Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/762,168

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING RACK BAR

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 02, 2024
Priority
Oct 23, 2018 — JP 2018-199511 +2 more
Examiner
NEJAD, MAHDI H
Art Unit
3725
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Neturen Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
460 granted / 623 resolved
+3.8% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
658
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
74.9%
+34.9% vs TC avg
§102
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 623 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka (JP 3995182 B2) in view of Seiji (KR 20040099522 A). Regarding claim 1, Oka teaches a method for manufacturing a rack bar, PNG media_image1.png 102 872 media_image1.png Greyscale the method comprising: forming a flattened portion (A) extending in an axial direction of a hollow shaft member on an outer peripheral surface of the hollow shaft member (see entire par. 9); PNG media_image2.png 170 904 media_image2.png Greyscale forming rack teeth on a flat outer surface of the flattened portion (see entire par. 10); PNG media_image3.png 152 896 media_image3.png Greyscale (holding radially inner side of the hollow shaft member by core bar 10 described in par. 0009 and mandrel 12 described in par. 0010).However Oka is silent regarding quenching process of the rack teeth with mandrel inside. PNG media_image4.png 686 779 media_image4.png Greyscale Seiji (KR 20040099522 A) teaches a method and device for forging a rack bar from a steel tube with core inserted into steel tube “when quenching in post-processing” to minimize hardening distortions. Seiji teaches quenching extends service life of the teeth. PNG media_image5.png 127 906 media_image5.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Seiji in hollow rack production of Oka and add post teeth forming process of quenching the teeth while a core is inserted into the hollow shaft member/hollow rack bar. Doing so would extend life of the teeth while minimizing hardening distortion. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Seiji as applied in rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Takashi (WO 2016152146 A1). Regarding claim 2, combination of Oka and Seiji does not teach the claimed adding another hollow shaft member to the first hollow shaft member. Fig. 6 of Takashi shows joining a solid extension shaft member (rod-shaped extension shaft member S2) to one end of the rack bar (hollow rack bar 1); and forming a linear motion structure (rack bar 21) on the extension shaft member in an axial direction of the extension shaft member. Takashi teaches “rack bar 21 is configured to be used in a dual pinion electric power steering device”. PNG media_image6.png 84 892 media_image6.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Takashi to combined rack bar of Oka and Seiji and add a second rack to the first rack. Doing so would make a dual rack steering apparatus for a dual pinion electric power steering device. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chiaki (JP 2003311366 A) teaches a cored bar inserted into hollow rack bar for external toothing. Chiaki further teaches core inserted inside toothed rack to minimize quenching distortion. PNG media_image7.png 122 896 media_image7.png Greyscale Fig. 10 of Kenichi (WO 2020158616 A1) shows joining a solid extension shaft member (solid second shaft member 114) to one end of the rack bar (hollow first shaft member 113); and forming a linear motion structure (rack bar 110) on the extension shaft member in an axial direction of the extension shaft member; andFig. 11 of Kenichi shows joining a hollow extension shaft member (hollow second shaft member 214) to one end of the rack bar (hollow first shaft member 213); and forming a linear motion structure (rack bar 210) on the extension shaft member in an axial direction of the extension shaft member. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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. MAHDI H. NEJAD Examiner Art Unit 3723 /MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678980
Apparatus and Method for Gripping an Object
3y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673400
ELECTRICAL BOX KNOCK-OUT TOOL
4y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12643185
METHOD OF TRANSPORTING WORKPIECE AND PROCESSING APPARATUS
3y 7m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12635461
LOAD-BEARING DEVICE, WAFER TRANSFER DEVICE, CHAMBER DEVICE AND WAFER PROCESSING APPARATUS
3y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12635481
CHUCK TABLE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF CHUCK TABLE
3y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.8%)
2y 10m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 623 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month