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.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “, through which opening the rotor” in the last line, should read “through which the rotor”. 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.
Claims 1-16 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the term “in particular” in the first line of claim 1 and second to last line of claim 11. It is not clear if the limitation after “in particular” is required by the claim or not. For examination purposes, the limitation after “in particular” is not considered required by the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are rejected due to their dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the rotary counter " in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joo et al. (KR 2023-0076928 A) hereinafter, Joo.
Regarding claim 1, Joo discloses a steering system (Second Para of Page 2) for a vehicle, in particular a steer-by-wire steering system, with a linearly displaceable rack (Rc), and with a detection device (10) for detecting a position of the rack (Fig 6), wherein the detection device (10) comprises a housing (100) in which a rotatable pinion (310) is accommodated, which has a toothing in engagement with the rack (Fig 4), and wherein the detection device (10) has a sensor module which comprises a housing cover (110), at least one magnetic sensor (300, 320), a plug connector (130) for the electrical connection of the at least one magnetic sensor and a rotor (321) which is in rotationally fixed engagement with the pinion (Fig 5 and last Para of Page 3 to fist Para of page 4), wherein the sensor module is a pre-assembled unit (Fig 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 2, Joo discloses that the plug connector (130) is integrated in the housing cover (110, Fig 7).
Regarding claim 16, Joo discloses that the magnetic sensor (300) and/or the rotary counter (optional) is/are designed as an integrated circuit on a printed circuit board (200, Second Para of Page 3 and Fig 4).
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) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (KR 2023-0076928 A) in view of Shin et al. (US 2022/0364884 A1) hereinafter, Shin.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Joo discloses the steering system of claim 1. However, Joo does not expressly disclose a seal or a collar.
Regarding claim 9, Shin teaches an axial seal (180) is provided between the housing cover (160) and the housing (119, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 11, Shin teaches a collar (C1), which projects in the axial direction towards the housing (119) and projects axially beyond the seal (180), in particular overlaps axially with the housing (119), is formed on the housing cover (160, Annotated Fig 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Joo’s system, in view of Shin, with a collar and a sealing member, to prevent the inflow of foreign substances from the outside (Para [0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
725
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (KR 2023-0076928 A) in view of Span et al. (US 2021/0221427 A1) hereinafter, Span.
Regarding claim 15, Joo discloses the system of claim 1. However, Joo does not expressly disclose a rotary counter.
Span teaches that the detection device comprises a rotary counter (can be configured to measure a performed relative rotation and/or the number of revolutions of the supporting element, Para [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Joo’s system, in view of Span, with a rotary counter, to measure the number of revolutions of the pinion for improved detection of the rack position (Para [0016]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 10, and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Claim 3 recites that the pinion (20) has a further toothing (60) which is axially spaced apart from the toothing (21) which is in engagement with the rack (12), wherein the rotor (32) is in engagement with the further toothing (60).
Claim 5 recites that the rotor (32) comprises radially flexible portions (66) at least in a region in which the rotor (32) overlaps axially with the pinion (20).
Claim 8 recites a pin (80), which projects in the direction of the pinion (20) and is arranged in the centering recess (82), is present on the housing cover (26).
Claim 10 recites that multiple clamping elements (76) are formed along the groove (74), the seal (72) being clamped to said clamping elements.
Claim 12 recites that the receiving space (38) is closed by an intermediate cover (52) on the side directed towards the pinion (20), and wherein an opening (59) is present in the intermediate cover (52), through which opening the rotor (32) is accessible.
Claim 14 recites that the rotor (32) drives at least one gear wheel (42, 44) to which a magnet (46) is fastened.
Since the prior art (e.g. Joo and Shin) teaches detection devices that lack said features, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
For illustration purposes, Fig 5-6 of the examined disclosure shows the detection device, which is different than the detection device taught by the prior art of record (Fig. 7-8 of Joo and Fig. 2 of Shin, etc.)
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 form teach detection devices of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/HOSAM SHABARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights