DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a first embodiment of Oosawa et al. US 11965582 B2.
Regarding independent claim 1, a first embodiment of Oosawa et al. discloses [a speed reducer 12b comprising:
a case 14a,] (Fig. 15; Paragraph 0108-0110)
[a worm disposed in a housing 22a of the case and including a proximal portion coupled to an input shaft,] (Fig. 15 and 23; Paragraph 0110 and 0138)
[a worm wheel 15 coupled to an output shaft 13 and arranged so as to be driven in rotation by the worm,] (Fig. 15; Paragraph 0119)
[a proximal bearing 40 holding the proximal portion of the worm in the housing,] (Fig. 15; Paragraph 0113)
[a distal bearing 17 holding a distal portion of the worm, the distal bearing being disposed in a cylindrical distal portion of the housing,] (Fig. 15; Paragraph 0108)
[a spring 82a held fixed in the distal portion of the housing around the distal bearing,] (Fig. 17; Paragraph 0108) [the spring comprising at least one elastic blade 103a disposed and shaped to bear on an inner face of the cylindrical portion of the housing and having a free end that bears on the distal bearing to exert forces on the distal bearing in a direction towards the worm wheel,] (Fig. 17-18; Paragraph 0108 and 0122; As shown in Fig. 8; Oosawa illustrates wherein the spring comprises at least one elastic blade 103a disposed and shaped to bear on an inner face of the cylindrical portion of the housing 22a and having a free end that bears on the distal bearing 17.)
[wherein the spring 82a comprises flat side portions 102 disposed against the distal bearing and shaped to guide the distal bearing 17 in the direction towards the worm wheel and in an opposite direction, and shaped to limit a side gap between the spring and the distal bearing.] (Fig. 17-18; Paragraph 0122-0123)
Regarding claim 2, the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. further discloses [wherein the spring comprises a protrusion 98 adapted to be engaged in a recess 84 formed in the distal portion of the housing, in order to block the spring in rotation in the housing.] (Fig. 18; Paragraph 0119)
Regarding claim 3, the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. further discloses [wherein the protrusion 98 has a U-shape extending radially outwardly of the spring 82a.] (Fig. 18; Paragraph 0119; As shown in Fig. 18, Oosawa et al. illustrates wherein the protrusion 98 is formed in a U-shape that extends outwardly from the spring 82a.)
Regarding claim 8, the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. further discloses [wherein the spring 82a comprises an annular portion 103b extending over an angular sector comprised between 240° and 300°, each elastic blade 103a having a free end and a fixed end secured to the annular portion.] (Fig. 17-18; Paragraph 0122).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. in view of Segawa JP 2010095006 A.
Regarding claim 5, the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. does not discloses wherein the flat side portions are extended radially inwardly of the spring by tabs cooperating with the distal bearing to axially block the spring in a distal direction.
Segawa teaches [wherein the flat side portions are extended radially inwardly of the spring by tabs 26 cooperating with the distal bearing to axially block the spring in a distal direction.] (Fig. 2-3; Page 7, lines 6-22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the tabs configuration of Segawa with the speed reducer of the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would advantageously allow for tabs to axially retain the spring which would prevent axial displacement, thus improving positional stability of the spring during use and ensuring reliable bearing support.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. in view of Chauvrat et al. US 20160201786 A1.
Regarding claim 6, the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. further discloses [wherein each elastic blade 103a has a curvature and is adjusted so as to follow a curve of variation of the force exerted by the blade on the distal bearing as a function of a position of the distal bearing in the spring.] (Fig. 17 Paragraph 0122 and 0129-0130; Oosawa discloses elastic blades having curved supported portions with a curvature different from mating holder surfaces such that, as the worm displaces and reaction force increases, contact positions shift and the effective spring constant increase, thus producing a force exerted by the blade that changes as a function of position.)
The first embodiment of Oosawa et al. does not disclose wherein each elastic blade has a variable width between its fixed end and its free end.
Chauvrat et al. teaches [wherein each elastic blade has a variable width between its fixed end and its free end.] (Fig. 4; As shown in Fig. 4, Chauvrat et al. illustrates wherein each elastic blade 27 has a variable width between its fixed end and its free end.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the variable width elastic blades of Chauvrat et al. with the speed reducer of the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the ability to tailor the stiffness and force-displacement of the spring, thus enabling precise control of the force exerted on the distal bearing and achieving improved force variation behavior.
Regarding claim 7, the first embodiment of Oosawa et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the curve of variation of the force exerted by each elastic blade 103a on the distal bearing 17 as a function of a position of the distal bearing in the spring 82a is linear with a relatively low slope, then more rapidly increasing in the vicinity of an end of stroke of the distal bearing in the direction towards the worm wheel.] (Paragraph 0129-0135 of the first embodiment of Oosawa et al.; Oosawa et al. discloses elastic blades whose effective spring constant increases as the engaging reaction force increases due to shifting contact positions along the blade. As the distal bearing 17 moves toward the worm wheel, progressively stiffer portions of the elastic blade are engaged, such that the force exerted by the blade initially increases at a lower rate and then increases more rapidly near the end of stroke. Thus, Oosawa et al., naturally discloses the force-position relationship as recited in the claim.)
Regarding claim 9, the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. further discloses [wherein the spring 82a comprises two elastic blades 103a having a width lower than a height of the spring.] (Fig. 17; As shown in Fig. 17, Oosawa et al. illustrates wherein the spring 82a comprises two elastic blades 103a having a width lower than a height of the spring.)
The first embodiment of Oosawa et al. does not disclose wherein the elastic blades are arranged so as to intersect in an area diametrically opposite to a contact area between the worm and the worm wheel.
Chauvrat et al. teaches [wherein the elastic blades are arranged so as to intersect in an area diametrically opposite to a contact area between the worm and the worm wheel.] (Fig. 3 and 4; As shown in Fig. 4 Chauvrat et al. illustrates wherein the elastic blades 27 are arranged so as to intersect in an area diametrically opposite to a contact area between the worm 4 and the worm wheel 6.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the elastic blade arrangement of Chauvrat et al. with the speed reducer of the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the balancing of reaction forces and improvements in load distribution, thus enhancing structural stability and reducing deformation of the spring during torque transmission.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first embodiment Oosawa et al. in view of a second embodiment of Oosawa et al.
Regarding claim 10, the first embodiment of Oosawa et el. further discloses [a power steering 10 for a motor vehicle.] (Fig. 15; Paragraph 0108)
The first embodiment of Oosawa et al. does not disclose the speed reducer being coupled between an assistance motor and a rotary member of a steering system of a motor vehicle.
A second embodiment of Oosawa et al. teaches [the speed reducer being coupled between an assistance motor and a rotary member of a steering system of a motor vehicle.] (Fig. 23; As shown in Fig. 23, the second embodiment of Oosawa et al. illustrates the speed reducer 12 being coupled between an assistance motor 11 and a rotary member of a steering system of a motor vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the speed reducer arrangement of the second embodiment of Oosawa et al. with the speed reducer of the first embodiment of Oosawa et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for motor torque to be transmitted to a rotary steering component, thus achieving intended power steering functionality.
Regarding claim 11, the first embodiment of Oosawa et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the worm wheel of the speed reducer is secured to a steering column 6 of the steering system.] (Fig. 23)
Regarding claim 12, the first embodiment of Oosawa et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the worm wheel of the speed reducer is secured to a pinion shaft coupled to a rack pinion of the steering system.] (Fig. 23; Paragraph 0138)
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first embodiment Oosawa et al. in view of a second embodiment of Oosawa et al. and further in view of Ahn et al. KR 20160111065 A.
Regarding claim 13, the first embodiment of Oosawa et el., as modified, does not disclose wherein the worm wheel of the speed reducer is secured to a pinion shaft coupled to an additional rack pinion of the steering system.
Ahn et al. teaches [wherein the worm wheel of the speed reducer is secured to a pinion shaft coupled to an additional rack pinion of the steering system.] (Fig. 3; As shown in Fig. 3, Ahn et al. illustrates wherein the worm wheel 212 of the speed reducer is secured to a pinion shaft 272 coupled to an additional rack pinion 252 of the steering system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the worm wheel and pinion rack configuration of Ahn et al. with the speed reducer of the first embodiment of Oosawa et el., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the distribution of steering forces, thus enhancing steering control.
Regarding claim 15, the first embodiment of Oosawa et el., as modified, does not disclose another speed reducer provided with worm and worm wheel, the worm wheels of the speed reducer and of the other speed reducer being coupled respectively to rack pinions of the steering system.
Ahn teaches [another speed reducer provided with worm and worm wheel, the worm wheels of the speed reducer and of the other speed reducer being coupled respectively to rack pinions of the steering system.] (Fig. 3; Page 3, lines 3-12; As shown in Fig. 3, Ahn et al. illustrates another speed reducer with a second set of a worm wheel 211 and a worm shaft 271. Both sets of worm wheels and worm shafts are respectively coupled to the rack pinions 251, 252 of the steering system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the second speed reducer of Ahn et al. with the speed reducer of the first embodiment of Oosawa et el., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for simultaneously driving multiple steering racks, thus improving steering responsiveness and extending the functionality of the steering system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first embodiment Oosawa et al. in view of a second embodiment of Oosawa et al. and further in view of Rawlings et al. US 20190283796 A1.
Regarding claim 14, the first embodiment of Oosawa et el., as modified, does not disclose wherein the worm wheel of the speed reducer is secured to a force feedback steering column of a steering system without any mechanical link between a steering wheel and steered wheels of the motor vehicle.
Rawling et al. teaches [wherein the worm wheel of the speed reducer is secured to a force feedback steering column of a steering system without any mechanical link between a steering wheel and steered wheels of the motor vehicle.] (Abstract; Rawlings et al. discloses a steer-by-wire steering wheel system including a torque feedback actuator assembly having a housing, a helical gear rotatably disposed in the housing, and an electric motor with a worm wheel engaged with the helical gear. The steering wheel is coupled to the helical gear, such that rotation of the worm wheel by the motor drives the helical gear to apply torque feedback to the steering wheel. Since the system is expressly configured for use in a steer-by-wire vehicle, the steering wheel is not mechanically connected to the steered wheels, and the worm wheel is not operatively connected with a force-feedback steering column.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the worm wheel and force-feedback steering column arrangement of Rawling et al. with the speed reducer of the first embodiment of Oosawa et el., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for torque feedback to be provided to the steering wheel, thus achieving force-feedback steering functionality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 0429/2026 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1 and 5-7 have been amended. In light of amendments, all 112 rejections and objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Page 5-6 of Remarks) that Ossawa fails to disclose a spring having both an elastic blade and flat side portions that collectively perform the recited biasing, guiding, and gap-limiting functions. Applicant further argues that Oosawa employs two separate spring systems, namely elastic biasing means 81a and elastic holding means 82a, and therefore does not disclose the claimed spring structure. The argument is not persuasive. The rejection relies upon elastic holding means 82a as corresponding to the claimed spring. As shown in Fig. 15-17 and disclosed in paragraphs [0122 and 0129-0132], elastic holding means 82a comprises elastic pieces 101 including flat plate portions 102 and supported portions 103a, 103b that engage both the holder member 80 and holder holding portion 83. Oosawa further teaches that, as engaging reaction forces increase, contact positions shift and the effective spring constant positions shift and the effective spring constant of the elastic holding means increases, thus resisting displacement of the worm and the bearing structure. Accordingly, the elastic holding member 82a is not merely a passive anti-rattle member, but rather an elastic member that interacts with and controls movement of the support structure through spring forces generated by deformation of the elastic pieces.
Applicant also argues (Page 6-7 of Remarks) that Oosawa expressly attributes the biasing function toward the worm wheel to elastic biasing means 81a and therefore elastic holding means 82a cannot satisfy the claimed biasing limitation. However, the claims do not exclude the presence of additional springs or biasing members. The issue is whether the cited structure possesses the recited structural characteristics and performs the claimed functions. Oosawa teaches the elastic holding means 82a exerts forces on the holder member and resists displacement through elastic deformation of the elastic pieces. Therefore, the fact that elastic biasing means 81a additionally contributes a biasing force toward the worm wheel does not negate the disclosure of elastic holding means 82a as an elastic spring structure acting on the supported member.
Applicant also argues (Page 7 of Remarks) that flat plate portions 102 merely provide lateral stabilization and do not guide movement toward and away from the worm wheel. This argument is not persuasive because the claim recites flat side portions disposed against the distal bearing and shaped to guide the distal bearing in the direction toward the worm wheel and in an opposite direction toward the worm wheel and in an opposite direction while limiting side gaps. Ossawa teaches flat plate portions 102 arranged adjacent to the support member and cooperating with supported portions 103a, 103b to constrain movement and maintain alignment of the support structure. Such an arrangement naturally guides movement along permitted directions while limiting lateral displacement and side clearance.
Applicant further argues (Page 8 of Remarks) that Oosawa fails to disclose a single spring structure integrating the recited biasing, guiding, and gap-limiting functions. However, patentability is determined based upon the claimed structure rather than the advantages attributed thereto. The cited portions of Oosawa discloses an elastic portions, flat plate portions, and supported portions that cooperate with the holder member and housing to control movement of the supported structure. The Examiner finds that these structural features reasonably correspond to the claimed spring and associated functional limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights