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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “…the first pad includes and low friction material.” should read “…the first pad includes a low friction material.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10344726 A1 to Michel et al., hereinafter Michel.
Regarding Claim 1, Michel teaches a vehicle steering rack assembly, comprising:
a tube section (“housing” 22, [0038]) that includes a rack and pinion steering gear assembly (10, with rack and pinion gear 12 and 14, respectively, [0038]) and a main rod (“toothed rack” 20, [0038]) that extends through the tube section (Figs. 1-5) and moves in a longitudinal direction (“…displaceable back and forth…” – [0038]) within the tube section (22) in response to rotation of a pinion gear (12) of the rack and pinion steering gear assembly (10, [0038-0039]);
an anti-rattle device (“fixing device” 74, Figs. 4-5, [0050]) attached to the tube section (attachment depicted in Figs. 4-5) having at least a first pad (“pivot bearing” 68, Fig. 4, [0050]) that extends into the tube section (disposition into tube section 22 depicted in Fig. 4) and is biased to move into contact with the main rod (20) to reduce radial motion of the main rod (Fig. 4, [0050-0053]).
Regarding Claim 2, Michel further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device (74) includes a first retainer (“pressure piece” 70) that is fixedly attached to the tube section (Figs. 4-5, [0050-0053]), the first retainer retaining the first pad (68) therein (Figs. 4-5, [0051-0052]), the first retainer being dimensioned and shaped to restrict movement of the first pad (shaped to accommodate rollers 68 attached via “bearing journals/sleeves/recesses” 66a/b/c, respectively, Figs. 4-5) to movement normal to an outer cylindrically shaped surface of the main rod (roller surface normal to surface of 20, Figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 3, Michel further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device (74) includes the first pad and a second pad located on opposite sides of the main rod (duplicate instances of 74 disposed symmetrically opposite each other across axis E, Figs. 4-5, [0002]), both first and second pads being biased into contact with the main rod (Figs. 4-5, [0041-0042]).
Regarding Claim 4, Michel further teaches wherein the first pad and the second pad (both instances of 70, Figs. 4-5) are biased into contact with the main rod (20) by a coil spring (“compression spring” 86, contact depicted in Figs. 4-5, [0056]).
Regarding Claim 5, Michel further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device includes a first retainer and a second retainer (both identical symmetric instances of 70) that are attached to the tube section (22, attachment depicted in Fig. 5), the first retainer retaining the first pad (first of 68) therein, the first retainer being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the first pad (shaped to accommodate first 68 attached via “bearing journals/sleeves/recesses” 66a/b/c, respectively, Figs. 4-5) to movement normal to an outer cylindrically shaped surface the main rod (roller surface normal to surface of 20, Figs. 4-5),
and the second retainer retaining the second pad (second of 68) therein, the second retainer being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the second pad (shaped to accommodate second 68 attached via “bearing journals/sleeves/recesses” 66a/b/c, respectively, Figs. 4-5) to movement normal to the outer cylindrically shaped outer surface of main rod (roller surface normal to surface of 20, Figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 7, Michel further teaches wherein the tube section (22) is a hollow structure that includes a main part (specific structure labeled 22, Figs. 4-5) and a housing part (“pipe socket” 82, Fig. 4, [0052]), the housing part being dimensioned to retain the anti-rattle device (82 contains 74 and all associated structures, Fig. 4), the main rod (20) extending through both the main part and the housing part (20 extends through the hollow intersection of both parts 22 and 82, depicted in cross-section Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Michel further teaches wherein the housing part (82) has a first side (left side instance of 82, Fig. 4) and a second side (right side instance of 82, Fig. 4) opposite the first side (disposition depicted in Fig. 4), the first side having a first opening (opening depicted on the left end of 82, Fig. 4) and the second side having a second opening (opening depicted on the right end of 82, Fig. 4), with respective cover plates (both instances of “flange” 80, Fig. 4) that are removably attached to the first and second sides (as depicted in Fig. 4) covering the first and second openings thereby retaining the anti-rattle device within the housing part ([0052]).
Regarding Claim 9, Michel further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device (74) includes the first pad and a second pad (both symmetric instances of 66, Figs. 4-5) located on opposite sides of the main rod (both of 66 disposed on opposite sides of 20, Figs. 4-5) within the housing part of the tube section (aforementioned components disposed within 82, Fig. 4), both first and second pads (66) being biased into contact with the main rod (as depicted in Fig. 4, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 10, Michel further teaches wherein the first pad and the second pad (both symmetric instances of 66, Figs. 4-5) are biased into contact with the main rod (22) by a coil spring (86, Figs. 4-5, [0056]).
Regarding Claim 11, Michel further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device (74) includes a first retainer and a second retainer (both identical symmetric instances of 70) that are attached to the tube section (22, attachment depicted in Fig. 5), the first retainer retaining the first pad (first of 68) therein, the first retainer (first of 70) being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the first pad (shaped to accommodate first 68 attached via “bearing journals/sleeves/recesses” 66a/b/c, respectively, Figs. 4-5) to movement normal to an outer cylindrically shaped surface the main rod (roller surface normal to surface of 20, Figs. 4-5), and
the second retainer (second of 70) retaining the second pad (second of 68) therein, the second retainer being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the second pad (shaped to accommodate first 68 attached via “bearing journals/sleeves/recesses” 66a/b/c, respectively, Figs. 4-5) to movement normal to the outer cylindrically shaped outer surface of main rod (roller surface normal to surface of 20, Figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 12, Michel further teaches wherein the first pad (66) includes a low friction material (low friction inherent in being a roller surface, [0050-0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach that the retainer has a bore extending therethrough, which is interpreted by the Examiner to mean that the bore must be a through hole which extends through the entirety of the retainer (Michel – 70, Fig. 4), rather than a blind hole (“free space” 70a, Fig. 4, [0051]), as taught by Michel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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.
/Mitchell James Price/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights