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 Status
Claims 9-12 have been canceled. Claim 17 has been added. Claims 1-8 and 12-17 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. §112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 14 has been amended to depend on Claim 16, however, the amendments filed 3/4/2026 do not reflect that change.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim(s) 1-8 and 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 regarding claim 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the art of record fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least "wherein the at least one linear displacement sensor comprises: a first linear displacement sensor portion mounted on the steering shaft; and a second linear displacement sensor portion mounted to the housing, wherein the first linear displacement sensor portion comprises a series of contrasting markings indications on the steering shaft; and wherein the second linear displacement sensor portion is an optical sensor configured to detect the series of contrasting markings indications" as recited in claim 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the changes in cross sections of the shaft in Buering can be interpreted as markings.
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 14-15 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first motor" or “the second motor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected for depending on an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 9-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buering et al. (US 2021/0101640 A1) hereinafter Buering, Engstrom et al. (IDS: EP3819190A1) hereinafter Engstrom, and Spasic et al. (US 2022/0128635 A1) hereinafter Spasic.
Claim 1:
Buering discloses a steer-by-wire steering assembly comprising: a housing [Fig. 1; Item 1; ¶2]; a motor assembly [4] having at least one rotor [47] and at least one stator [46] having a first motor winding dependence of detecting linear movement of the steering shaft [3] with respect to the housing [¶7; Figs. 1-5], wherein the at least one linear displacement sensor comprises: a first linear displacement sensor portion mounted on the steering shaft; and a second linear displacement sensor portion mounted to the housing [¶¶25, 33-34; Fig. 4].
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose the stator has a second motor winding; wherein the first linear displacement sensor portion comprises a plurality of inductive loops; and wherein the second linear displacement sensor portion is an inductive sensor configured to detect the plurality of inductive loops.
However, Engstrom does disclose the stator has a second motor winding. [Fig. 2, Items 8a, 8b, 11a, 11b, 100a, 100b]
Further, Spasic discloses wherein the first linear displacement sensor portion comprises a plurality of inductive loops; and wherein the second linear displacement sensor portion is an inductive sensor configured to detect the plurality of inductive loops. [¶¶108-110; Figs. 11-12]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Buering with the second motor winding of Engstrom to increase the durability of the stator and thus the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Buering and Engstrom with the linear displacement detection portion of Buering to provide a known means of detecting position.
Claim 2:
Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Buering also discloses wherein the at least one linear displacement sensor is mounted adjacent to the tie rod Fig. 1, Items 6, 11].
Claim 3:
Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Buering also discloses wherein the one or more rotatable components is the at least one rotor [47].
Claim 14:
Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the steer-by-wire steering assembly comprises: a first electronic control unit configured to send one or more control signals to at least one of the first motor or the second motor; and a second electronic control unit configured to send one or more control signals to at least one of the second motor or the first motor.
Engstrom does disclose wherein the steer-by-wire steering assembly comprises: a first electronic control unit configured to send one or more control signals to at least one of the first motor or the second motor; and a second electronic control unit configured to send one or more control signals to at least one of the second motor or the first motor. [Fig. 3; Steering ECU_L, Steering ECU_R, Drive Circuit M_l, Drive Circuit M_r]
Claim 15:
Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first electronic control unit and the second electronic control unit are configured to receive one or more control signals from a vehicle control unit.
Engstrom does disclose wherein the first electronic control unit and the second electronic control unit are configured to receive one or more control signals from a vehicle control unit. [Fig. 3; Steering ECU_L, Steering ECU_R, Drive Circuit M_l, Drive Circuit M_r, VCU]
Claim 16:
Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the motor assembly comprises: a first motor having a first rotor and a first stator having the first motor winding; and a second motor having a second rotor and a second stator having the second motor winding, wherein the first stator and the second stator are mounted to the housing.
Engstrom does disclose wherein the motor assembly comprises: a first motor having a first rotor and a first stator having the first motor winding; and a second motor having a second rotor and a second stator having the second motor winding, wherein the first stator and the second stator are mounted to the housing. [Fig. 2, Items 8a, 8b, 11a, 11b, 100a, 100b]
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic as applied to claim1 and 4 above, and further in view of Chan et al. (US 2019/0344869 A1) hereinafter Chan.
Claim 4:
Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 3.
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a rotor carrier sleeve rotatably mounted to the housing and coupled between the at least one rotor and the at least one screw actuator.
However, Chan does disclose further comprising: a rotor carrier sleeve rotatably mounted to the housing and coupled between the at least one rotor and the at least one screw actuator. [¶57; Fig. 10 shows the rotor 109 and rotor carrier sleeve 112 which is shown in Figs. 4-5 to surround the screw actuator on item 44 which is also shown in Fig. 11 as an assembly]
“The Court quoting In re Kahn. 441 F.3d 977,988, 78 USPQ2d 1329,1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[Rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at _, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. An exemplary rationale that may support a conclusion of obviousness includes:
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results:
Here, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing to include the actuator and rotor configuration of Chan in the steer-by-wire system of Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic as (B) Simple substitution of one known element (i.e. threaded spindle drive) for another (i.e. drive with rotor carrier sleeve) to obtain predictable results as taught by Chan into the teachings of Buering (i.e. a linear actuator can be replaced with another linear actuator) because it does no more than yield predictable results of linear actuation since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (MPEP 2143)
Claim 5:
Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one rotational sensor is a plurality of rotational sensors mounted circumferentially about the housing.
However, Chan does disclose wherein the at least one rotational sensor is a plurality of rotational sensors mounted circumferentially about the housing. [¶58; Figs. 6-8a, Items 98]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic with the sensor configuration of Chan to “soak up” manufacturing tolerances while allowing advanced timing for the first rotational direction and the second rotational direction also if any set of Hall Effect sensors fails then the other one of the Hall Effect sensors may function as a failsafe [¶58].
Claim 6:
Buering, Engstrom, Spasic, and Chan as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one rotational sensor is configured to detect rotational movement of the rotor carrier sleeve with respect to the housing.
However, Chan does disclose wherein the at least one rotational sensor is configured to detect rotational movement of the rotor carrier sleeve with respect to the housing. [¶58; Figs. 6-8a, Items 98]
Claim 8:
Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one rotational sensor is a hall-effect sensor.
However, Chan does disclose wherein the at least one rotational sensor is a hall-effect sensor. [¶58; Figs. 6-8a, Items 98]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic with the sensor configuration of Chan to “soak up” manufacturing tolerances while allowing advanced timing for the first rotational direction and the second rotational direction also if any set of Hall Effect sensors fails then the other one of the Hall Effect sensors may function as a failsafe [¶58].
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buering, Engstrom, and Chan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wygnanski et al. (US 2008/0035870 A1) hereinafter Wygnanski.
Claim 7:
Buering, Engstrom, Spasic, and Chan as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 6.
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a reluctor ring is mounted to the rotor carrier sleeve.
However, Wygnanski does disclose wherein a reluctor ring is mounted to the rotor carrier sleeve. [¶262]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Buering, Engstrom, Spasic, and Chan with the reluctor ring and Hall effect sensor of Wygnanski to provide a known means of determining rotational position.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tesar (US 2019/0011026 A1) hereinafter Tesar.
Claim 13:
Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one screw actuator is a roller screw actuator comprising a plurality of planetary roller screws operatively coupled to the at least one rotor.
However, Tesar does disclose wherein the at least one screw actuator is a roller screw actuator comprising a plurality of planetary roller screws operatively coupled to the at least one rotor. [¶31]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Buering, Engstrom, and Spasic with the planetary screw actuator of Tesar to provide a robust linear actuator capable of performing the required movement.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buering et al. (US 2021/0101640 A1) hereinafter Buering.
Claim 17:
Buering discloses a steer-by-wire steering assembly comprising: a housing [Fig. 1; Item 1; ¶2]; a motor assembly [4] having at least one rotor [47] and at least one stator [46] having a first motor winding and a second motor winding, the at least one stator [46] being mounted to the housing; at least one screw actuator [48 which can be a threaded spindle drive per ¶48] operatively coupled to the at least one rotor [47]; a steering shaft [3] connectable to at least one tie rod [10, 11], the steering shaft [3] including a threaded portion [interacts with threaded spindle drive 48, see ¶24] configured to engage with the screw actuator [48] and to move longitudinally [16, 17] with respect to the housing when at least one of the first motor winding or the second motor winding is actuated; and at least one rotational sensor [49] mounted on the housing adjacent to one or more rotatable components [rotor 47], the at least one rotational sensor [49] being configured to generate a signal in dependence on detecting rotational movement of the rotatable components [47] with respect to the housing [Fig. 1]; and at least one linear displacement sensor [6, 22] mounted to an end of the steering shaft [3], the linear displacement sensor [6, 22] being configured to generate a signal in dependence of detecting linear movement of the steering shaft [3] with respect to the housing [¶7; Figs. 1-5], wherein the at least one linear displacement sensor comprises: a first linear displacement sensor portion mounted on the steering shaft; and a second linear displacement sensor portion mounted to the housing [¶¶25, 33-34; Fig. 4], wherein the first linear displacement sensor portion comprises a series of contrasting markings indications on the steering shaft; and wherein the second linear displacement sensor portion is an optical sensor configured to detect the series of contrasting markings indications [¶29; optical sensor picks up on changes in cross section which are being interpreted as markings].
Buering doesn’t explicitly disclose the stator has a second motor winding.
However, Engstrom does disclose the stator has a second motor winding. [Fig. 2, Items 8a, 8b, 11a, 11b, 100a, 100b]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the steer-by-wire system of Buering with the second motor winding of Engstrom to increase the durability of the stator and thus the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tamai et al. (US 2013/0112104 A1) discloses a linear actuator used in a vehicular applications with a planetary roller screw and rotor.
Wilske et al. (US 2020/0148248 A1) discloses a steering handle with a steering shaft for a steer-by-wire vehicle steering mechanism.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights