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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 6, 2026.
Drawings
The drawing amendment is approved by the examiner and the drawing objection is withdrawn in view of the drawing amendment.
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the specification.
Claim Objections
The claim objections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
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) 1, 3-5 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (PGPub 2025/0121874) in view of Tessier (PGPub 2016/0326814).
Krueger teaches a linear translating assembly (linear actuator 1) comprising: a housing 2; a linear translating component 7,8, (thrust rod assembly 7, 8, 9.1, that includes a spindle 8) moveable in an axial direction (para [0029]), wherein at least a portion of the length of the linear translating component is disposed within the housing; and an anti-rotation device 10 (element 10 that axially guides and prevents rotation of thrust rod assembly 7 in housing 2, para [0030]-[0032]) comprising: an inner ring assembly 10.3 at least partially surrounding the linear translating component 7, 8, at a mounting location of the linear translating component; and an outer ring assembly 10.4 at least partially surrounding the inner split-shell assembly (see Figure 4; para [0032), wherein the anti-rotation device is disposed within the housing 2 and is axially fixed to the linear translating component at the mounting location in a nonrotational manner relative to the linear translating component, wherein interaction between the anti-rotation device and the housing prevents rotation of the linear translating component (non-round geometry 10.1 of anti-rotation device 10 mates with the geometry of the housing to prevent rotation of the spindle 8; para [0030], last 4 lines).
Krueger shows unitary inner and outer rings, rather than split-shell assemblies forming the inner and outer rings of the anti-rotation device.
Tessier teaches a linear translating component (rod 16) and a guide 100 fixed to the translating component. The guide comprises inner and outer rings 102, 104 (see Figure 8B). The inner ring (clamp 102) is formed by a split-shell assembly that surrounds the linear translating component 16 and the outer ring 104 (a sliding bushing) is formed by an outer split-shell assembly that surrounds the inner split-shell assembly, thereby facilitating assembly and replacement of the guide assembly (para [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configuration the inner and outer rings of Krueger as inner and outer split-shell assemblies, as taught by Tessier, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate assembly and replacement of the rings.
Regarding claim 3, the anti-rotation device and the housing of Krueger are in direct contact with each other (para [0030], lines 8-10).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Krueger teaches a rear wheel steering arrangement with a motor 3 and belt drive 4 for moving the linear translating assembly. It specifies that the linear translating assembly includes a spindle but does not specify that it is a lead screw or nut screw. However, it is old and well known that steering systems that use a rotary motor typically require a ball nut or lead screw mechanism to convert rotary power input to linear steering output. 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 spindle of Krueger as either a ball screw or a lead screw, as both are old and well known steering spindle configurations, in order to convert rotary drive from the motor to linear movement of the linear translating component (spindle 8).
Regarding claim 9, the inner split-shell assembly (taught by Tessier, Figure 8) comprises a first inner split-shell element and a second inner split-shell element (halves of clamp 102), the first and second inner split-shell elements each surrounding a portion of the linear translating component 16 at the mounting location.
Regarding claim 10, Krueger teaches the inner ring (which in the combination corresponds to the inner split-shell elements of Tessier) includes at least one protrusion and/or recess, wherein the mounting location of the linear translating component includes at least one protrusion and/or recess engaged with the protrusion(s) and/or recess(es) of the ring element to axially and rotationally fix the linear translating component and the inner split-shell assembly relative to each other (Krueger teaches a hexagonal geometry of the spindle 8 that forms protrusions that engage recesses in the inner ring 10.3; see Figure 4; para [0032, last 4 lines).
Regarding claim 11, the outer split-shell assembly (bushing 104, seen in Figure 8B of Tessier) comprises a first outer split-shell element and a second outer split-shell element, the first and second outer split-shell elements each surrounding a portion of the inner split-shell assembly (bushing split-shell elements 104 surround split-shell elements of clamp 102 of Tessier).
Regarding claim 12, at least one of the first outer split-shell element and the second outer split-shell element includes at least one protrusion and/or recess, wherein the inner split-shell assembly includes at least one protrusion and/or recess engaged with the protrusion(s) and/or recess(es) of the first and second outer split-shell element to axially and rotationally fix the outer split-shell assembly and the inner split-shell assembly relative to each other (Krueger teaches a tongue in groove connection and a knurling 10.2 that form inter-engaged protrusions and recesses between inner and outer rings 10.3, 10.4 that hold them relatively fixed).
Regarding claim 13, Krueger teaches an electric power steering system (a typical electric motor is shown in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger and Tessier as applied to claims 1, 3-5 and 9-12 above, and further in view of Ohnishi (EP 2908028).
The combination lacks a sleeve disposed between the outer split-shell assembly and the housing.
Ohnishi teaches a linear translating assembly having a housing 2, a linear translating component 7, and an anti-rotation device that cooperates with the housing to prevent rotation of the linear translating component. It also teaches using a sleeve 18, 18’, disposed between the anti-rotation assembly and the housing to increase durability of the linear actuator (para 0035], lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sleeve disposed between the anti-rotation device and the housing, as taught by Ohnishi, with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase the durability of the linear translating assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Ohnishi teaches a, electric power steering system (Figure 1) where the linear translating component is a ball screw (ball screw shaft 7, 12; Figure 2, para [0031], line 2). 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 spindle of Krueger as a ball screw, as taught by Ohnishi, to convert rotary drive from the motor to linear movement of the linear translating component (spindle 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither the Krueger nor Tessier reference teaches the entire claimed combination and the references are not combinable because the references are directed to entirely different fields. The examiner agrees that neither reference teaches every element of the claimed invention, as indicated in the previous Office Action and noted above. However, the examiner disagrees that the references are not combinable. Both Kueger and Tessier are drawn to guides for rods that slide linearly within cylindrical tubing. Both references also address a common problem of mounting a rod guide to an intermediate section of rod. Kueger teaches a two-part guide having an inner shell (retaining member 10.3) surrounded by an outer shell (sliding element 10.4) but lacks split-shell configurations. Tessier not only teaches a rod guide having an inner shell (retaining clamp 102) surrounded by outer shell (sliding bushing 104) it also teaches that each of the inner and outer shells is formed as a split-shell assembly in the form of interconnected semi-cylindrical portions (see para [0107] and Figure 8B). The split-shell configuration allows the rod guide to be assembled on a rod even when at the rod ends are not accessible and the resulting guide is robust and easy to install (para [0008]). The examiner maintains that the references address a related art, that of rod guides, as discussed above, and also address the common problem of affixing the rod guides to rods. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily seen the benefit of modifying the anti-rotation rod guide of Krueger by configuring the inner and outer shell as split-shell assembles, as taught by Tessier, to facilitate assembly and replacement of parts. Therefore, the rejection is believed to be appropriate and the rejection is being maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are allowed.
Claims 6-8 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Augustine teaches a spring-biased anti-rotation structure.
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
Prosecution Insights