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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on January 14, 2026.
Examiner Note
The Examiner made new grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and added a note/comment in the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 on the interpretation of the term “flexible”. Accordingly, this office action is made “non-final” to provide Applicant proper time to respond to at least the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/remarks filed January 14, 2026 with respect to the claim rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as explained below.
Applicant respectfully asserts that the cited prior art fails to discloses the limitation “…wherein at least a portion of the plurality of teeth of the rotatable sensor gear are flexible…”.
More specifically, Applicant respectfully asserts that {Park is completely silent regarding the rigidity or flexibility of the disclosed teeth. It is concluded in the Office Action on Page 3 that Park's teeth are flexible based on the mere mention that Park's teeth may be formed of plastic instead of metal. However, Park's fleeting reference to the material choice has nothing to do with rigidity or flexibility of the teeth. Rather, Park specifies in Paragraph [0041] that plastic may provide cost savings over metal. Therefore, Park fails to disclose teeth that are flexible}.
The Examiner respectfully submits that PARK discloses wherein at least a portion of the plurality of teeth (Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 below) of the rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 below) “are flexible” ([0041]: “The second pinion gear 400 {{{may include a plastic material}}}”).
Moreover, PARK discloses the use of a plastic material ([0041]) for the second pinion gear 400. The term “flexible” is a broad term as all materials exhibit at some degree a flexible characteristic. How “flexible” a material is or it could be, depends on the specific material. Accordingly, Applicant can incorporate a specific material in claim 1 that exhibit the characteristic needed for the Present Application Invention.
Still Further, in the arguments/remarks filed on January 14, 2026, Applicant submitted that “…An assertion that plastic is inherently flexible is not appropriate, as any material may flex under certain conditions and when subjected to certain forces. Nonetheless, plastic is not considered inherently flexible, as plastics are an exceptionally diverse class of materials, and their rigidity or flexibility depends on their underlying chemical structure, additives, and manufacturing processes…” which the Examiner fully agreed with “any material may flex under certain conditions and when subjected to certain forces”.
Regarding all remaining limitations, Applicant contended the claims rejections under 35 USC 103 based on the same arguments/remarks as above. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully submits the same rationale pertinent to PARK for the remaining claims as explained above.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the term “flexible” in the limitations “…wherein at least a portion of the plurality of teeth of the rotatable sensor gear are flexible…” renders the claim undefined because is purely subjective, failing to inform a skilled artisan about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Further inspection of the specification does not provide any guidance on what “level of flexibility” the teeth must have, and the claim is therefore indefinite. Please see [MPEP 2173.02(I)].
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected base claims 1 and 13 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (PARK – US 2022/0266891 A1).
Regarding claim 1, PARK (Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figures 3 and 10 below) discloses:
A sensor gear assembly (Sensor device 2: Fig. 3) for a steering system (vehicle steering device 1: Fig. 3) comprising:
a driving component (rack bar 50: Fig. 3) having a plurality of teeth (Plurality of Teeth 900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 below) extending therefrom; and
a rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 below) having a plurality of teeth (Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 below) extending radially away from an outer diameter of the rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 below),
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of teeth (Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 below) of the rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 below) “are flexible” ([0041]: “The second pinion gear 400 {{{may include a plastic material}}}”).
Examiner Note/Comments on the interpretation of the term “flexible”:
Under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (please see MPEP 2111), the Examiner submits that the term “flexible” is a broad term as all materials exhibit at some degree a flexible characteristic. How “flexible” a material is or it could be, depends on the specific material. It is noted that the term “flexible” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Moreover, in the arguments/remarks filed on January 14, 2026, Applicant submitted that “…An assertion that plastic is inherently flexible is not appropriate, as any material may flex under certain conditions and when subjected to certain forces. Nonetheless, plastic is not considered inherently flexible, as plastics are an exceptionally diverse class of materials, and their rigidity or flexibility depends on their underlying chemical structure, additives, and manufacturing processes…” which the Examiner fully agreed with “any material may flex under certain conditions and when subjected to certain forces”.
Please incorporates the above comments and interpretation in the 35 USC 103 section below.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
977
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
656
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10
Regarding claim 2, PARK disclose the sensor gear assembly according to claim 1, and further on PARK also discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of teeth (Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) of the rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 above) have a closed tip at an end thereof which is distal from the outer diameter of the rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 4, PARK disclose the sensor gear assembly according to claim 1, and further on PARK also discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of teeth (Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) of the rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 above) includes a first portion ((((Base portion}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) and a second portion ((((Tip end}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above), the first portion extending radially outward from the outer diameter of the rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 above), the second portion ((((Tip end}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) extending radially outward from an end of the first portion ((((Base portion}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) which is distal from the outer diameter of the rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 above), wherein the first portion ((((Base portion}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) and the second portion ((((Tip end}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) have different cross-sectional areas.
Regarding claim 5, PARK disclose the sensor gear assembly according to claim 4, and further on PARK also discloses:
wherein the first portion ((((Base portion}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) and the second portion ((((Tip end}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) have different widths.
Regarding claim 7, PARK disclose the sensor gear assembly according to claim 4, and further on PARK also discloses:
wherein the first portion ((((Base portion}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) and the second portion ((((Tip end}}} of the Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) have different diameters.
Regarding claim 9, PARK disclose the sensor gear assembly according to claim 1, and further on PARK also discloses:
wherein the driving component (rack bar 50: Fig. 3) is a rack (rack bar).
Regarding claim 10, PARK disclose the sensor gear assembly according to claim 1, and further on PARK also discloses:
wherein the driving component (rack bar 50: Fig. 3) is a gear (rack gear).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 6, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (PARK – US 2022/0266891 A1), in view of (Lee – US 2018/0142772 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, PARK disclose the sensor gear assembly according to claims 5 and 7.
But PARK does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the second portion has a width which is wider than a width of the first portion; wherein the second portion has a diameter which is larger than a diameter of the first portion.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, Lee (See Examiner Annotated Lee Figure 2 below) discloses/teaches the following:
A sensor module including a gear (70) with a plurality of teeth with each tooth having second portion (502) has a width which is wider than a width of the first portion (501) and the second portion (502) has a diameter which is larger than a diameter of the first portion (501).
PNG
media_image3.png
720
885
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Lee Figure 2
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sensor gear assembly of PARK as taught by Lee to increase the accuracy and precision to aid in determining an amount of power steering assist that is provided by a power steering assist unit.
Regarding claims 11-12, PARK disclose the sensor gear assembly according to claim 1.
But PARK does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the plurality of teeth of the rotatable sensor gear {{{includes 10 teeth}}}; wherein the plurality of teeth of the rotatable sensor gear {{{includes 11 teeth}}}.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, Lee (See Examiner Annotated Lee Figure 2 above) discloses/teaches the following:
A sensor module including a gear (70) with a plurality of teeth with each tooth having second portion (502) has a width which is wider than a width of the first portion (501) and the second portion (502) has a diameter which is larger than a diameter of the first portion (501).
The gear body 80 of the first gear 70 may include a plurality of gear teeth. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the first gear 70 {{{includes 10 gear teeth}}} but other numbers of gear teeth are also contemplated. The first gear first tooth 82 extends radially from the outer portion 92 of the gear body 80 ([0021]).
As shown in FIG. 1, the second gear 72 {{{includes 11 gear teeth}}} but other numbers of gear teeth are also contemplated. The second gear 72 may have a different number or the same number of gear teeth as the first gear 70. The second gear 72 may have a substantially similar configuration as the first gear 70 ([0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sensor gear assembly of PARK as taught by Lee to increase the accuracy and precision to aid in determining an amount of power steering assist that is provided by a power steering assist unit.
Claims 3 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (PARK – US 2022/0266891 A1), in view of (Lee – US 2018/0142772 A1), further in view of (Stepanenko – RU 2029189 C1).
Regarding claim 13, PARK discloses:
A rotatable sensor gear (Sensor gear 400: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 3 above) comprising:
a central base (Radial Outer surface with respect to pinion shaft 100: Figs. 3 and 10) having an outer diameter; and
a plurality of teeth (Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) extending radially away from the outer diameter, wherein each of the plurality of teeth (Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) have a closed tip at an end thereof which is distal from the outer diameter,
wherein each of the plurality of teeth (Plurality of Teeth 1900: Please see Examiner Annotated PARK Figure 10 above) ”allow the plurality of teeth to be flexible” ([0041]: “The second pinion gear 400 {{{may include a plastic material}}}”).
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of being flexible” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
But PARK does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein each of the plurality of teeth define an {{{inner pocket}}}.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, Lee (See Examiner Annotated Lee Figure 2 above) discloses/teaches the following:
A sensor module including a gear (70) with a plurality of teeth with each tooth having second portion (502) has a width which is wider than a width of the first portion (501) and the second portion (502) has a diameter which is larger than a diameter of the first portion (501).
Where each of the plurality of teeth define an inner pocket (510).
Further on, regarding limitation (A) above, Stepanenko (See Examiner Annotated Stepanenko Figure 1 below) discloses/teaches the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
308
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Each of the plurality of teeth define an inner pocket (1200).
Examiner Annotated Stepanenko Figure 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sensor gear assembly of PARK as taught by Lee and Stepanenko to increase the accuracy and precision to aid in determining an amount of power steering assist that is provided by a power steering assist unit while expanding functional capabilities and longevity of the gear by reducing vibration activity while increasing the flexibility of the gears.
Regarding claim 3, PARK disclose the sensor gear assembly according to claim 1.
But PARK does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein each of the plurality of teeth of the rotatable sensor gear {{{define an inner pocket}}} to allow the plurality of teeth of the rotatable sensor gear to be flexible during contact with the plurality of teeth of the driving component.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, Lee (See Examiner Annotated Lee Figure 2 above) discloses/teaches the following:
A sensor module including a gear (70) with a plurality of teeth with each tooth having second portion (502) has a width which is wider than a width of the first portion (501) and the second portion (502) has a diameter which is larger than a diameter of the first portion (501).
Where each of the plurality of teeth define an inner pocket (510).
Further on, regarding limitation (A) above, Stepanenko (See Examiner Annotated Stepanenko Figure 1 above) discloses/teaches the following:
Each of the plurality of teeth define an inner pocket (1200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sensor gear assembly of PARK as taught by Lee and Stepanenko to increase the accuracy and precision to aid in determining an amount of power steering assist that is provided by a power steering assist unit while expanding functional capabilities and longevity of the gear by reducing vibration activity while increasing the flexibility of the gears.
Regarding claim 14, PARK as combined above disclose the rotatable sensor gear according to claim 13, and further on PARK as combined above also discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of teeth includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion extending radially outward from the outer diameter, the second portion extending radially outward from an end of the first portion which is distal from the outer diameter, wherein the first portion and the second portion have different cross-sectional areas (When combining the teachings of Lee and Stepanenko into PARK, one skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed language).
Regarding claim 15, PARK as combined above disclose the rotatable sensor gear according to claim 14, and further on PARK as combined above also discloses:
wherein the first portion and the second portion have different widths (When combining the teachings of Lee and Stepanenko into PARK, one skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed language).
Regarding claim 16, PARK as combined above disclose the rotatable sensor gear according to claim 15, and further on PARK as combined above also discloses:
wherein the second portion has a width which is wider than a width of the first portion (When combining the teachings of Lee and Stepanenko into PARK, one skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed language).
Regarding claim 17, PARK as combined above disclose the rotatable sensor gear according to claim 14, and further on PARK as combined above also discloses:
wherein the first portion and the second portion have different diameters (When combining the teachings of Lee and Stepanenko into PARK, one skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed language).
Regarding claim 18, PARK as combined above disclose the rotatable sensor gear according to claim 17, and further on PARK as combined above also discloses:
wherein the second portion has a diameter which is larger than a diameter of the first portion (When combining the teachings of Lee and Stepanenko into PARK, one skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed language).
Regarding claim 19, PARK as combined above disclose the rotatable sensor gear according to claim 13, and further on PARK as combined above also discloses:
wherein the plurality of teeth of the rotatable sensor gear includes 10 teeth (When combining the teachings of Lee and Stepanenko into PARK, one skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed language).
Regarding claim 20, PARK as combined above disclose the rotatable sensor gear according to claim 13, and further on PARK as combined above also discloses:
wherein the plurality of teeth of the rotatable sensor gear includes 11 teeth (When combining the teachings of Lee and Stepanenko into PARK, one skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed language).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747