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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220185364 A1 ("Kwon").
Claim 1: Kwon teaches an actuator unit for a steering system of a motor vehicle, comprising: a control housing (122; 411, 412) in which there is received an electrical control unit (422), by which a motorized drive unit (130) which is configured with the control housing for mechanically driving an actuator element (140) which extends along an actuator axis (axis of 140) relative to the control housing can be controlled (para. 37, lines 1-7), wherein the control housing has a recess (hole in control housing 122 where 140 goes through) which extends over a circumferential portion about the actuator axis (Fig. 4).
Claim 2: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kwon further teaches the actuator unit, wherein the recess extends with respect to the actuator axis over a circumferential range of more than 90° (Fig. 4; the hole where 140 goes into is a circle shaped hole, which is greater than 90°).
Claim 4: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kwon further teaches the actuator unit, wherein the control unit (422) has a printed circuit board which extends in a planar manner transversely relative to the actuator axis (the components from 422 of Fig. 4 are shown to extend in the same direction as 140 in the holes of 412 shown in Fig. 2).
Claim 5: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Kwon further teaches the actuator unit, wherein the printed circuit board is configured to be adapted to the recess of the control housing (122; 412; Fig. 4) (the components from 422 of Fig. 4 are shown to fit into the housing of 412).
Claim 6: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kwon further teaches the actuator unit, wherein an electric motor (130) of the drive unit is fitted to the control housing (122) (Fig. 4).
Claim 9: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kwon further teaches the actuator unit, wherein the actuator element (140) can be rotatably driven by the drive unit (130) about the actuator axis (direction A; Fig. 6) (para. 37, lines 1-7).
Claim 11: Kwon teaches a steering system for a motor vehicle, comprising: at least one input unit (110) for inputting steering commands (para. 24, lines 4-7); and an electrical actuator unit (422, 122, 130, 140) according to claim 1 (Fig. 4); wherein the electrical actuator unit has an electric drive unit (130) which is connected to a control unit (422) and which is configured to convert electrical control signals into a mechanical movement of an actuator element (140) (para. 20, lines 1-9).
Claim 13: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Kwon further teaches the steering system, wherein the actuator unit (422, 122, 130, 140) is operationally connected to a steering input means (110) (para. 20, lines 1-9; Fig. 6).
Claim 14: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Kwon further teaches the steering system, wherein the steering system is a power steering or a steer-by-wire steering system (100) (para. 20, lines 1-9).
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 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.
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 7, 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220185364 A1 ("Kwon") in view of DE 102022202556 A1 ("Bachmann").
Claim 7: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 6 as noted above. Kwon does not teach the actuator unit, wherein the motor has a motor axis which is arranged with spacing parallel with the actuator axis.
However, Bachmann teaches the actuator unit, wherein the motor (7) has a motor axis (M) which is arranged with spacing parallel with the actuator axis (Actuator 6 follows along the direction of the motor Axis; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kwon with the features of Bachmann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Bachmann teaches "the motor axis is arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis” (para. 10, line 1) and “this results in the significant advantage that the motor and control unit can be arranged next to the casing unit in a space-saving manner" (para. 10, lines 6-8).
Claim 8: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 6 as noted above. Kwon does not teach the actuator unit, wherein the control unit extends between the motor axis and the recess.
However, Bachmann teaches the actuator unit, wherein the control unit (9; 91 and 92) extends between the motor axis (M) and the recess (hole in 63 that 9 goes into; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kwon with the features of Bachmann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Bachmann teaches "the board sections 92 are dimensioned so that the board 91 can be angled or folded to save space and inserted into the control housing 63".
Claim 10: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kwon does not teach the actuator unit, wherein the actuator element can be linearly displaced by the drive unit in the direction of the actuator axis.
However, Bachmann teaches the actuator unit, wherein the actuator element can be linearly displaced (45, 44, 43; displacement along rack and pinion) by the drive unit (41) in the direction of the actuator axis (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kwon with the features of Bachmann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Bachmann teaches "the steering torque is converted via a pinion 43 and a rack 44 into a translational movement of tie rods 45" (para. 30, lines 3-4).
Claim 12: Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Kwon further teaches the steering system, wherein there is an actuator unit (422, 122, 130, 140). But does not teach that it has a steering actuator.
However, Bachmann teaches the function of a steering actuator (4, 41; Fig.1; para. 30, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kwon with the features of Bachmann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Bachmann teaches "the steering torque is converted via a pinion 43 and a rack 44 into a translational movement of tie rods 45" (para. 30, lines 3-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the references, either alone or in combination, disclose all of the limitations of the claims. Specifically, with regard
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights