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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 5, the lead line from numeral 86 points to a fastening means, whereas, in Figure 7, the lead line from numeral 86 points to a ring that is on the opposite side of the carrier sleeve 8 from the fastening means. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant’s amendment to the specification is approved in that it fixed the issue with respect to element 83. However, the specification is objected to for the following:
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 12, the element 86 is referred to as the “ring portion”. However, the drawings show element 86 with a lead line to the fastening means, in Figure 5, and to the ring portion, in Figures 7 and 8. Also, the “fastening means” now lacks an associated reference numeral in the detailed description.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 15-16, 19-20, 23, and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (USPN 8,540,258) in view of Tatewaki (PGPub 2002/0148672).
Regarding claim 15, Bae teaches a power assisted steering system (col. 4, line 1) for a motor vehicle, comprising: a threaded spindle 140 that engages in a spindle nut 310, extends in a direction of a spindle axis, and is axially displaceable in a housing 120; and a drive unit having a pulley 350b that is connected to the spindle nut in a rotationally fixed manner, is rotatably drivable about the spindle axis, and is rotatably mounted in the housing in a bearing arrangement 355, with the bearing arrangement including a bearing outer ring (see Figure 9) that is axially supported on the housing 120 at an end face via a spring element 910a (a “spring” is a resilient device that can be pressed or pulled but returns to its former shape when released, used chiefly to exert constant tension or absorb movement; Bae teaches a rubber spring element 910a that exerts a force, can be compressed and return to its original shape, and absorbs vibrational movement) and that is received coaxially in a sleeve element 901b and held radially in the housing. The spring element resiliently biases the bearing outer ring axially with respect to the housing and is configured to compensate tilting movement caused by dynamic loads during operation (applicant’s detailed disclosure, at page 2, lines 3-5, indicates that axial spring tension compensates for tilting movements; also, Bae teaches both axial and radial resilient biasing which, inherently, compensates for tilting movements that might occur); wherein the spring element is configured as a spring portion 910a and the sleeve element is configured as a sleeve portion 910b that is connected in one piece to the spring portion, on a one-piece carrier sleeve 910.
Bae shows a drive unit having a belt and pulley drive between the motor 150 and the spindle nut 310, rather than a geartrain with a gearwheel.
Tatewaki et al. teaches a power steering system having a drive unit with a gearwheel 32a that is connected to a spindle nut 32 in a rotationally fixed manner, as is conventional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the drive unit of Bae as a gear drive unit with a gearwheel, rather than having pulleys and a belt, as taught by Tatewaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to arrange the drive unit more compactly and without the maintenance issues associated with a flexible belt.
Regarding claim 16, Bae teaches that the spring portion 910a protrudes radially inwards from the sleeve portion.
Regarding claim 19, the sleeve portion 910b of Bae is a tube.
Regarding claim 20, the sleeve portion 910b is resiliently tensioned radially externally against the bearing outer ring (col. 6, lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 23, Bae teaches the one-piece carrier sleeve is comprised of plastic (polymers; see col. 6, lines 54-64).
Regarding claim 25, Bae teaches a rolling bearing 355 (see Figure 9) of the bearing arrangement includes the bearing outer ring.
Regarding claim 26, Bae lacks a gearwheel is disposed axially between bearings in the bearing arrangement. However, the gear transmission of Tatewaki shows a gearwheel 32a that is disposed axially between bearings 28 in the bearing arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the drive unit of Bae as a gear drive unit with a gearwheel disposed axially between bearings, as taught by Tatewaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to arrange the drive unit more compactly with adequate support and load distribution between the two bearings.
Regarding claim 27, Bae and Tatewaki both teach toothed racks.
Regarding claim 28, both references teach that the threaded spindle and the spindle nut form a ball screw drive.
Regarding, the spring element of Bae includes a compression spring (spring element absorbs shock and dampens vibration under by squeezing under axial load).
Claim(s) 15-20, 22, and 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugosh (USPN 8,307,940) in view of Tatewaki (PGPub 2002/0148672).
Regarding claim 15, Bugosh teaches a power assisted steering system 10 (col. 1, lines 5-8) for a motor vehicle, comprising: a threaded spindle 22, 24, that engages in a spindle nut 42, extends in a direction of a spindle axis X, and is axially displaceable in a housing 20; and a drive unit (electric motor 40 and pulley assembly 50) that is connected to the spindle nut 42 (pulley 50 is rotationally fixed to the spindle nut) in a rotationally fixed manner, is rotatably drivable about the spindle axis, and is rotatably mounted in the housing 20 in a bearing arrangement 52, with the bearing arrangement including a bearing outer ring (see Figures 3 and 4) that is axially supported on the housing 20 at an end face via a spring element (axial ends of damper 82) and that is received coaxially in a sleeve element 88 and held radially in the housing, wherein the spring element is configured as a spring portion 86 and the sleeve element is configured as a sleeve portion 88 that is connected in one piece to the spring portion, on a one-piece carrier sleeve 910, that biases the bearing outer ring axially with respect to the housing and is configured to compensate tilting movement caused by dynamic loads during operation.
Bugosh shows a drive unit having a belt and pulley drive between the motor and the spindle nut, rather than gearing including a gearwheel.
Tatewaki et al. teaches a power steering system having a drive unit with a gearwheel 32a that is connected to a spindle nut 32 in a rotationally fixed manner, as is conventional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the drive unit of Bugosh as a gear drive unit with a gearwheel, rather than having pulleys and a belt, as taught by Tatewaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to arrange the drive unit more compactly and without the maintenance issues associated with a flexible belt.
Regarding claim 16, Bugosh teaches that the spring portion 86 protrudes radially inwards from the sleeve portion.
Regarding claim 17, Bugosh teaches that the spring portion can be formed by a wave spring (a wavy or corrugated outer surface (col. 5, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 18, the spring portion 86 has a disk spring (portions 86, 84 are disk shaped).
Regarding claim 19, the sleeve portion 88 of Bugosh is a tube.
Regarding claim 20, the Bugosh sleeve portion is resiliently tensioned radially externally against the bearing outer ring.
Regarding claim 22, Bugosh teaches the sleeve portion includes fastening means for axial fixing on the bearing outer ring (col. 5, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 24, Bugosh teaches that the one-piece carrier sleeve is comprised of metallic material (metal plates 84A integrally formed therein).
Regarding claim 25, Bugosh teaches a rolling bearing 52 (see Figures 3 and 4) of the bearing arrangement includes the bearing outer ring.
Regarding claim 26, Bugosh lacks a gearwheel is disposed axially between bearings in the bearing arrangement. However, the gear transmission of Tatewaki shows a gearwheel 32a that is disposed axially between bearings 28 in the bearing arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the drive unit of Bugosh as a gear drive unit with a gearwheel disposed axially between bearings, as taught by Tatewaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to arrange the drive unit more compactly with adequate support and load distribution between the two bearings.
Regarding claim 27, Bugosh and Tatewaki both teach toothed racks.
Regarding claim 28, both references teach that the threaded spindle and the spindle nut form a ball screw drive.
Regarding, the spring element of Bugosh includes a compression spring (spring element absorbs shock and dampens vibration under by squeezing under axial load).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugosh and Tatekawa as applied to claims 15-20, 22, and 24-29 above, and further in view of Huber (USPN 11,702,124).
The combination lacks the sleeve portion being segmented in a circumferential direction.
Huber teaches a power steering system having a spring element 94, 95, for a bearing 8. The spring element includes a spring portion 94 and a sleeve portion 95 that holds the spring portion in place. The sleeve portion is segmented in a circumferential direction to provide a barb-like fastening mean 951 that grip the outer ring of the bearing (see col. 19, lines 36-59, including self-affixing rings 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to segment the sleeve portion of the combination, in view of Huber, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to grip and self-affix the spring element to the outer ring of the bearing.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugash and Tatekawa as applied to claims 15-20, 22, and 24-29 above, and further in view of Shimizu (USPN 4,825,972).
The combination lacks a disk spring that includes a washer which substantially has the shape of a lateral cone surface and can be resiliently compressed in the axial direction.
Shimizu teaches a power steering system with a bearing 8e axially biased by a cone shaped spring element (disk shaped plate having a longitudinal taper that creates a cone shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the axially biasing spring portion in a cone shape, in view of Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide greater resiliency for vibration mitigation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the elastomeric dampers of Bae and Bugosh are not spring elements using any reasonable definition of the term “spring”. The examiner disagrees. The examiner maintains that the “dampers” taught by the prior art to Bae and Bugosh at least meet the definition of rubber springs.
According to the Oxford Languages and Google dictionary, a spring is a resilient device, typically [but not necessarily] a helical metal coil, that can be pressed or pulled but returns to its former shape when released, used chiefly to exert constant tension or absorb movement. The AI Overview definition of “rubber spring” is: a flexible, elastic component made from natural or synthetic rubber, designed to absorb shock, dampen vibration, and support loads, offering advantages like quiet operation, less maintenance (no squeaking/lubricating), and high energy storage per weight compared to metal springs, commonly used in vehicle suspensions and industrial machinery. Material: Made from elastomers like natural rubber, synthetic rubber (neoprene, silicone), often reinforced with carbon black. Function: Provides suspension, absorbs impact, reduces noise and vibration, and can handle significant deflection.
Both Bae and Bugosh teach elastomeric dampers that meet the definition of rubber spring elements. They are made from natural or synthetic rubber. They deflect then return their original shape. Also, they are provided specifically to support loads, dampen shocks, and reduce vibrations and noise. Therefore, the elastomeric damper inserts of Bae and Bugosh constitute spring elements, as claimed.
It is also noted that Jeon teaches “damper members 141” positioned between a bearing and a power steering housing. Jeon specifies that the damper members are constituted by “a wave washer, a spring, or the like which provides an elastic force in the axial direction” (para [0042]). Therefore, it is understood that “damper” structure can also refer to “spring” structure, particularly, in the context of a rubber damper or spring element. More specifically, Jeon provides evidence that the terms “damper” and “spring” are interchangeable in the context of vibration mitigation within of an axially biased bearing structure.
Applicant also suggests that Bae and Bugosh fail to teach a spring element that biases the bearing outer ring axially with respect to the housing and is configured to compensate tilting movement caused by dynamic loads during operation. The examiner disagrees. Applicant’s detailed disclosure, at page 2, lines 3-5, states that “it is known in the prior art to resiliently tension the bearing outer ring against the housing via an axial spring element mounted externally at the end face, so that it is possible to compensate tilting movements caused by dynamic loads during operation” which indicates that axial spring tension inherently compensates for tilting movements. Also, Bae and Bugosh teach both axial and radial resilient biasing, which compensates for tilting movements that might occur even if axial biasing alone did not. Therefore, the claimed structure is believed to be taught by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeon teaches a “damping member” in the form of a spring, a wave washer, or the like (para [0042], lines 4-7).
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 Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/