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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendments, filed August 28th, 2026, have been entered. Examiner notes that Claims 1, 6, and 12 have been amended, and Claims 13 and 14 are new. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
The indicated allowability of the subject matter in Claim 6 has been withdrawn in view of the newly discovered references to U.S. Pub. 2015/0053030 A1 to Kim. Rejections based on the newly cited reference follow.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “…an outer cylindrically shaped surface the main rod…” is missing a preposition between the words “surface” and “the”. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10344726 A1 to Michel et al., hereinafter Michel, in view of U.S. Pub. 2015/0053030 A1 to Kim.
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) 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]).
Michel does not teach that the anti-rattle device has a first pad that extends into the tube section including a surface complimentary with a surface of the main rod such that the surface of the anti-rattle device is capable of mating with the surface of the main rod.
In the same field of endeavor as steering rack pressure yokes/compensators, Kim teaches an anti-rattle device having a pad (“yoke slipper” 21, Figs. 2-3, [0036]) extending into an analogous tube section (“housing” 2, Fig. 2), the anti-rattle device including a surface complimentary with a surface of the main rod (“rack bar” 3, Fig. 2), such that the surface of the anti-rattle device is capable of mating with the surface of the main rod (concave shape of 21 depicted in Fig. 3, complimentary to cylindrical surface of 3).
Kim further teaches a first retainer (“yoke body” 20, Figs. 2-3, [0036]) that is fixedly attached to the tube section (fixed to Michel – 22 via Kim – “yoke ring” 23, Fig. 2), the first retainer retaining the first pad therein (depicted in exploded view Fig. 2), the first retainer (20) being dimensioned and shaped to restrict movement of the first pad (21) to movement normal to an outer cylindrically shaped surface of the main rod (as 20 is shaped similarly to 21, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20).
Kim further teaches the first retainer (in an equivalent alternative embodiment of Kim – 110, Fig. 7) having a bore extending therethrough (110 is shaped similarly to 111, mating with 3, Fig. 7 analogous to Michel – 20) with the first pad being disposed within the bore (111 being disposed into the bore of 110, Fig. 7), and
the second retainer (second duplicate instance of Kim – 110 as taught by Michel) having a bore extending therethrough (identical to Kim – 110 being shaped similarly to 111, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20) with the second pad being disposed within the bore (second duplicate instance of Kim – 111 being disposed into the bore of 110).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the anti-rattle device of Michel with the pad, retainer, and main rod-complimentary surface geometry of Kim, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would have recognized the utility a complimentary concave contact surface so that the assembly is simplified (compared to the rollers and bearings of Michel) and the contact between the pad and rod is stronger, preventing slipping (Kim – [0022-0023]).
Regarding Claim 2, Michel in view of Kim further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device (Michel – 74) includes a first retainer (Kim – “yoke body” 20, Figs. 2-3, [0036]) that is fixedly attached to the tube section (fixed to Michel – 22 via Kim – “yoke ring” 23, Fig. 2), the first retainer retaining the first pad therein (depicted in exploded view Fig. 2), the first retainer (20) being dimensioned and shaped to restrict movement of the first pad (21) to movement normal to an outer cylindrically shaped surface of the main rod (as 20 is shaped similarly to 21, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20).
Regarding Claim 3, Michel in view of Kim further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device (Michel – 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 (Kim – duplicate instances of 21) being biased into contact with the main rod (Michel – Figs. 4-5, [0041-0042]).
Regarding Claim 4, Michel in view of Kim further teaches wherein the first pad and the second pad (Kim – 21) are biased into contact with the main rod (Michel – 20) by a coil spring (“compression spring” 86, Figs. 4-5, [0056]).
Regarding Claim 5, Michel in view of Kim further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device includes a first retainer and a second retainer (Kim – first and second instances of 20) that are attached to the tube section (Michel – 22, via Kim – 23), the first retainer retaining the first pad (depicted in exploded view Fig. 2) therein, the first retainer (first of 20) being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the first pad (first of 21) to movement normal to an outer cylindrically shaped surface the main rod (as 20 is shaped similarly to 21, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20),
and the second retainer retaining the second pad (Kim – second of 21) therein, the second retainer (second of 20) being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the second pad (second of 21) to movement normal to the outer cylindrically shaped outer surface of main rod (as 20 is shaped similarly to 21, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20).
Regarding Claim 6, Michel in view of Kim already teaches a vehicle steering rack assembly, comprising:
a tube section (Michel – “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 a first pad and a second pad (duplicate instances of Kim – 21) located on an opposite sides of the main rod (configuration depicted in Michel – Figs. 4-5), the first pad extending into the tube section (disposition into tube section 22 depicted in Fig. 4) and both first and second pads (duplicate instances of Kim – 21) being biased to move into contact with the main rod (Michel – 20, analogous to Kim – 3) to reduce radial motion of the main rod (Michel – Fig. 4, [0050-0053]),
the anti-rattle device including a first retainer and a second retainer (Kim – first and second instances of 20) that are attached to the tube section (Michel – 22, via Kim – 23), the first retainer retaining the first pad (depicted in exploded view Fig. 2) therein, the first retainer (first of 20) being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the first pad (first of 21) to movement normal to an outer cylindrically shaped surface the main rod (as 20 is shaped similarly to 21, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20),
and the second retainer retaining the second pad (Kim – second of 21) therein, the second retainer (second of 20) being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the second pad (second of 21) to movement normal to the outer cylindrically shaped outer surface of main rod (as 20 is shaped similarly to 21, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20).
the first retainer (in an equivalent alternative embodiment of Kim – 110) having a bore extending therethrough (110 is shaped similarly to 111, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20) with the first pad being disposed within the bore (111 being disposed into the bore of 110), and
the second retainer (second duplicate instance of Kim – 110 as taught by Michel) having a bore extending therethrough (identical to Kim – 110 being shaped similarly to 111, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20) with the second pad being disposed within the bore (second duplicate instance of Kim – 111 being disposed into the bore of 110).
Regarding Claim 7, Michel in view of Kim further teaches wherein the tube section (Michel – 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 in view of Kim further teaches wherein the housing part (Michel – 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 in view of Kim further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device (Michel – 74) includes the first pad and a second pad (first and second instances of Kim – 21) located on opposite sides of the main rod (in the configuration of Michel – Figs. 4-5) within the housing part of the tube section (components disposed within 82, Fig. 4), both first and second pads (Kim – 21) being biased into contact with the main rod (as depicted in Michel – Fig. 4, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 10, Michel in view of Kim further teaches wherein the first pad and the second pad (both instances of Kim – 21) are biased into contact with the main rod (Michel – 22, analogous to Kim – 3) by a coil spring (Michel – 86, Figs. 4-5, [0056]).
Regarding Claim 11, Michel in view of Kim further teaches wherein the anti-rattle device (Michel – 74) includes a first retainer and a second retainer (Kim – first and second instances of 20) that are attached to the tube section (fixed to Michel – 22 via Kim – “yoke ring” 23, Fig. 2), the first retainer retaining the first pad (depicted in exploded view Kim – Fig. 2) therein, the first retainer (first of 20) being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the first pad (first of 21) to movement normal to an outer cylindrically shaped surface the main rod (as 20 is shaped similarly to 21, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20), and
the second retainer (second of Kim – 20) retaining the second pad (second of 21) therein, the second retainer being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the second pad (second of 21) to movement normal to the outer cylindrically shaped outer surface of main rod (as 20 is shaped similarly to 21, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20).
Regarding Claim 12, Michel in view of Kim further teaches wherein the first pad (first of Kim – 21) includes a low friction material (as 21 is a “slipper”, friction is necessarily reduced).
Regarding Claim 13, Michel in view of Kim already teaches wherein the anti-rattle device (Michel – 74) includes a first retainer (Kim – first of 20) attached to the tube section (fixed to Michel – 22 via Kim – “yoke ring” 23, Fig. 2), the first retainer retaining the first pad therein (depicted in exploded view Kim – Fig. 2), the first retainer (20) being dimensioned and shaped to limit movement of the first pad (21) to movement normal to an outer cylindrically shaped surface the main rod [sic] (as 20 is shaped similarly to 21, mating with 3, analogous to Michel – 20), the first retainer (in an equivalent alternative embodiment of Kim – 110, Fig. 7) having a bore extending therethrough (110 is shaped similarly to 111, mating with 3, Fig. 7 analogous to Michel – 20) with the first pad being disposed within the bore (111 being disposed into the bore of 110, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 14, Michel in view of Kim already teaches wherein the surface of the anti-rattle device is curved (concave shape of Kim – 20 and 21, forming the surface of the device, is depicted in Figs. 2-3 and in the alternative equivalent embodiment, Fig. 7).
Conclusion
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