DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 06/06/2024 is acknowledged. The Examiner notes that claims 1-10 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 5, line 2: “a detection device” is understood to be an ‘electronic device’ that provides and appears in the detection value by the potentiometer which detects the amount of steering deflection operated by the steering handle.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In claim 5, line 2, “a detection device” is not shown on the figures 1 to 5, the feature (s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the phrase: “at least two torsion spring elements are oriented identically or differently in relation,” but the specification does not provide sufficient detail to inform, with reasonable certainty, what constitute a “differently in relation” in the context of the claimed structure. The term “differently in relation” is purely relative and lacks any objective boundary or reference frame (e.g., angular displacement, axial alignment, rotational direction or spatial relationship or diameter distinct or property differences or elastic stiffness differences). The specification does not describe how the orientation differs, does not identify any measurable parameter defining the differences, and does not disclose any example of torsion spring element arranged in distinct orientations. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claim with the reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the limitation “differently in relation” is indefinite under 35 U.S.C §112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner understood the term “differently in relation” to be in opposite orientation with respect to axis 10 as depicted in fig. 4D.
Claim 4 recites the term “fall-back torsion spring element,” but the specification fails to provide any clear definition, structural description, functional explanation or objective boundary for this term. Para. 0017 of the specification expressly discloses that “fall-back torsion spring element may in particular have different ranges of action and/or different spring stiffnesses.” Is it appropriate to say one spring has less life expectancy than another, or which particular spring possess “fall-back” property among two or many. The specification does not identify what characteristic causes a torsion spring element to qualify as a “fall-back” element, does not describe any fall-back mechanism with graphical representation of the collected concrete data. The phrase “fall-back” is vague, non-technical without statistical and graphical representation and lacks any established meaning in mechanical arts relating to torsion springs. Because the term is undefined in any cited figure, subjective, and unsupported by any measurable parameters, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the term “fall-back tortion spring element” is indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner understood the term to be “a spring that has been using continuously and automatically over time based on the detection result.”
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
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.
(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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yukio Kinugasa (JPS61137072 U; hereinafter, “Yukio”).
Regarding claim 1, Yukio discloses: an assembly (figs. 1-5) for a steering device (“the return energization structure of the steering handle” ; [001]), which assembly has an input shaft (7) and an output shaft (“handle buck, 11, fig. 1) and a torsion mechanism (“linkage mechanism” with coil spring ; [002]) that couples the input shaft (7) to the output shaft (11), wherein the torsion mechanism (“linkage mechanism” with coil springs 9/35; fig. 1) is designed as or comprises a torsion spring element (“two coil springs 9”, fig. 1 and [003]), in particular a spiral spring or helical spring (equivalent to coil spring 9 as depicted in fig. 1; [003]).
Regarding claim 2, Yukio further teaches that the assembly (figs. 1-5) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the torsion mechanism (“linkage mechanism” with coil springs 9/35; fig. 1) has at least two torsion spring elements (“pair of coil spring 35 or two coil spring 9 ”, fig. 1 and [003]), which are arranged (“in the axis of rotation 32”; [002]) in particular in different axial positions (fig. 1 shows expressly in different axial position; [para. 003 teaches: “two coil springs 9 from which a path differs are attached”; thus, in different axial positions.])
Regarding claim 3, Yukio further teaches that the assembly as claimed in claim 2, wherein at least two torsion spring elements (pair of 35 or two 9; [002-003]) are of identical (fig. 1) or different design and/or at least two torsion spring elements (35/35 or 9/9) are oriented identically (fig. 1) or differently (positional differently, see annotated fig. 1 below) in relation to a circumferential direction (by coil shaped spring as depicted in fig. 1) about a longitudinal axis (“axis of rotation” 32; [002] and fig. 1) of the assembly (“linkage mechanism” with coil springs ;fig. 1 and [002]).
Regarding claim 4, Yukio further teaches that the assembly as claimed in claim 2 wherein one torsion spring element (9) is designed as a main torsion spring element, and one torsion spring element (35/35, 9/9) is designed as a fall-back torsion spring element [para. 003 teaches: “the lower end side of a coil spring (9) is attached to the piece portion of a board (11 b) by the side of the lower part of the above-mentioned handle buck (11), and it has it, and according to the energizing force in accordance with a coil spring (9) twisting, it constitutes and comes out so that return energization of the steering handle (6) may be carried out to the neutral position side; note that: “carried out to the neutral position side” is equivalent to “spring element is designed as a fall-back torsion spring element” such that power steering that turns to a wheel automatically and continuously over time based on the detection result constitute as “a fall-back torsion spring” design].
Regarding claim 5, Yukio further teaches that a detection device (“potentiometer” 8; fig. 1) that is designed to detect a defect (“via detection value”; [003]) in at least one torsion spring element (9; [003 teaches: “it provides and appears in the detection value by the potentiometer (8) which detects the amount of steering operated by the above-mentioned handle (6); thus the performance of the coil spring or its defect can be monitored, and any deterioration on its performance can be identified]).
Regarding claim 6, Yukio further teaches that wherein one torsion spring element (9) is designed as a sacrificial torsion spring element, in particular owing to a weakening of the torsion spring element (9; [ para. 003 expressly teaches: “although one coil spring (9) which energizes a steering handle (6) in a neutral position was used in the above-mentioned example, two coil springs (9) from which a path differs are attached, and it is thick in the return energizing force by the side of a neutral position (it may be made to carry out);” note that: to achieve greater effective thickness, the design may utilize two coils. The combined structure is intended to operate as a sacrificial torsion spring, deforming or failing the first when weaking or overload conditions occur, thereby protecting the primary torsion element.]). Thus, the prior art of record anticipates the claimed limitation as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Yukio further teaches that wherein the torsion mechanism has at least one first driver element (10, fig. 1), which is arranged on the input shaft (7, fig. 1) and couples [003] a torsion spring element (9) to the input shaft (7), and/or at least one second driver element (11b, fig. 1), which is arranged on the output shaft (“handle buck, 11, fig. 1; [002-003]) and couples the torsion spring element (9) to the output shaft (11, fig. 1). See para. 003.
Regarding claim 8, Yukio further teaches that wherein at least one first driver element (10, fig. 1) arranged on the input shaft (7) is designed as a groove (‘V’ slot 13) and/or at least one second driver element (11b) arranged on the output shaft (11) is designed as a splint that protrudes in an axial direction [ para003 teaches that as shown in drawings 1 and 2, while the ball (12) provided in the handle buck side enters into the above-mentioned disk (10) and forming free V slot (13) in it; thus, the input shaft is designed as a groove, equivalent to a slot formed therein and fig. 1 further shows output shaft 11 is design as a splint that protrudes in an axial direction towards 11c.]
Regarding claim 9, Yukio further teaches that a steering device (“the return energization structure of the steering handle”; [001]) for a motor vehicle (“the mower” M;[003]), comprising an assembly (the return energization structure of the steering handle;” [001]) as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Yukio further teaches that a method for assembling an assembly (figs. 1-5) for a steering device (“the return energization structure of the steering handle”; [001]), in particular an assembly (fig. 3) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the input shaft (7) is coupled to the output shaft ((“handle buck, 11, fig. 1, and subsequently at least one torsion element (9/9, 35/35) designed as a torsion spring element (9) is mounted (fig. 1) onto the input shaft (7) or the output shaft (11, fig. 1), wherein the torsion spring element (9), in the installed position (figs. 1-3 position), couples (via 10 and 11b and 11c; fig. 1) the input shaft (7) to the output shaft (11). See para. 002-003 and figs. 1-5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. 20020108804 A1 to Park discloses: a torsion spring means connected between the other end of the steering column and a vehicle body via jigs mounted to both ends thereof.
US 5924510 A to Itoh discloses: as shown in fig. 3, the retainer 8 and the input shaft 4 are formed with cutouts 11 and 12, respectively. A resilient member or switch spring 13 is mounted in a contracted state with its ends fitted in the cutouts 11, 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights