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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is in response to the amendment filed on 11/20/2025 for Application No. 18/149,940. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 USC §112(b), claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17 under 35 USC §103 over Dieringeret in view of Vonier, and claims 7 and 16 over Dieringeret, Vonier and further in view of Watanabe, set forth in the prior Office action. Further, the amendment has raised new issues set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks filed on 11/20/2025, with respect to the claims mentioned above have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 to the upper half of page 8 that “the engagement line and the common contact points between the gears under engagement condition of the gearing are structurally defined or structural limitations and the locus curve or point of the contact points is also structural limitation” of the apparatus claim. In response to applicant’s arguments, the contact points or line appear to be a reference line or point of the geometry which is formed between the two gear components under an engaged condition of the assembled device. However, these contact points and line between the two gears do not add any structural significance to the apparatus of the invention. Further, the MPEP states that “the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite”, See MPEP 2173.05 (g) and the 112(b) rejection below.
Further, applicant argues on pages 9-10 that either Dieringeret or Vonier teaches or suggests an “engagement line defined by a locus of actual contact points between teeth of the first and second gear wheels during operation, wherein the engagement line is spaced apart from the axis perpendicular by a predetermined, non-zero distance resulting from intentional geometric adaptation of the gear wheels”.
In response to applicant’s arguments, firstly, the functional/operational limitation indicated above describes the intended use/operation rather than the structure of the apparatus. In other words, the limitations of "engagement line/segment" and “locus of actual contact points” are the features or reference lines and points of the gear pair under engaged condition which are not positively recited structures in the claims and they do not receive patentable weight. However, those limitations were mapped to the prior art for the purpose of compact prosecution. Secondly, Dieringeret was used as a primary reference to teach the first and second gear wheels that are orthogonally arranged with respect to the first rotational axis and the second rotational axis between the two worm gears which include all the reference or engagement lines and points of the gearing geometry (Annotated Figure 1b). Dieringeret was further modified with two helical gears taught by Vonier which have the same arrangement (Annotated Figure 4). Under meshing condition or assembled, these gear wheels are in contact with one another such that the engagement line/segment and a locus of actual contact points between the teeth of the gear pair are formed and can be seen as shown in the Annotated Figures below. The engagement characteristics or profiles of the gear pair include the tip, root circles and gear geometry where the gears are in contact with one another are the basic principle of how they work or function under operating condition. It will be inoperative if these gears are not in contact under engaged condition, for instance, see the segment between points of tooth action “a” and “b” and pitch point “P” on the Pressure line in the annotated Figure 13-12 below (Shigley et al. 2004, Mechanical Engineering Design 7th ed., page 671). Thirdly, Vonier was used as a secondary reference to teach the gear geometry includes engagement line and points or locus of the contact points between the engagement tooth of the two helical gears under meshing or engaged condition in the same arrangement, See the Annotated Figure 4 below. In view of the above teachings, it would have been obvious to skilled person in the art to substitute the worm gear pair of Dieringeret with the pair of helical gears of Vonier to provide higher load capacity and reduced wear and tear of the components. As modified, it would have been further obvious to have the engagement line spaced apart from the axis perpendicular by a predetermined or a minimum spacing, non-zero distance resulting from intentional geometric adaptation of the gear wheels as matter of a design choice. The advantage or reason for doing so would prevent damage from tooth interference and distribution load smoothly such that the gears can mesh properly without undue stress and increase the service life of the gear components, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. Further, since the applicant has not disclosed that the predetermined or minimum spacing or non-zero distance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any tolerance range that is greater than zero. Noted that the minimum tolerance in helical gear arrangement or minimum permissible backlash is not a fixed number and it depends on the gear’s size or diametral pitch or module and operation conditions. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, Rawlings et al. (US 2019/0283796, figures 3 and 4) and Fuchsel (US 2010/0319475 A1, figures 3a-3c) are cited as evidence to show the engagement points and lines that can be seen in the perpendicular or orthogonal arrangement of two helical gears of a steering gear system. Noted the engagement line/segment or points are not labeled, however, they can be seen with the geometry as mentioned above in various perspective views.
Moreover, the recitation “a locus of actual contact points between teeth of the first and second gear wheels during operation, wherein the engagement line is spaced apart from the axis perpendicular by a predetermined, non-zero distance resulting from intentional geometric adaptation of the gear wheels” in claim 1 is a functional limitation of the apparatus claim. In other words, these characteristics are inherent of the engagement operation of the two gear wheels of Dieringeret or the modified gear wheels. The MPEP states that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does", as such “a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. See MPEP 2114 (I) and (II).
For at least the reasons set forth above, the rejections of claims 1-17 are maintained below.
PNG
media_image1.png
947
1299
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 13-12, Tooth action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an engagement line” and “a locus point” in lines 7 and 8, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural component(s) that this limitation is being referred to and represented. The imaginary/reference engagement line or contact point is nothing but a graphical representation of a reference line and point of the assembled device which does not make any contribution to the structure of the claimed invention. The claim is directed to an apparatus and the representation of an element of the apparatus as an imaginary/reference line or point does not add any structural significance to the invention because it is not part of the claimed invention. The Office recommends that the limitation should be amended, changed or avoided for clarity. MPEP states that “the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite”, See MPEP 2173.05 (g), “In re Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. For example, a claim that included the term "fragile gel" was found to be indefinite because the definition of the term in the specification was functional, i.e., the fluid is defined by what it does rather than what it is ("ability of the fluid to transition quickly from gel to liquid, and the ability of the fluid to suspend drill cuttings at rest"), and it was ambiguous as to the requisite degree of the fragileness of the gel, the ability of the gel to suspend drill cuttings (i.e., gel strength), and/or some combination of the two. Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255-56, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. In another example, the claims directed to a tungsten filament for electric incandescent lamps were held invalid for including a limitation that recited "comparatively large grains of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging or offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for such a lamp or other device." General Elec. Co., 304 U.S. at 370-71, 375. The Court observed that the prior art filaments also "consisted of comparatively large crystals" but they were "subject to offsetting" or shifting, and the Court further found that the phrase "of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for a lamp or other device" did not adequately define the structural characteristics of the grains (e.g., the size and contour) to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 370. Similarly, a claim was held invalid because it recited "sustantially (sic) pure carbon black in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior". Claims 2, 4-7 and 13-17 are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a straight line segment” in line 3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural component(s) that this limitation is being referred to and what element it is represented. The straight line segment is nothing but a graphical representation of a reference line of the assembled device which does not make any contribution to the structure of the claimed invention. The claim is directed to an apparatus and the representation of a member/element of the apparatus as a straight line segment does not add any structural significance to the invention because it is not part of the claimed invention. The Office recommends that the limitation should be amended, changed or avoided for clarity. MPEP states that “the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite”, See MPEP 2173.05 (g), “In re Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. For example, a claim that included the term "fragile gel" was found to be indefinite because the definition of the term in the specification was functional, i.e., the fluid is defined by what it does rather than what it is ("ability of the fluid to transition quickly from gel to liquid, and the ability of the fluid to suspend drill cuttings at rest"), and it was ambiguous as to the requisite degree of the fragileness of the gel, the ability of the gel to suspend drill cuttings (i.e., gel strength), and/or some combination of the two. Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255-56, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. In another example, the claims directed to a tungsten filament for electric incandescent lamps were held invalid for including a limitation that recited "comparatively large grains of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging or offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for such a lamp or other device." General Elec. Co., 304 U.S. at 370-71, 375. The Court observed that the prior art filaments also "consisted of comparatively large crystals" but they were "subject to offsetting" or shifting, and the Court further found that the phrase "of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for a lamp or other device" did not adequately define the structural characteristics of the grains (e.g., the size and contour) to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 370. Similarly, a claim was held invalid because it recited "sustantially (sic) pure carbon black in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior". Claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 2-17 are rejected upon dependent from a rejected base claim and they inherit its deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6, 8-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieringeret in view of Vonier, both cited in the prior action.
Regarding claim 1, Dieringeret discloses a steering gear for a vehicle (Figures 1a-1c; Annotated Figure 1b below; par. [0034]) comprising
a first gear wheel (26) and a second gear wheel (28) which engages with the first gear wheel (26),
a first rotation axis (i.e., axis of gear 26) of the first gear wheel (26) being aligned so as to be transverse to a second rotation axis (i.e., axis of gear 28) of the second gear wheel (28), and
an axis perpendicular (See Annotated Figure 1b below; pars. [0008], [0068]) being aligned so as to be orthogonal to the first rotation axis (i.e., axis of gear 26) and to the second rotation axis (i.e., axis of gear 28),
a smallest spacing between axes (26) between the first rotation axis (i.e., axis of gear 26) and the second rotation axis (i.e., axis of gear 28) coinciding with the axis perpendicular (See Annotated Figure 1b below; pars. [0008], [0068]), and
an engagement line (See Annotated Figure 1b below) defined by a locus of actual contact points (Annotated Figure 1b, i.e., engagement points) between teeth of the first and second gear wheels (26,28) during operation,
wherein the engagement line (Annotated Figure 1b) is spaced apart from the axis perpendicular by a predetermined. However, Dieringeret teaches the first and second gears are worm gears instead of helical gears an engagement line segment.
Vonier discloses an electromechanical power steering system for a helical gearbox includes gears that can be either worm gears or helical gears. See par. [0015] and Figures 4 and 5; Annotated Figure 4 below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the steering gear of Dieringeret with a reasonable expectation of success to have the first and second gears as helical gears instead of spur/worm gears as taught by Vonier in order to provide higher load capacity and reduced wear and tear of the components, since replacing one type of gearing for another involves only routine skill in the art, and one of ordinary skill would arrive at predictable results upon making such a change, because either gearing would perform equally well. Helical gears are well known in the art for durability and quieter/smooth operation, and substituting the helical gears for the spur/worm gears of Dieringeret would not change the way the overall apparatus functions. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of improvement in operation which renders the claim obvious.
Further, it is well recognized to a person skilled in the art for the engagement or mating gear teeth to have a tolerance, backlash, or a minimum spacing that is non-zero distance resulting from intentional geometric adaptation of the gear wheels in order to prevent damage from tooth interference and provide smooth operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the modified helical gearing of the modified steering gear with a reasonable expectation of success to have the engagement line (Annotated Figure 1b) is spaced apart from the axis perpendicular by a predetermined or a minimum spacing, non-zero distance resulting from intentional geometric adaptation of the gear wheels as matter of a design choice, doing so would prevent damage from tooth interference and distribution load smoothly such that the gears can mesh properly without undue stress and increase the service life of the gear components, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 1, wherein the engagement line is spaced apart from the axis perpendicular (See Annotated Figure 1b and/or 4 below; pars. [0008], [0068]) by way of a minimum spacing, but does not specifically teach wherein the minimum spacing is greater than zero, which appears to be illustrated in the Drawings of Figure 1b and the Annotated Figures below or in a zoom out view. It is well recognized to a person skilled in the art for the engagement or mating gear teeth to have a tolerance, backlash, or a minimum spacing that is greater than zero for preventing damage from tooth interference and provide smooth operation.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the modified helical gearing of Dieringeret and Vonier with a reasonable expectation of success to have the engagement line is spaced apart from the axis perpendicular by way of a minimum spacing, wherein the minimum spacing is greater than zero as matter of a design choice, doing so would prevent damage from tooth interference and distribution load smoothly such that the gears can mesh properly without undue stress and increase the service life of the gear components, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 2 including a tolerance or spacing between the gearings greater than zero but does not specifically teach wherein the minimum spacing is greater than 0.1 mm or greater than 0.2 mm.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the modified steering gear with a reasonable expectation of success to have the minimum spacing is greater than 0.1 mm or greater than 0.2 mm as matter of a design choice, doing so would prevent damage from tooth interference and distribution load smoothly such that the gears can mesh properly without undue stress and increase the service life of the gear components, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 2, Vonier (Annotated Figure 4 below) further teaches wherein the minimum spacing between the engagement line and the axis perpendicular, shown in Annotated Figure 4 below, is defined by a straight line segment orthogonal to both the engagement line and the axis perpendicular, See Annotated Figures below, but does not specifically teach the straight line segment representing a shortest physical distance between the engagement line and the axis perpendicular. Noted that the minimum tolerance in helical gear arrangement or minimum permissible backlash is not a fixed number and it depends on the gear’s size or diametral pitch or module and operation conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the modified helical gearing of the modified steering gear with a reasonable expectation of success to have the minimum spacing define by the straight line segment to represent a shortest physical distance between the engagement line and the axis perpendicular as matter of a design choice. The advantage or reason for doing so would prevent damage from tooth interference and distribution load smoothly such that the gears can mesh properly without undue stress and increase the service life of the gear components, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. Further, since the applicant has not disclosed that the predetermined or minimum spacing or non-zero distance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any tolerance range that is greater than zero. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 1, Dieringeret (See Annotated Figure 1b below) further teaches
wherein the axis perpendicular (See Annotated Figures 1b and/or 4 below) coincides with a z-axis of a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system having an x-axis, a y-axis and a z-axis,
the engagement line intersecting an xz-plane in a first intersection point and a yz-plane in a second intersection point, the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis (i.e., axis of gear 28) intersecting in the z-axis, can be seen in both Annotated Figures 1b and 4 below.
Regarding claim 6, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 1, Dieringeret (See Annotated Figure 1b below) further teaches
wherein the engagement line (33) is spaced apart from the axis perpendicular (See Annotated Figures 1b and/or 4 below; pars. [0008], [0068]) by virtue of an adaptation of geometry of the first gear wheel (26) and/or of the second gear wheel (28),
a real pitch module and/or an engagement angle and/or a helix angle (29) of the first gear wheel (26) and/or of the second gear wheel (28) being adapted for spacing apart the engagement line from the axis perpendicular (See Annotated Figure 1b and/or 4 below).
Regarding claim 8, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 6, Dieringeret further teaches (See Annotated Figure 1b below) wherein the an axes intersection angle and/or the spacing between axes between the first rotation axis (i.e., axis of gear 26) and the second rotation axes (i.e., axis of gear 28), are/is unchanged in terms of the adaptation of the geometry of the first gear wheel (26), the second gear wheel (28) being unchanged (See the Annotated Figures 1b and/or 4 below).
Regarding claim 9, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 1, Dieringeret further teaches wherein the first gear wheel (26) is configured as a first spur wheel (par. [0032]), and the second gear wheel (28) is configured as a second spur wheel (par. [0032]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified steering gear, Dieringeret further teaches having a steering gear as claimed in claim 1 and having an electric motor (24) which is connected in a torque-transmitting manner to the helical gear (26,28).
Regarding claim 11, Dieringeret discloses the steering gear as claimed in claim 2 including a tolerance or spacing between the gearings greater than zero between the engagement teeth as indicated above but does not specifically teach wherein the minimum spacing is less than 2 mm or less than 1.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the modified steering gear with a reasonable expectation of success to have the minimum spacing is less than 2 mm or less than 1.5 mm as matter of a design choice, doing so would provide sufficient lubrication to the gear components as the predictable results of noise reduction under operation, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, as modified the steering gear as claimed in claim 2 including a tolerance or spacing between the gearings greater than zero between the engagement teeth as indicated above but does not specifically teach wherein the minimum spacing is at most 2 mm.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the modified steering gear with a reasonable expectation of success to have the minimum spacing is at most 2 mm as matter of a design choice, doing so would prevent damage from tooth interference and distribution load smoothly such that the gears can mesh properly without undue stress and increase the service life of the gear components, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 3, Dieringeret (See Annotated Figure 1b below) further teaches
wherein the minimum spacing between the engagement line and the axis perpendicular results in a straight line between the engagement line and the axis perpendicular, the straight line being aligned so as to be orthogonal to the engagement line and orthogonal to the axis perpendicular (See the annotated Figures 1b and/or 4 below). As indicated in the 112(b) rejection above, these imaginary lines, axes and/or points are considered as imaginary or reference lines/points, since they are not structural limitations which recite in an apparatus claim, they have not been treated as a positive recitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 2, Dieringeret (see Annotated Figure 1b below) further teaches
wherein the axis perpendicular coincides with a z-axis of a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system having an x- axis, a y-axis and a z-axis, the engagement line intersecting an xz-plane in a first intersection point and a yz-plane in a second intersection point (See Annotated Figure 1b below),
the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis (i.e., axis of gear 28) intersecting in the z-axis (See Annotated Figures 1b and/or 4 below).
Regarding claim 15, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 2, Dieringeret (See Annotated Figure 1b below) further teaches
wherein the engagement line is spaced apart from the axis perpendicular by virtue of an adaptation of geometry of the first gear wheel (26) and/or of the second gear wheel (28),
a real pitch module and/or an engagement angle and/or a helix angle of the first gear wheel and/or of the second gear wheel being adapted for spacing apart the engagement line from the axis perpendicular (See Annotated Figures 1b and/or 4 below). As indicated in the 112(b) rejection above, these imaginary lines, axes and/or points are considered as imaginary or reference lines/points, since they are not structural limitations which recite in an apparatus claim, they have not been treated as a positive recitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 1, Vonier further teaches wherein the first gear wheel is configured as a helical pinion and the second gear wheel is configured as a helical gear. See Figures 4 and 5.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieringeret in view of Vonier as applied above, and further in view of Watanabe, cited in the prior action.
Regarding claim 7, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 1, including engaging spacing, engagement line, axis perpendicular, axes intersection angle, first and second rotational axes as indicated above and shown in the annotated Figures 1b and/or 4 below. Please see the 112(b) rejection above regarding the imaginary/reference spacing/points/lines of negative limitations. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the limitations are being rejected as follows. The modified steering gearing does not explicitly teach a housing.
Watanabe teaches a vehicle steering device includes a housing 41 for accommodating a rack-and-pinon mechanism 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the modified steering gear with a reasonable expectation of success to have a housing that receives and/or mounts the helical gear in terms of the reception and/or mounting of the helical gear is adapted for spacing apart the engagement line from the axis perpendicular, an axes intersection angle and/or the spacing between axes between the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis being adapted for spacing apart the engagement line from the axis perpendicular housing as taught by Wantabe in order in order to protect the steering gear from being damaged by foreign debris and weather conditions to cause damaging to the gearing components.
Regarding claim 16, the modified steering gear as claimed in claim 2 including engaging spacing, engagement line, axis perpendicular, axes intersection angle, first and second rotational axes as indicated above and shown in the annotated Figures 1b and/or 4 below. Please see the 112(b) rejection above regarding the imaginary/reference spacing/points/lines of negative limitations. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the limitations are being rejected as follows. The modified steering gearing does not explicitly teach a housing.
Watanabe teaches a vehicle steering device includes a housing 41 for accommodating a rack-and-pinon mechanism 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the modified steering gear with a reasonable expectation of success to have a housing that receives and/or mounts the helical gear is adapted for spacing apart the engagement line from the axis perpendicular, an axes intersection angle and/or the spacing between axes between the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis being adapted for spacing apart the engagement line from the axis perpendicular by the housing as taught by Watantabe in order to protect the steering gear from being damaged by foreign debris and weather conditions to the gearing components.
PNG
media_image2.png
768
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1b
PNG
media_image3.png
528
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and are applicable to applicant's claim invention.
Fuschel (US 2010/0319475 A1) discloses a helical bevel gearing with a pinion 1 engaged and aligned perpendicular to a helical wheel for low noise and compactness, see Fig. 3a – 3c; and
Rawlings et al. (US 2019/0283796 A1) discloses a steering wheel system includes a helical gearing arranged in a transverse alignment with a torque feedback control, see Figures 3 and 4.
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 Tinh T Dang whose telephone number is (571)270-1776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at Mon-Friday from 8AM-4:30PM at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/TINH T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655