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 April 20, 2026, regarding objection of claim 1 (page 6) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related objection has been withdrawn. The objections to the specification (page 6) have been partially corrected, as noted below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 (pages 8-11) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejection has been maintained and updated as amended:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 11) that TOJO does not teach the amended material because the inclined portion is not below a meshed portion, the examiner disagrees, noting that at least a portion of Inclined Portion IP is disposed lower than a Meshed Portion MP, as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated, and so Inclined Portion IP is understood to be formed below Meshed Portion MP.
In response to applicant's argument (page 10) that modifying TOJO with the groove of Asakura would not result in the claimed invention, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), MPEP 2145 (III). In this case the groove of Asakura suggests to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a groove or passage in a lower portion of a housing in order to advantageously drain water from the housing, as discussed in the 35. U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in this and the previous office action.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Appropriate correction is required.
Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
The correction made to Para. [0020] at line 6: “the above-described distance becomes close it comes close to” remains unclear and/ or grammatically incorrect.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOJO (US-20140291062-A1) in view of ASAKURA (US-20180162439-A1) (note: the underlined portions below relate to the latest amendment, for the convenience of the applicant) (note that the MS Word version of the Office Action shows annotated figures in color, as opposed to in grayscale as printed in the PDF version of the same document).
Regarding claim 1, TOJO teaches a steering apparatus (Power Steering System 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a turning shaft (Rack Shaft 14, Fig. 1) movable in a vehicle widthwise direction (Para. [0019] teaches the Rack Shaft moving in a longitudinal direction, which is understood as the width direction of a vehicle in view of Fig. 1);
a pinion shaft (Pinion Shaft 13, Fig. 1) meshed with the turning shaft (Para. [0019] teaches the Rack Shaft 14 moving in response to the rotation of the Pinion Shaft 13 and Fig. 1 illustrates Pinion Shaft 13 and Rack Shaft 14 being joined by Pinion Gear 13A and Rack Gear Teeth 14C such that they are understood to be meshed together);
a first housing (First Housing 21, Fig. 1) that retains therein the turning shaft (14) and the pinion shaft (13) (First Housing 21 being disposed around Rack Shaft 14 and Pinion Shaft 13 as illustrated in Fig. 1);
a ball screw (Ball Screw Mechanism 60, Fig. 1) that transmits drive force generated by a drive source (Electric Motor 40, Fig. 1) to the turning shaft (Para. [0024] teaches that the Ball Screw Mechanism 60 supplies a force from Electric Motor 40 to Rack Shaft 14); and
a second housing (Second Housing 22, Fig. 1) that retains therein the ball screw (Second Housing 22 being dispose around Ball Screw Mechanism 60 as illustrated in Fig. 1),
wherein a retaining portion (Drainage Device 100, Figs. 1-4) capable of storing water (Para. [0045] teaches that the Drainage Device 100 has a “valve closed state” in which water is retained in the Drainage Device 100) is provided at an inner circumferential surface (the inner surface of Second Housing 22 as illustrated in Fig. 1) of the second housing (Drainage Device 100 being located along at an inner surface of Second Housing 22 as illustrated in Fig. 1),
wherein a lower end surface (the bottom of Drainage Device 100 as illustrated in Fig. 1) of the retaining portion (100) is located below at least a lower end surface (the bottom of Ball Screw Mechanism 60 as illustrated in Fig. 1) of the ball screw (the bottom surface of Drainage Device 100 being lower than the bottom surface of Ball Screw Mechanism 60 as illustrated in Fig. 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
624
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a first end portion (“E1”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of the retaining portion (100) in an axial direction (left and right in Figs. 1-2) of the turning shaft (14) is located between a belt member (Transmission Belt 53, Fig. 2) that links the ball screw (60) with the drive source (40) and a rack end stopper (“S-L”, Fig. 1 Annotated, considered a rack end stopper in that it is a feature in the Rack Shaft 14 that would stop its movement when it reached the Ball Screw Mechanism 60) at a drive-source side (the drive-source side being considered the left side of the Power Steering System 1 as illustrated in Figs 1-4 and indicated by direction “DS” in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated) (First End Portion E1 of Drainage Device 100 being axially disposed between Transmission Belt 53 and Rack End Stopper S-L as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2 Annotated),
PNG
media_image2.png
526
837
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a second end portion (“E2-3”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of the retaining portion (100) located at a belt-member side (BS) relative to the first end portion (E1) in the axial direction (left and right) of the turning shaft (Second End Portion E2-3 being aligned to the right- i.e. on the Belt-Member Side BS- of First End Portion E1 of Drainage Device 100 along the length of Rack Shaft 14 as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated) has a same position in an axial direction of the turning shaft (14) as a position of a side face (“SF2”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of the belt member (53) at a pinion-shaft side (Second End Portion E2-3 being aligned in a left to right direction along the length of Rack Shaft 14 with the right side- i.e. pinion-shaft side- of Side Face SF2 of Transmission Belt 53 as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated),
wherein the first housing (21) comprises an inclined portion (“IP”, Fig. 1 Annotated) which is formed at an inner circumferential surface (the surface formed on the inside of First Housing 21 and indicated by Inner Space 23, Fig. 1) and which becomes thin as it comes close to} (see the corresponding claim objection above) a coupled portion (the joint between First and Second Housings 21 & 22, Fig. 1; see also the corresponding 112b rejection above) between the first housing (21) and the second housing (Inclined Portion IP being formed in Inner Space 23 and becoming smaller- i.e. thinner- as it extends from First Housing 21 towards Second Housing 22; to the right in Fig. 1 Annotated), and
wherein a portion where a tooth of the turning shaft (14) and a tooth of the pinion shaft (13) are meshed with each other is defined as a meshed portion (“MP”, Fig. 1 Annotated), and the inclined portion (IP) is formed below at least the meshed portion (at least a portion of Inclined Portion IP being disposed lower than Meshed Portion MP, as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated, Inclined Portion IP is understood to be formed below Meshed Portion MP).
TOJO does not teach a groove.
ASAKURA teaches, in another steering apparatus (Abstract), a groove portion (Drain Passage 200, Figs. 5 & 6) which has an open upper end (the upper side of Drain Passage 200 in Figs. 5 & 6 being open to Hole 88 above it) and a lower end (the upper side of Drain Passage 200 in Figs. 5 & 6 having a closed face).
ASAKURA further teaches that Drain Passage 200 is provided to advantageously drain water in a Ball Screw Chamber 56 (Para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of TOJO and ASAKURA in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify TOJO’s steering apparatus to include a groove as suggested by ASAKURA. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a feature to drain a ball screw chamber as taught by ASAKURA and discussed above that would beneficially make a steering apparatus that is more resistant to adverse weather conditions such as rain and standing water.
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, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights