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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
In [0014], the application discloses that “the sensor bridge may be movably guided on the conductive rails and short-circuit them with one another.” The use of the term “short-circuit,” which is well known in the art, implies that the potentiometer intentionally creates an area of extremely low resistance. This is antithetical to the stated purpose of the bridge, which is to vary the resistance of the wire by changing the electrical length of the conductive rails (as is common in potentiometers). The applicant is advised to amend the language to “close the circuit,” “connect the circuit,” or other analogous language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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. In Claim 7, the use of the term “short-circuit,” which is well known in the art, implies that the potentiometer intentionally creates an area of extremely low resistance. This is antithetical to the stated purpose of the bridge, which is to vary the resistance of the wire by changing the electrical length of the conductive rails (as is common in potentiometers). For the purposes of examination, this claim will be interpreted as “… wherein the electrically conductive sensor bridge is movably guided on the at least two electrically conductive rails and closes the circuit with the at least two electrically conductive rails.”
Claims 8, 11, 12, and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph for their dependence on Claim 7.
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) 1-8, 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheong (U.S. 5754091 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Cheong teaches:
A steering sensor assembly for sensing a steering angle between a stationary component (Fig 1 40) and a rotatable component (20) rotatably mounted on the stationary component about a steering axis, the steering sensor assembly comprising (Col 1 5-9; Col 2 63-Col 3 2).
A sensor (Fig 2 10) at least partially fixed with respect to the steering axis (Fig 1 100; Col 2 66-Col 3 2);
And a sensor counterpart moveable about the steering axis (Fig 2 35a, Col 3 45-51);
Wherein the sensor (Fig 2 10) and the sensor counterpart (35a) are arranged distanced from the steering axis (Fig 1 100).
Regarding Claim 2, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the sensor and/or the sensor counterpart at least partially extends and/or the sensor counterpart is movable circumferentially about the steering axis in a sensing area covering a central angle of not more than 225° and/or not less than 30° and/or corresponding to a maximum steering angle of the rotatable component relative to the stationary component (Col 1 21-25 teaches “movable circumferentially… corresponding to a maximum steering angle of the rotatable component relative to the stationary component”).
Regarding Claim 3, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the sensor counterpart is a wireless sensor counterpart and/or the sensor is a wired sensor (Figs 2 and 3a, 101-103) being wired or wireable to a power source (Col 3 30-35 teaches a sensor wireable to a power source).
Regarding Claim 4, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a resistance sensor, a capacitive sensor, a magnetic sensor, or an optical sensor (Abstract teaches a resistance sensor).
Regarding Claim 5, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a resistance sensor with a variable effective electrical length (Col 4 8-12),
which effective electrical length depends on a position of the sensor counterpart (Fig 2 35a) about the steering axis (Col 4 8-12).
Regarding Claim 6, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor assembly of claim 5, wherein the sensor comprises an electrically conductive sensor bridge movably coupled to the sensor counterpart (Fig 2 35 and 35a, where 35 is interpreted as the bridge and 35a is interpreted as the counterpart),
such that the variable effective electrical length is varied upon joint movement of the electrically conductive sensor bridge with the sensor counterpart (Col 4 8-12).
Regarding Claim 7, Cheong teaches:
As best understood, the steering sensor assembly of claim 6, wherein the sensor comprises at least two electrically conductive rails (Figs 2, 3a, & 4 11 and 13) circumferentially extending about the steering axis within a sensing area (Col 4 8-12),
and wherein the electrically conductive sensor bridge (35) is movably guided on the at least two electrically conductive rails (11 and 13) and short-circuits the at least two electrically conductive rails (Col 4 8-12).
Regarding Claim 8, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor assembly of claim 7, wherein the at least two electrically conductive rails (Fig 3a 11 and 13) are connected or connectable to a power source (101-103; Col 3 30-35).
Regarding Claim 11, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor assembly of claim 7, wherein the sensor comprises a sensor housing (Fig 2 50 and 10) enclosing the electrically conductive sensor bridge (35) and/or the at least two electrically conductive rails (11 and 13; Col 2 13-17).
Regarding Claim 12, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor assembly of claim 11, wherein the at least two electrically conductive rails (Fig 2 11 and 13) are fixedly arranged inside the sensor housing (50 and 10) and/or the electrically conductive sensor bridge (35) is movably arranged inside the sensor housing (Col 4 3-12).
Regarding Claim 13, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor assembly of claim 11, wherein the sensor housing (Fig 2 & 4 50 and 10) and/or the at least two electrically conductive rails (11 and 13) and/or a power source (101-103) are rigidly fixed with respect to the steering axis (Col 3 52-Col 4 7).
Regarding Claim 14, Cheong teaches:
A steering sensor system, comprising (Abstract):
a stationary component (Fig 1 40; Col 2 66-Col 3 2),
a rotatable component rotatably mounted on the stationary component about a steering axis (20; Col 2 63-65),
and a steering sensor assembly for sensing a steering angle between the stationary component and the rotatable component rotatably mounted on the stationary component about the steering axis, the steering sensor assembly comprising (100; Col 2 66-Col 3 2):
a sensor (Fig 2 10) at least partially fixed with respect to the steering axis and a sensor counterpart (35a) movable about the steering axis (Col 2 66-Col 3 2, Col 3 45-51)
wherein the sensor (10) and the sensor counterpart (35a) are arranged radially distanced from the steering axis (Fig 1 100).
Regarding Claim 18, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor system of claim 14, wherein the sensor (Fig 2 & 4, 10) is at least partially fixedly attached to the stationary component (50; Col 2 66-Col 3 2)
and the sensor counterpart (35a) is fixedly attached to the rotatable component (30; Col 2 63-65).
Regarding Claim 19, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor system of claim 18, wherein the sensor counterpart (Fig 2 35a) is at least partially fixedly arranged in a pocket of the rotatable component (33; Col 3 36-41).
Regarding Claim 20, Cheong teaches:
The steering sensor system of claim 18, wherein the sensor and/or the sensor counterpart at least partially extends and/or the sensor counterpart is movable circumferentially about the steering axis in a sensing area covering a central angle of not more than 225° and/or not less than 30° and/or corresponding to a maximum steering angle of the rotatable component relative to the stationary component (Col 1 21-25).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Van Zeeland (U.S. 5867082 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Cheong teaches all the elements of Claim 6, but fails to teach the electrically conductive sensor bridge and the sensor counterpart are distanced from each other and/or wherein the electrically conductive sensor bridge is magnetically coupled to the sensor counterpart.
In a similar field of endeavor, Van Zeeland teaches the electrically conductive sensor bridge (Fig 2 18) and the sensor counterpart (30) are distanced from each other and/or wherein the electrically conductive sensor bridge is magnetically coupled to the sensor counterpart (Col 3 32-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment as described in Cheong such that the sensor bridge and counterpart are magnetically coupled and distanced from one another as described in Van Zeeland. This allows the for a “spacer” to be “added to protect and seal the electrodes (rails) and armature (bridge)” (Abstract) (Col 3 66-Col 4 16, Col 3 32-42).
Regarding Claim 10, Cheong and Van Zeeland teach all the elements of Claim 9. Furthermore, Van Zeeland teaches the electrically conductive sensor bridge (Fig 2 18) consists of or comprises a ferromagnetic material and/or a sensor magnet and/or wherein the sensor counterpart (30) consists of or comprises a counter magnet magnetically coupled to the electrically conductive sensor bridge (Col 4 32-42 teaches the sensor counterpart is a magnet coupled to the bridge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment as described in Cheong such that the sensor bridge and counterpart consist of ferromagnetic material coupled to one another. This would allow the sensor counterpart to “drag” the bridge as it moves (Col 4 32-42).
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Mencarelli (EP 3798100 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Cheong teaches all the elements of Claim 14, but fails to teach the stationary component is an axle, the rotatable component is a knuckle rotatably mounted on the axle.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mencarelli teaches the stationary component is an axle (Fig 2 3), the rotatable component is a knuckle (2) rotatably mounted on the axle (Fig 2, [0015] and [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment as described in Cheong such that the stationary component is an axle, and the rotatable component is a knuckle mounted on the axle. This allows the for a simple, cost-effective way to apply the sensor to the axle of the vehicle ([0011], [0015], [0016]).
Regarding Claim 16, Cheong and Mencarelli teach all the elements of Claim 15. Furthermore, Mencarelli teaches the knuckle rotatably mounted on the axle via a kingpin (Fig 2 8), which kingpin extends along the steering axis (Fig 2, [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment as described in Cheong to include a knuckle rotatably connected to an axle along the steering axis via a kingpin as described in Mencarelli. This allows the sensor to by “coupled at rotation” with the knuckle ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 17, Cheong and Mencarelli teach all the elements of Claim 16. Furthermore, Mencarelli teaches the steering sensor assembly is arranged radially distanced from the kingpin (Fig 2 7, [0019], [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment as described in Cheong such that the sensor is arranged radially distanced from the kingpin. This allows the angle sensor to rotate so that it “may sense the angle of rotation” ([0020]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN SCOTT CRAVEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0884. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 0800- 1600.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/Colin S Craven/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/3/26
Prosecution Insights