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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 16, 2025, regarding the 102/ 103 rejections of claims 1 and 3-6 (page 5-6) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding applicant’s arguments pertaining to the oval shaped bearing of claim 1 (page 5, para. 2), the applicant argues that the prior art Hamakita (US-20120048640-A1) cited by the examiner does not anticipate the oval shaped bearing feature of the claimed invention because the oval shaped portion of Hamakita is a Support Hole 74 as opposed to a Bearing 8. However, the examiner disagrees, as discussed in the prior art rejection of claim 1 in this and the previous office action, the examiner asserts that the Support Hole 74 can be considered a part of the bearing structure (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 below), see also the Cambridge Dictionary definition of a bearing (“Meaning of bearing in English”: entry: noun (MACHINE PART) on page 1, presently attached as NPL): “a part of a machine that supports another part that turns around”; where the Support Hole 74 is considered a part of a machine that supports the Worm Shaft 3 that turns around.
Regarding applicant’s arguments pertaining to the fixed bearing of the original claim 2 and the amended claim 1 (page 5, para. 3) the applicant argues that the prior art Hamakita cited by the examiner does not anticipate the fixed bearing because the Drive Shaft 1a does not support either the Worm Shaft 3 or the Bearing 6. However, the examiner disagrees, noting that the language of the claim does not require the drive shaft to support the worm or a fixed bearing, but instead requires a fixed bearing to support the worm on the drive shaft of the electric motor. Further, the worm can be considered to be “on the drive shaft of the electric motor” in that it extends axially from the drive shaft and is coupled to it by Shaft Coupling 2 (see also the 102 rejection of claim 1 below).
Regarding applicant’s arguments pertaining to the outer and inner rings of the original claim 5 (page 5, para. 4- page 6, para. 3) the applicant argues that the prior art Hamakita cited by the examiner does not anticipate the outer and inner rings because it is unclear how the rings are considered to be outer and inner. The examiner points to the 103 rejections of claim 5 in this and the previous office actions which discuss the outer and inner positional relationships of the Second Coupling Element 22 and the Elastic Tooth Element 23. The applicant further argues that the rejection improperly relies on Elastic Tooth Element 23 being arranged between itself and Second Coupling Element 22, but the rejection instead relies on modifying Hamakita’s apparatus such that a rubber-elastic material is arranged between an outer ring and an inner ring, as suggested by the Movement Inhibitor 11.
Regarding applicant’s arguments pertaining to the “another plastic bush” of the original claim 5 (page 6, para. 4) that there is no rational basis for replacing Hamakita’s Elastic Tooth Element 23 and Shaft Coupling Element 22 with the structure of the Movement Inhibitor 11, the applicant has not made any argument against the rational for combining these elements as discussed in this and the previous office action (see the 103 rejection of claim 5 below).
The applicant’s arguments regarding the new claim 7 (page 5, para. 4- page 6, para. 4) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons listed above related to claims 1 and 5.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamakita (US-20120048640-A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamakita teaches a worm drive for a power-assisted steering system of a motor vehicle (Abstract teaches an electric power steering system includes a worm reduction gear), comprising:
a worm gear (Worm Wheel 4, Fig. 1);
a worm (Worm Shaft 3, Fig. 1) configured to mesh with the worm gear (as illustrated in Fig. 1 and taught in Para. [0018]);
an electric motor (Motor 1, Fig. 1, understood to be an electric motor in that it is part of the electric power steering system as taught in Para. [0018]) configured to drive the worm (the Output Shaft 1a of the Motor 1 being coupled to the Worm Shaft 3, as illustrated in Fig. 1 and taught in Paras. [0018]- [0020]);
a coupling (Shaft Coupling 2, Fig. 1);
a floating bearing (Bearing 8, Fig. 1, floating in that it is configured to move inside of a Support Hole 74 as discussed in Para. [0024]), and
a fixed bearing (Bearing 6, Fig. 1, fixed in that it is constrained from multiple directions, including by Snap Ring 14 as illustrated in Fig. 1) configured to support the worm (3) on the drive shaft (Output Shaft 1a) of the electric motor (Para. [0028] and Fig. 1 teaches the Worm Shaft 3 being supported by Bearing 6 at Shaft Portion 3a, which is disposed on the same side- i.e. left side- of the Worm Shaft 3 as Motor 1),
wherein one side (Shaft Portion 3a, disposed on the left side in Fig. 1) of the worm (3) is connected by the coupling (2) to the electric motor (Shaft Portion 3a of Worm Shaft 3 being coupled to the Output Shaft 1a of the Motor 1 via Shaft Coupling 2, as illustrated in Fig. 1 and taught in Para. [0020]) and the other side (Shaft Portion 3b, disposed on the right side in Fig. 1) of the worm (3) is supported in the floating bearing (Shaft Portion 3b of Worm Shaft 3 being supported in Bearing 8, as illustrated in Fig. 1 and taught in Para. [0020])
wherein the coupling (2) comprises a hub (First Coupling Element 21, Fig. 1) and an elastic spring bush (the combination of Second Coupling Element 22 and Elastic Tooth Element 23, Fig. 1),
wherein the floating bearing (8) is configured to be oval-shaped (Para. [0024] teaches that Support Hole 74 has an oval shape, Support Hole 74 being a part of the bearing structure in that Bearing 8 is mounted inside it) so as to allow vertical movements (vertical being defined as up and down in Fig. 1 along the arrowed line “H”) of the worm (Para. [0024] teaches Bearing 8 moving in Support Hole 74 in the direction of the line H, such that Worm Shaft 3, being supported by Bearing 8 as discussed above, is understood to be allowed to move in that direction), and
wherein the worm (3) is preloaded onto the worm gear (4) by the coupling (Para. 32 teaches the Worm Shaft 3 being pressed away from the Motor 1 by the Shaft Coupling 2, which would cause a preload force between the Worm Shaft 3 and the Worm Wheel 4).
Regarding Claim 3 Hamakita further teaches that the hub (21) is pressed onto the drive shaft (1a) of the electric motor (Para. [0031] and Fig. 1 teach that the First Coupling Element 21 of Coupling 2 is coupled, such that it is considered pressed, to the Output Shaft 1a of Motor 1), and the worm (3) is pressed into the elastic spring bush (Para. [0035] and Fig. 5 teach that the Second Coupling Element 22 is fitted, such that it is considered pressed, to Shaft Portion 3a of Worm Shaft 3).
Regarding Claim 4 Hamakita further teaches that:
the hub (21) has an integrated key (“KY”, Hamakita Fig. 1 Annotated),
the elastic spring bush (22 &23) defines a slot (“SL”, Hamakita Fig. 1 Annotated), and
the elastic spring bush (22 & 23) engages the hub (21) via mating of the slot (SL) with the integrated key (key KY of First Coupling Element 21 engaging slot SL of Elastic Tooth Element 23 as illustrated in Fig. 1 and taught in Para. [0032]).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamakita (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 5, Hamakita further teaches that:
the elastic spring bush (22 &23) comprises an outer ring (Second Coupling Element 22, Fig. 1, considered outer in that Shaft Coupling 2 comprises First and Second Coupling Elements 21 & 22 which are disposed on the left and right outer ends of the Shaft Coupling) and an inner ring (Elastic Tooth Element 23, Fig. 1, considered inner in that it is disposed in-between First and Second Coupling Elements 21 & 22 of Shaft Coupling 2), and the elastic spring bush (23) further comprises an [Not taught: rubber] elastic material (Elastic Tooth Element 23 being described as elastic).
Hamakita further teaches another elastic spring bush (Movement Inhibitor 11, Fig. 1, considered an elastic spring in that it comprises Elastic Element 11b) having an inner (Inner Ring 11a, Fig. 5) and an outer (Outer Ring 11c, Fig. 5) ring with an elastic material (Elastic Element 11b, Fig. 5) between them (as illustrated in Fig. 5).
Although a person having ordinary skill in the art might readily consider the elastic material of the elastic spring bush of Hamakita to be a rubber-elastic material, Hamakita does not teach specifically teach that it is rubber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a rubber-elastic material as the elastic material of the elastic spring bush of Hamakita, rubber being well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a suitable elastic material, and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use in an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Hamakita, as modified above, does not teach that the rubber-elastic material is arranged between the outer ring (22) and the inner ring (23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamakita in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hamakita’s worm gear, as modified above, such that a rubber-elastic material is arranged between the outer ring and the inner ring, as suggested by the other elastic spring bush (embodied by Movement Inhibitor 11 as discussed above). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a material capable of damping shock loads that would beneficially make a more durable device.
Regarding Claim 7, Hamakita teaches a worm drive for a power-assisted steering system of a motor vehicle that is substantially similar to the worm drive of claim 5, (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 and the 103 rejection for claim 5 for the teachings of Hamakita).
Hamakita does not teach that the inner ring is radially inward relative to the outer ring.
Hamakita teaches that the arrangement of the Movement Inhibitor 11 (see the 103 rejection of claim 5 above) advantageously softens a sense of discomfort given to a driver in certain steering scenarios while in other scenarios limiting the movement imparted to the Elastic Element 11b to improve its durability (Para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hamakita in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hamakita’s worm gear such that that the inner ring is radially inward relative to the outer ring as suggested by the arrangement of Hamakita’s Movement Inhibitor 11. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantages of softening a driver’s discomfort and improving the durability of an elastic element as taught by Hamakita and discussed above that would beneficially make a more user-friendly and durable assembly.
Regarding Claim 8, Hamakita further teaches a fixed bearing (Bearing 6, Fig. 1, fixed in that it is constrained from multiple directions, including by Snap Ring 14 as illustrated in Fig. 1) configured to support the worm (3) on the drive shaft (Output Shaft 1a) of the electric motor (Para. [0028] and Fig. 1 teaches the Worm Shaft 3 being supported by Bearing 6 at Shaft Portion 3a, which is disposed on the same side- i.e. left side- of the Worm Shaft 3 as Motor 1)
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Hamakita teaches all limitations (see the 102 rejections of claims 3 and 4 above for the teachings of Hamakita).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamakita in view of CHIKAPAISHI (JP-2005042913-A) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claims 6 and 11, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), Hamakita further teaches that:
the floating bearing (8) includes an outer ring (Support Hole 74, Fig. 3, considered an outer ring in that it is generally circular in shape and disposed to be surrounding Bearing 8) and an inner ring (Outer Ring 8b, Fig, 3, considered inner in that it is disposed to be inside of Support Hole 74), and
the floating bearing (8) further includes an [Not taught: rubber] elastic material (Curved Leaf Spring 12, Fig. 3, a spring being understood to be made of an elastic material) arranged between the outer ring (74) and the inner ring (8a) (Leaf Spring 12 being disposed between Support Hole 74 and the Outer Ring 8b of Bearing 8 as illustrated in Fig. 3).
Hamakita does not teach that the elastic material (12) is a rubber-elastic material.
CHIKAPAISHI teaches, in another worm reduction gear and electric power steering device (Para. [0001]), a floating bearing (Fourth Bearing 37, Fig. 28) with an outer (Outer Diameter Side Cylindrical Portion 189, Fig. 29) and an inner (Inner Diameter Side Cylindrical Portion 188, Fig. 29) ring with a rubber-elastic material between them (Connecting Portion 190, Fig. 29, taught as made of rubber in Para. [0158]).
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 spring of Hamakita with the rubber-elastic portion of CHIKAPAISHI as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent elastic elements 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.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611