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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by the Applicant listed below:
April 4, 2025
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Line . It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Neither the specification nor the drawings clearly indicate, define or explain what “barrel shaped” encompasses. This renders the claim as vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation “barrel shaped” as follows:
“”.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
As set forth in the claim language, the relationship of is unclear.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows, which Examiner believes to be consistent with the instant specification: See at least: Instant PgPub Figs 7-8, ¶¶
“”
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines 1-2 .
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
As set forth in the claim language, the relationship of is unclear.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows, which Examiner believes to be consistent with the instant specification: See at least: Instant PgPub Figs 7-8, ¶¶
“”
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines 1-2 .
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
As set forth in the claim language, the relationship of is unclear.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows, which Examiner believes to be consistent with the instant specification: See at least: Instant PgPub Figs 7-8, ¶¶
“”
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and are rejected for depending therefrom.
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 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.
Claims 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
An electronic steering system for a vehicle See at least ¶¶ comprising:
at least one rack () having gear teeth ( See at least ¶¶ and
a wheel sensor assembly configured to sense a movement or a position of the rack (), wherein the wheel sensor assembly has a sensor gear (See at least ) meshed with the gear teeth of the rack () and a sensor unit coupled to the sensor gear (See at least ), wherein the sensor unit is to detect rotation of the sensor gear (). See at least Figs 1, 4-6; ¶¶0017-0020, ; “rack section passing through the housing section and the sensor section mounted in the case section are meshed with each other”; “The sensor section 40 and the rack section 20 can translate linear motion into rotational motion by rack and pinion coupling. The sensor section 40 can detect an amount of rotation corresponding to the amount of movement of the rack section 20. The amount of rotation measured by the sensor section 40 is transmitted to a control unit, and a rotational angle for the driving wheels can be precisely calculated.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the wheel sensor assembly includes a plurality of sensor gears, and wherein at least two of the sensor gears include respective sensor units. See at least Fig 5; ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the sensor gear is first sensor gear of a plurality of sensor gears operatively coupled to the gear teeth of the rack. See at least ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the first sensor gear and a second sensor gear of the plurality of sensor gears have different diameters. See at least Figs 5-6, ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the first sensor gear is meshed with the gear teeth of the rack and the second sensor gear is meshed with the first sensor gear. See at least Figs 1, 4-6; ¶¶0017-0020, ; “rack section passing through the housing section and the sensor section mounted in the case section are meshed with each other”; “The sensor section 40 and the rack section 20 can translate linear motion into rotational motion by rack and pinion coupling. The sensor section 40 can detect an amount of rotation corresponding to the amount of movement of the rack section 20. The amount of rotation measured by the sensor section 40 is transmitted to a control unit, and a rotational angle for the driving wheels can be precisely calculated.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the gear teeth are integral to the rack. See at least ¶¶; Fig 2
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A steering control system for a vehicle comprising:
a rack having integrally formed gear teeth; See at least ¶¶; Fig 2 and
a control device configured to receive position data from a wheel sensor assembly configured to sense a movement or a position of the rack (),
wherein the wheel sensor assembly has a sensor gear (See at least ) meshed with the integrally formed gear teeth and a sensor unit coupled to the sensor gear, wherein the sensor unit is to detect rotation of the sensor gear. See at least Figs 1, 4-6; ¶¶0005, 0017-0020, ; “rack section passing through the housing section and the sensor section mounted in the case section are meshed with each other”; “The sensor section 40 and the rack section 20 can translate linear motion into rotational motion by rack and pinion coupling. The sensor section 40 can detect an amount of rotation corresponding to the amount of movement of the rack section 20. The amount of rotation measured by the sensor section 40 is transmitted to a control unit, and a rotational angle for the driving wheels can be precisely calculated.”
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 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.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above, in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein a circumference of the sensor gear is longer than a length along which the rack is movable.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to allow the maximum displacement of the rack to move within one rotation, making it possible to use inexpensive sensor means to accurately and reliably detect the steering angle displacement of the steering wheels. See at least English Translation ¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing in to in order to allow the maximum displacement of the rack to move within one rotation, making it possible to use inexpensive sensor means to accurately and reliably detect the steering angle displacement of the steering wheel. See at least Ikeda English Translation ¶ ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D)
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein a circumference of the sensor gear is shorter than a length along which the rack is movable.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to provide space savings. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing in in order to provide space savings. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above, in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first and second sensor gears are meshed with the gear teeth of the rack.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to increase measurement accuracy and provide redundancy. See at least (L1, L2, 100, 200, 300; Fig 4); ¶¶0044-.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing in to increase measurement accuracy and provide redundancy. See at least (L1, L2, 100, 200, 300; Fig 4); ¶¶0044-; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the Examiner)
disclose:
A steering system for a vehicle comprising:
at least one rack () having gear teeth See at least ¶¶; and
a transmission including:
a plurality of gears, wherein the plurality of gears are meshed with the gear teeth of the rack; See at least Figs 1, 4-6; ¶¶0017-0020, “rack section passing through the housing section and the sensor section mounted in the case section are meshed with each other”; and
fail to explicitly disclose:
a plurality of sensor assemblies configured to sense rotational movement of the plurality of gears.
However, disclose:
a single sensor assembly configured to sense rotational movement of the plurality of gears See at least Figs 1, 4-6; ¶¶0017-0020, ; “sensing board section 44 senses the sensing gear section 43. As an example, the sensing board section 44 can detect magnetism of the rotating sensing gear section 43. The sensing board section 44 is disposed above the two sensing gear sections 43”
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to increase measurement accuracy and provide redundancy. ¶¶0016-0021, 0041-0050, 0057-0060
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing in to increase measurement accuracy and provide redundancy. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above, in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
a drive unit with a recirculating ball nut for driving the rack, and wherein the recirculating ball nut is operatively coupled to the sensor gear via the rack.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to optimize installation space. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing in to optimize installation space. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the gear teeth include a plastic material or an alloy.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of in order to provide rigidity and allow for engagement of a toothed wheel. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to to provide rigidity and allow for engagement of a toothed wheel. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
[Examiner Note : .]
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the sensor gear includes a plastic material or an alloy.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of utilizing a in order to provide radial elastic flexibility to provide improved engagement of a toothed wheel. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing a in to provide radial elastic flexibility to provide improved engagement of a toothed wheel. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above, as evidenced by Nakielski et al. (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the gear teeth are straight, spherical, barrel-shaped or trapezoidal.
It has been held that a change in shape is a matter of a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would found obvious absent persuasive evidence of the significance of the shape. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B)) (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant has not disclosed that in the are significant in any way. Applicant does not note that are critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over the other shapes.
For example, the Instant PgPub states: See at least ¶¶;
“Optionally, the gear teeth of the rack can include straight, spherical, barrel-shaped or trapezoidal teeth. This increases the configurability of the gear teeth depending on the application-related needs.”
As such, the are not considered to have patentable significance because the Applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that in the are significant in any way. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to utilize , and produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B)) (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore weighing towards obviousness, it is known in the art to utilize various gear tooth geometries and shapes in consideration of proper gear function as evidenced by Nakielski et al. (See at least Nakielski et al.: ¶)
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and Lee as applied above, in view of Ikeda as applied above.
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the Examiner)
disclose:
wherein a circumference of the plurality of gears is longer than a length along which the rack is movable.
The combination of references disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to allow the maximum displacement of the rack to move within one rotation, making it possible to use inexpensive sensor means to accurately and reliably detect the steering angle displacement of the steering wheels. See at least English Translation ¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing in to in order to allow the maximum displacement of the rack to move within one rotation, making it possible to use inexpensive sensor means to accurately and reliably detect the steering angle displacement of the steering wheel. See at least English Translation ¶ ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and Lee as applied above, in view of Hong as applied above.
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the Examiner)
disclose:
wherein a circumference of the plurality of gears is shorter than a length along which the rack is movable.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to provide space savings. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing in in order to provide space savings. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above, in view of Renner (DE 102015003668), hereinafter “Renner”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
a steering wheel See at least: Kim et al.: ¶¶; and
Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose:
a steering wheel sensor to generate position data of the steering wheel.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of to increase safety and identify malfunctions. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to increase safety and identify malfunctions. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the control device is further configured to compare the position data of the steering wheel and the position data of the wheel sensor assembly. See at least Renner: ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the control device is further configured to, after identifying a difference between the position data of the steering wheel and the position data of the wheel sensor assembly, set a fault condition. See at least Renner: ¶¶; “If such a malfunction is detected using the method according to the invention, an error or warning signal can be generated by means of which the driver of the motor vehicle 1 is informed about the fault condition in the steering device 2 or in the steering wheel 6. For example, an error signal can be generated precisely when the actual steering wheel position measured at a certain set position deviates by more than a predetermined maximum difference value from the steering wheel position of the handwheel 6 assigned to the position of the rack.”
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights