Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/207,678

STEERING RACK AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 09, 2023
Examiner
ENGLISH, JAMES A
Art Unit
3614
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
HL Mando Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
927 granted / 1145 resolved
+29.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1165
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1145 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 Election/Restrictions Claims 4-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/10/2025. Applicant’s election of Invention I, Species I in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 11 “body art” should be “body part”. 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. Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budaker et al. (DE 103 10 505 A1; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’) in view of Kiforiuk et al. (US 2014/0174222). With respect to claims 1-3 and 11-13, Budaker et al. discloses a steering rack (MTD paragraph 20) comprising: a body part (fig. 1) having ends (fig. 1), each end of the body part (10) of the steering rack (MTD paragraph 20) connectable to a respective wheel (MTD paragraph 20); and a threaded part (fig. 2; MTD paragraph 21) provided on the body part (10) of the steering rack and having screw gear teeth configured to be engageable with a ball nut (11) configured to be rotatable by a motor (6). (Figs. 1-2, MTD paragraphs 18-28.) Budaker et al. is silent regarding an over ball diameter. Kiforiuk et al. teaches of an over ball diameter of a first area (area around 15) of the screw gear teeth (11) positioned relatively adjacent to a center (15) of the threaded part of the steering rack (10) is different/greater than (paragraph 24, “the centre 15 has a larger core diameter than at the ends 12, 13”) and gradually changes/increases (fig. 2) from an over ball diameter of a second area (area around 12 and 13) of the screw gear teeth (11) positioned relatively adjacent to ends (12, 13) of the threaded part of the steering rack (10). (Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 18-32.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the steering rack structure as described in Kiforiuk et al. into the invention of Budaker et al. with a reasonable expectation of success so that rattling noises can be avoided for certain steering positions. (Paragraph 5.) Regarding the limitation of “a frictional force between the screw gear teeth and the ball nut in the first area is greater than a frictional force between the screw gear teeth and the ball nut in the second area/gradually increases from the ends of the threaded part of the steering rack to the center of the threaded part of the steering rack” is functional language. “[Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.) Budaker et al., as modified, discloses the structural limitation of the claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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. /JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 09, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600190
SNOWMOBILE WITH FRONT SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577976
DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559060
OCCUPANT RESTRAINT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552436
BRAKE ASSEMBLY FOR ROBOTIC SURGERY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552219
DISCONNECTABLE SWAY BAR LINK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+9.0%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1145 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month