the line 10 limitation “the temperature estimator” lack antecedent basis. This claim depends on claim 5, however these limitations are introduced in claim 7. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the limitations as --a temperature sensor-- and --a temperature estimator--.
Also regarding claim 8, the multiple instances of “and/or” and “in particular” make is impossible to determine what is actually required by the claim, what is part of a Markush group, and what limitations are merely exemplary.
For the purposes of applying prior art, and consistent with office policy of broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner is reading the claim as “the data processing device is further configured to determine a compression or elongation of the belt based on the detection of the first sensor assembly and the second sensor assembly or a temperature sensor or a temperature estimator, or the data processing device is further configured to determine a force acting on the belt drive”.
Regarding claim 9, the use of the phrase “in particular” in line 4 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the phrase following “in particular” to be merely exemplary and not being given patentable weight.
Also regarding claim 9, the line 6 limitations “the temperature sensor” and “the temperature estimator” lack antecedent basis. This claim depends on claim 5, however these limitations are introduced in claim 7. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the limitations as --a temperature sensor-- and --a temperature estimator--.
Regarding claim 10, the use of the phrase “in particular” in lines 4-5 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the phrase following “in particular” to be merely exemplary and not being given patentable weight.
Also regarding claim 10, the line 6 limitation “the temperature sensor” and the line 7 limitation “the temperature estimator” lack antecedent basis. This claim depends on claim 5, however these limitations are introduced in claim 7. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the limitations as --a temperature sensor-- and --a temperature estimator--.
Regarding claim 13, the use of the phrase “in particular” in lines 6 and 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting the phrase following “in particular” to be merely exemplary and not being given patentable weight.
Also regarding claim 13, the multiple instances of “and/or” and “in particular” make is impossible to determine what is actually required by the claim, what is part of a Markush group, and what limitations are merely exemplary.
For the purposes of applying prior art, and consistent with office policy of broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner is reading the claim as “wherein the data processing device is further configured to issue a warning message to the driver of a motor vehicle or to immobilize the motor vehicle based on the detection of wear or damage or undercooling or icing of the belt drive”.
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 1-6, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ein Waldt et al. (DE 102019201101; “Ein Waldt”, see attached machine translation) in view of Schmidt et al. (DE 102015206678; “Schmidt”, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ein Waldt discloses in figure 1 a belt drive (30) (¶¶ [0025]-[0026]), comprising a first pulley (19) having a first diameter and a second pulley (18) having a second diameter (¶¶ [0025]-[0027]; see figure 1), and a belt (16), which is arranged in each case on a lateral surface of the first (19) and the second (18) pulley and is configured to transmit a rotational movement of the first pulley (19) to the second pulley (18) (¶ [0026]), a first sensor assembly (14) which is arranged and configured to detect a rotational position of the first pulley (19) (¶ [0024]), and a second sensor assembly (24), which is arranged and configured to detect a rotational position of the second pulley (18) (¶ [0025]) wherein the first diameter corresponds to a first integer multiple of a unit length, and the second diameter corresponds to a second integer multiple of the same unit length, where and the first and second integer multiples of the unit length are different from each other (see figure 1, pulleys 19 and 18 are of different diameters which “correspond” to the number of teeth n around the circumference. Therefore the diameters can be expressed as an integer number of teeth n x (1/π) x (unit length of each tooth) thus meeting the claim limitation first and second integer multiples of the same unit length).
Ein Waldt further discloses the ratio of the diameters (i.e. translation ratio) is a non-integer which addresses the same problem applicant is trying to solve (¶ [0016]; “allowing the position of the steering rod in the working area to be determined unambiguously and without referencing”).
Ein Waldt is silent specifically to the diameters being coprime.
In the same field of endeavor, Schmidt also teaches a belt drive (¶ [0007]) wherein the transmission ratio between the driving pulley and the driven pulley is give by the ratio of the number of teeth, wherein the first and second integer multiples of the unit length are different from each other and are coprime (¶¶ [0013], [0022], the number of teeth of each pulley are chosen to be primes which are also coprime).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to engineer Ein Waldt’s pulleys to each have a prime number of teeth as taught by Schmidt so that the same number of teeth only meet after a relatively high number of driver revolutions thereby further eliminating ambiguities in steering angle (¶ [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Ein Waldt in view of Schmidt disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Schmidt further teaches the first diameter and the second diameter correspond to a product of the unit length and a prime number (¶¶ [0013], [0022]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Ein Waldt discloses the first sensor (14) assembly comprises a contactless detecting position sensor, in particular a contactless and inductive detecting position sensor, and/or the second sensor assembly (24) comprises a contactless detecting position sensor, in particular a contactless and inductive detecting position sensor (see figure where it is apparent sensor 24 is not contacting pulley 18).
Regarding claim 4, Ein Waldt discloses at least a part of the first sensor assembly (14) is integrated into the first pulley (19) and/or is coupled to the first pulley (19), and/or at least part of the second sensor assembly (24) is integrated into the second pulley (18) and/or is coupled to the second pulley (18) (see figure 1, note each of sensors 14 and 24 must be coupled to their respectively pully either magnetically, electrically or optically in order to determine the rotation of their respective pulley).
Regarding claim 5, Ein Waldt discloses a data processing device (28) (¶ [0031]) which is configured to unambiguously determine, based on the detection of the first sensor (14) assembly and the detection of the second sensor assembly (24), a rotational position or setting position of the belt drive (30) on a setting path comprising a plurality of complete rotations of the first (19) and/or the second (18) pulley (¶¶ [0015]-[0016], [0031]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Ein Waldt discloses the first pulley (19) is coupled to a motor (8) or electric motor (¶ [0024]), in particular to the rotor of a brushless electric motor, and a control or regulation of the motor (8) or electric motor is based on the detection of the first sensor assembly (14) (¶¶ [0025]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 11, Ein Waldt in view of Schmidt disclose an axis-parallel drive (see Ein Waldt figure 1), a belt drive (30) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Ein Waldt in view of Schmidt a motor vehicle steering system for a motor vehicle (¶ [0017], see Ein Waldt figure 1), comprising a belt drive (30) according to any one of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and/or an axis-parallel drive according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 14, Ein Waldt discloses in figure 1 a method of determining a rotational position of pulleys (18, 19) of a belt drive (30) (¶ [0011]), comprising the steps of providing a first pulley (19) with a first diameter, providing a second pulley (18) with a second diameter (¶¶ [0025]-[0027], see figure 1), providing of a belt (16), which is arranged in each case on a lateral surface of the first (19) and the second (18) pulley and is configured to transmit a rotational movement of the first pulley (19) to the second pulley (18) (¶ [0026]), detecting a rotational position of the first pulley (19) with a first sensor assembly (14) (¶ [0024]), detection of a rotational position of the second pulley (18) with a second sensor assembly (24), wherein the first diameter corresponds to a first integer multiple of a unit length and the second diameter corresponds to a second integer multiple of the same unit length, wherein and the first and second integer multiples of the unit length are different from each other (see figure 1, pulleys 19 and 18 are of different diameters which “correspond” to the number of teeth n around the circumference. Therefore the diameters can be expressed as an integer number of teeth n x (1/π) x (unit length of each tooth) thus meeting the claim limitation first and second integer multiples of the same unit length).
Ein Waldt further discloses the ratio of the diameters (i.e. translation ratio) is a non-integer which addresses the same problem applicant is trying to solve (¶ [0016]; “allowing the position of the steering rod in the working area to be determined unambiguously and without referencing”).
Ein Waldt is silent specifically to the diameters being coprime.
In the same field of endeavor, Schmidt also teaches a belt drive (¶ [0007]) wherein the transmission ratio between the driving pulley and the driven pulley is given by the ratio of the number of teeth, wherein the first and second integer multiples of the unit length are different from each other and are coprime (¶¶ [0013], [0022], the number of teeth of each pulley are chosen to be primes which are also coprime).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to engineer Ein Waldt’s pulleys to each have a prime number of teeth as taught by Schmidt so that the same number of teeth only meet after a relatively high number of driver revolutions thereby further eliminating ambiguities in steering angle (¶ [0013]).
Regarding claim 15, Ein Waldt discloses the steps of providing a data processing device (28) (¶ [0031]) and unambiguously determining of a rotational position or setting position of the belt drive (30) on a setting path comprising a plurality of complete rotations of the first (19) and/or the second (18) pulley, based on the detection of the first sensor assembly (14) and the detection of the second sensor assembly (24) (¶¶ [0015]-[0016], [0031]-[0035]).
Claims 7-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ein Waldt in view of Schmidt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blumenstock et al. (DE 102005056752; “Blumenstock”, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Ein Waldt in view of Schmidt disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Ein Waldt and Schmidt are silent to a temperature sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Blumenstock teaches an engine for a vehicle comprising a belt drive (100) (¶ [0022]). Blumenstock further teaches a temperature sensor (170) which is configured to detect a temperature of the belt drive (100), in particular a temperature of the environment of the belt (120), and/or a temperature estimator which is configured to estimate a temperature of the belt drive, in particular a temperature of the environment of the belt, based on a modeling of the belt drive (¶¶ [0022]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include a temperature sensor in Ein Waldt’s modified belt drive as taught by Blumenstock for the purpose of detecting hairline fractures, changes in elasticity and tooth loss of the timing belt which can lead to engine damage if not fixed when detected (¶¶ [0016], [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, Ein Waldt in view of Schmidt disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Ein Waldt and Schmidt are silent to determining a compression or elongation of the belt.
In the same field of endeavor, Blumenstock teaches an engine for a vehicle comprising a belt drive (100) (¶ [0022]). Blumenstock further teaches the data processing device (200) (¶ [0027]) is further configured to determine a compression or elongation of the belt (120) based on the detection of the first sensor assembly and the second sensor assembly and/or the temperature sensor (170) and/or the temperature estimator, and/or the data processing device is further configured to determine a force acting on the belt drive (100), in particular on the belt (120), based on the detection of the first sensor assembly and the second sensor assembly and/or the temperature sensor (170) and/or the temperature estimator (¶¶ [0024]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include a temperature sensor in Ein Waldt’s modified belt drive as taught by Blumenstock for the purpose of detecting hairline fractures, changes in elasticity and tooth loss of the timing belt which can lead to engine damage if not fixed when detected (¶¶ [0016], [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, Ein Waldt in view of Schmidt disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Ein Waldt and Schmidt are silent to determining or estimate wear and/or damage to the belt drive.
In the same field of endeavor, Blumenstock teaches an engine for a vehicle comprising a belt drive (100) (¶ [0022]). Blumenstock further teaches the data processing device (200) (¶ [0027]) is further configured to determine or estimate wear and/or damage to the belt drive (100), in particular the belt (120), based on current and/or recorded detections of the first sensor assembly and the second sensor assembly and/or the temperature sensor (170) and/or the temperature estimator (¶¶ [0024]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include a temperature sensor in Ein Waldt’s modified belt drive as taught by Blumenstock for the purpose of detecting hairline fractures, changes in elasticity and tooth loss of the timing belt which can lead to engine damage if not fixed when detected (¶¶ [0016], [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Ein Waldt in view of Schmidt disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Ein Waldt and Schmidt are silent to a temperature sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Blumenstock teaches an engine for a vehicle comprising a belt drive (100) (¶ [0022]). Blumenstock further teaches a temperature sensor (170) which is configured to detect a temperature of the belt drive (100), in particular a temperature of the environment of the belt (120) (¶¶ [0022]-[0024]).
Based on this information, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciated and infer that the data processing device (200) is further configured to determine and/or estimate undercooling and/or icing of the belt drive (100) based on current and/or recorded detections of the temperature sensor (170) since Blumenstock teaches that the program tracks the belt drive temperature and compares the numbers to baseline temperatures (¶ [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include a temperature sensor in Ein Waldt’s modified belt drive as taught by Blumenstock for the purpose of detecting abnormalities of the timing belt which can lead to engine damage if not fixed when detected (¶¶ [0016], [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Ein Waldt in view of Schmidt disclose all the limitations of claim 12 on which this claim depends.
Ein Waldt and Schmidt are silent detecting wear and/or damage of the belt drive.
In the same field of endeavor, Blumenstock teaches an engine for a vehicle comprising a belt drive (100) (¶ [0022]). Blumenstock further teaches a temperature sensor (170) which is configured to detect a temperature of the belt drive (100), in particular a temperature of the environment of the belt (120) (¶¶ [0022]-[0024]). Blumenstock further teaches the data processing device (200) is further configured to issue a warning message to the driver of a motor vehicle and/or to immobilize the motor vehicle based on the detection of wear and/or damage and/or undercooling and/or icing of the belt drive (100), in particular the belt (120), and/or with a device coupled to the belt drive, in particular a ball screw drive (¶ [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include a temperature sensor in Ein Waldt’s modified belt drive as taught by Blumenstock for the purpose of detecting and alerting a user to hairline fractures, changes in elasticity and tooth loss of the timing belt which can lead to engine damage if not fixed when detected (¶¶ [0016], [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0307676 discloses a drive belt comprising pulleys with a non-integer translation ratio to solve the problem set forth by applicant.
US 2013/0199463 discloses a drive belt comprising pulleys with a non-integer translation ratio to solve the problem set forth by applicant.
US 2024/0263769 discloses a drive belt comprising pulleys with a non-integer translation ratio to solve the problem set forth by applicant.
WO 2018/233846 discloses a drive belt comprising pulleys with a non-integer translation ratio to solve the problem set forth by applicant.
US 2025/0368256 to the same application discloses a drive belt comprising pulleys with a non-integer translation ratio composed of prime numbers in the numerator and denominator to solve the problem set forth by applicant. This document is not available as prior art under 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights