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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO (US-20220032992-A1) in view of Segawa (US-20070209864-A1) and HAFERMALZ (DE-102020210601-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, KO teaches a steering assist system for a commercial vehicle (Steering Device 100, Fig. 1), the steering assist system comprising:
an input shaft (Input Shaft 101, Fig. 1) defining an input axis and a first hollow portion (“H1”, Fig. 1 Annotated), the input shaft (101) configured to engage with a steering column of the commercial vehicle (Para. [0030] teaches that Input Shaft 101 connects to a steering wheel);
an output shaft (Output Shaft 103/ First Shaft 110, Fig. 1) defining an output axis and a second hollow portion (“H2”, Fig. 1 Annotated), {the input shaft (101) being partially disposed coaxially within the output shaft (103/110)}, the second hollow portion (H2) defining internal threads (Bolt 130 engaging Second Hollow Portion H2, Fig. 1 Annotated and Para. [0037], Second Hollow Portion H2 is understood to comprise internal threads);
an output shaft adapter (Ball Screw 105/ Second Shaft 120, Fig. 1) defining a third hollow portion (“H3”, Fig. 1 Annotated) extending through the output shaft adapter (105/120) axially, the third hollow portion (H3) having a {first} diameter region (“R-1”, Fig. 1 Annotated) at a first end (the end where Ball Screw 105/ Second Shaft 120 and Output Shaft 103/ First Shaft 110 are joined) and a {second} diameter region (“R-2”, Fig. 1 Annotated) adjacent to the {first} diameter region (R-1), a shoulder (“SH”, Fig. 1 Annotated) being defined at a transition between the {first} diameter region (R-1) and the {second} diameter region (R-2),
wherein the output shaft adapter (105/120) is disposed at the first end of the output shaft (103/110) such that the {first} diameter region (R-1) circumferentially surrounds the output shaft (103/110);
a support plate (“SP”, Fig. 1 Annotated) including a bearing (“BR”, Fig. 1 Annotated) configured to receive the output shaft adapter and guide rotation of the output shaft adapter (as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated);
a worm wheel (“WMW”, Fig. 1 Annotated) circumferentially surrounding the {output shaft} (103/110), the worm wheel (WMW) having an outer circumference configured to engage a worm shaft (“WMS”, Fig. 1 Annotated) for steering assist; and
a shaft retention screw (Bolt 130, Fig. 1) having a head portion defining a flange and a body portion defining external threads (a head, flange, and body portion being illustrated in Fig. 1), the shaft retention screw (130) being disposed in the third hollow portion (H3) such that the flange engages with the shoulder (SH) and the body portion extends into the second hollow portion (H2) such that the external threads engage with the internal threads of the output shaft (103/110) so as to prevent axial separation between the output shaft and the output shaft adapter (Bolt 130 extending into Second Hollow Portion H3 to secure Ball Screw 105/ Second Shaft 120 to Output Shaft 103/ First Shaft 110 as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated).
PNG
media_image1.png
934
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KO does not teach that the output shaft is disposed in a hollow portion of the input shaft because it instead teaches that the input shaft is disposed in a hollow portion of the output shaft; and also does not teach that the worm wheel is disposed so that it surrounds the output shaft adapter.
Segawa teaches, in another power steering system (Title), an output shaft (Output Shaft 5, Fig. 1) being disposed within a hollow portion coaxially to an input shaft (Input Shaft 4, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the input and output shafts such that the output shaft was disposed inside of the input shaft, as suggested by Segawa, and such that the worm wheel surrounds the output shaft adapter, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
KO does not teach that the output shaft adapter surrounds the output shaft at a smaller region of the hollow portion than the region that engages the retention screw.
HAFERMALZ teaches, in another steering system (Title), an output shaft adapter (Coupling Piece 21, Fig. 3) defining a hollow portion (“HP-H”, Fig. 3 Annotated) extending through the output shaft adapter (21) axially, the hollow portion having a smaller diameter region (“RS-H”, Fig. 3 Annotated) and a larger diameter region (“RL-H”, Fig. 3 Annotated) adjacent to the smaller diameter region, a shoulder (“SH-H”, Fig. 3 Annotated), wherein the output shaft adapter (21) is disposed at the first end of an output shaft (Screw Pinion Shaft 3, Fig. 3) such that the smaller diameter region (SH-H) circumferentially surrounds the output shaft (3), and a shaft retention screw (Screw 22, Fig. 3) having a head portion defining a flange (“HD/FLG”, Fig. 3 Annotated) and a body portion defining external threads (a head, flange, and body portion being illustrated in Fig. 3), the shaft retention screw (22) being disposed in the hollow portion (HP-H) such that the flange (HD/FLG) engages with the shoulder (SH-H) and the body portion extends into the output shaft (3) so as to prevent axial separation between the output shaft (3) and the output shaft adapter (Screw 22 extending into Screw Pinion Shaft 3 to secure it to Coupling Piece 21 as illustrated in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The shaft retention screw (22) of HAFERMALZ is arranged such that the flange (HD/FLG) has a diameter that is larger than the smaller diameter region (the Flange FLG of Screw 22 being larger than Smaller Diameter Region RS-H as illustrated in Fig. 3 Annotated) (note: these teachings relate to claim 6 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KO, Segawa, and HAFERMALZ in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KO’s steering assist system such that the shaft retention screw joint was arranged as claimed and as suggested by HAFERMALZ. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a more compact joint that would beneficially make a more compact and space-efficient assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, KO appears to depict a sensor arrangement (“SN”, Fig. 1 Annotated) that surrounds the input and output shafts to measure an angle between them, but it is not positively taught therein. However, sensor arrangements to measure an angle between input and output shafts are old and well known in the art.
Segawa teaches a sensor arrangement (Sensor Assembly, Figs. 5A and 5B) circumferentially surrounding the input shaft (4) and the output shaft (5), wherein the sensor arrangement (SA) is configured to measure an angular difference between the input shaft (4) and the output shaft (Para. [0011] teaches that Circuit Board 53 and Coil 10 of Sensor Assembly SA measure the torsion in Torsion Bar 6, which is arranged such that an angular difference between the Input 4 and Output 5 Shafts are understood to be measured).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a sensor arrangement as is old and well known in the art and taught by Segawa, in order to measure an angle between input and output shafts.
Regarding Claim 4, KO further teaches a torsion bar (Torsion Bar 102, Fig. 1) disposed coaxially within the first (H1) and second (H2) hollow portions (Fig. 1 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 5, KO further teaches that the shaft retention screw (130) further includes an internal hex drive screw (as illustrated in Fig. 2) for rotating the shaft retention screw (130) such that the external threads engage with the internal threads (Para. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 6, KO, as modified by HAFERMALZ, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of HAFERMALZ and motivation to combine them with KO’s steering assist system).
Regarding Claim 7, KO further teaches a housing (“HS”, Fig. 1 Annotated) configured to receive the support plate (SP), the housing (HS) and the support plate (SP) configured to prevent movement of the input shaft (101), the output shaft (103/110), and the output shaft adapter (105/120) in a radial direction (Housing HS and Support Plate SP comprising a plurality of bearings including Bearing BR which support Input Shaft 101, Output Shaft 103/ First Shaft 110, and Screw 105/ Second Shaft 120 as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 8, KO does not teach that the output shaft is press fit into the output shaft adapter as it instead teaches a spline connection (First and Second Serrations 301 and 302, Fig. 3).
Segawa teaches a press-fit between a worm wheel (Worm Wheel 20 comprising Core Metal 21, Fig. 1) and an output shaft (Para. [0090] teaches that Core Metal 21 of Worm Wheel 20 is fixed to Output Shaft 5 by press-fitting), and further teaches that this advantageously allows the two parts to move relative to each other during a collision event and thus extend a collapse stroke (Paras. [0016]-[0020] and [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the spline connection of KO with the press-fit of Segawa as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent shaft connections recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. In this case, both a spline and a press-fit connection are known in the art to be capable of carrying torque loads between a shaft and a shaft mounted component. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify KO’s steering assist system to include a press-fit connection as suggested by Segawa. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing an extended collapse stroke in case of a collision, as taught by Segawa and discussed above, that would beneficially make a safer assembly.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO, Segawa and HAFERMALZ in view of Kogel (US-20240375704-A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, (having closely related limitations as discussed below), KO further teaches that the output shaft adapter (105/120) further comprises splines (Second Seration 302 of Second Shaft 120, Fig. 3 [claim 3 only]).
KO does not teach that the output shaft adapter engages with {a shaft [claim 3]/ an input shaft [claim 9]} of a hydraulic steering gear.
Kogel teaches, in another steering assist system (Abstract), engaging with a {shaft of a hydraulic steering gear assembly [claim 3]/ hydraulic steering gear input shaft [claim 9]} (Output Shaft 12 understood as an input shaft of Hydraulic Power System 4 via Hydraulic Valve 2 and being engaged with a steering assist system as illustrated in Fig. 1) of a commercial vehicle (Para. [0001] teaching that the invention relates to a utility vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of KO, Segawa, HAFERMALZ, and Kogel in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KO’s steering assist system to include a hydraulic steering gear as suggested by Kogel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing additional steering force and power that would beneficially make more user-friendly and functional steering assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PARK (KR-20230134948-A) teaches claimed and unclaimed elements of the described invention drawn to a shaft retention screw for a worm drive of a steering system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights