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 09/04/2024 is acknowledged. Examiner notes that claims 3-5 and 7 have been amended, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented.
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 1-2 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 1 recites the limitation "the fitting alone" in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the further outward" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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
7. 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.
8. 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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawada et al. (US20110120798 A1; hereinafter, “Kawada”).
Regarding claim 1, Kawada discloses: a steering system (1, ‘Abstract’), comprising: a support tube (‘upper portion’ 33 and [0057]) that is cylindrical in shape (figs. 4-5), has a flange (69; [para. 0071 teaches that Referring to figs. 4 and 5, the upper housing 36 includes an inner tube 67, an outer tube 68 and an annular connection wall 69 which connects the inner tube 67 and the outer tube 68. The inner tube 67 and the outer tube 68 are disposed coaxially with each other]), and rotatably supports a steering shaft (steering shaft 3, fig. 1);
a speed reducer (“speed reduction mechanism” 24; fig. 1; [0048]) that is configured to apply torque to the steering shaft (3; [para. 0049 teaches: “the output rotation of the electric motor 23 is transmitted to the pinion shaft 7 after its speed is reduced by the speed reduction mechanism 24, and converted into the linear movement of the rack shaft 10 for the steering assist; thus, configured to apply torque to the steering shaft)];
a housing (32, [0055]) that has a cylindrical portion (cylindrical portion 37, fig. 4) housing the speed reducer (24; [para. 0055 teaches: “a gear housing 32 which accommodates the speed reduction mechanism 24]), the cylindrical portion (37, fig. 4) being coaxially coupled to the flange (69); a bearing support member (the bearing support member 36 consists of an inner tube (67) and outer tube (98) and an annular connection wall (flange 69) and fits within the second tubular connection portion (64); fig.4, [0071]) through which the steering shaft (3) passes, and that is fitted to an inner circumferential face (67, fig. 4) of the cylindrical portion (portion of cylindrical shape as depicted in fig. 4) from a mounting direction – (mounting direction as depicted “A1” in fig. 4) that is a direction along an axial direction (fig. 4 shows “A1” along axial direction); and
a bearing (“bearing” 40) interposed between an outer circumferential face (“outer peripheries”; [0004]) of the steering shaft (3) and an inner circumferential face (face of groove 75; [0074]) of the bearing support member (36, fig. 3 illustrates the assembly, while fig. 4 illustrates an exploded view of the connecting parts), wherein the bearing support member (36, fig. 4) has an inner circumferential wall (“inner periphery” 90 or inner wall of 64) that fits to an outer circumferential face of the bearing (40, fig. 1), an outer circumferential wall (outer wall of 64 or outer wall of 68) that fits to an inner circumferential face (inner periphery 72) of the cylindrical portion (fig. 4), and a coupling wall (engagement portion 65; figs.3- 4 and [0072]) that couples the inner circumferential wall (inner wall of 64) and the outer circumferential wall (outer circumferential wall of 68) in a radial direction,
the inner circumferential wall (inner circumferential wall of 68) has a basal end portion (basal end portion of 69 as depicted in fig. 4) coupled to the coupling wall (wall of 67), and also extends from (extends from 69) the coupling wall (wall of 67) in the same direction as the mounting direction (see fig. 4 where 67 and 68 extends in the same direction as the mounting direction).
the outer circumferential wall (outer circumferential wall of 68) has a basal end portion (77) coupled to the coupling wall (wall of 67), and also extends from the coupling wall (67) in an opposite direction from the mounting direction (spiral groove 77 that has spanned in a radial direction; [0076]; thus, in an opposite direction),
the bearing support member (36) is fixed to an inner side of the housing by the fitting alone (see figs. 1-2 where bearing support member 36 is fixed to an inner side of the housing by a fitting alone), and
the housing (32) does not include a configuration for restricting an axial direction position (direction position along “A1”; fig. 4) of the bearing support member (36, the bearing support member consists of an inner tube (67) and outer tube (98) and an annular connection wall (flange 69) and fits within the second tubular connection portion (64); fig.4, [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Kawada further teaches that the coupling wall has an inclined portion (annular groove portion 75; [0075]) that is inclined (see fig. 4 where 36 extend to 75 forming inclined surface) such that the further outward in the radial direction (fig. 4 shows extension in radial direction) a site of the inclined portion (inclined portion formed by 36 to 75) is, the further the site is displaced in the mounting direction (mounting direction towards 68, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kawada further teaches that the bearing support member (36) is made of a metal [para. 0058 teaches: “the gear housing 32 is formed of a metal such as an aluminum alloy. The gear housing 32 includes an upper housing 36 (bearing support member) and a lower housing 37].
Regarding claim 5, Kawada further teaches that the steering system (1) includes a sensor (‘torque sensor’ 20 or 119 or 120, fig. 8) of a magnetic type [ para. 0077 teaches: “the torque sensor 20 detects the steering torque based on magnetic fluxes generated by the magnetic circuit formation member 80], the sensor (20 or 119 or 120) being disposed in a space (see fig. 1 and 8 where 20 or 119 or 120 is positioned in a space) between the flange (69) and the bearing support member (36) inside the housing (32), the flange (69) and the bearing support member (36) are made of a magnetic metal (magnetic circuit formation member 80 of 36, see fig. 4 with magnet), and the housing (32) is made of a non-magnetic metal (aluminum alloy; [0058]), and
the flange (69) and the bearing support member (36) are configured to form a magnetic flux route that bypasses [fig. 4 shows the claimed feature where sensor 20 or 119 or 120 from fig. 8 is positioned separate than magnetic flux components 81, 83, thus, a magnetic flux route that bypasses] around the sensor (20).
Regarding claim 6, Kawada further teaches that a magnetic path member (122, 123, [para 0108 teaches that a pair of claws 122, 123 serving as magnetic flux concentrating projections. The claws 122, 123 extend radially outward from the major portion 121]) made of a magnetic metal (magnetic yoke 112, 113; fig. 8) that connects the flange (114, fig. 8) and the outer circumferential wall (121, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Kawada further teaches that the speed reducer (“speed reduction mechanism” 24; fig. 1; [0048]) has a worm wheel (26; [0114 discloses: “the speed reduction mechanism 24 including the worm 26 and the worm wheel 27 for transmitting the rotation of the steering assist electric motor 23 to the steering shaft 3”] that integrally rotates (via motor 23) with the steering shaft (3), and a worm (26) that meshes with the worm wheel (27),
the housing (32; [0114]) has a worm wheel housing member (37, fig. 4) housing the worm wheel (27), and a worm housing member (37) housing the worm (26), and
the cylindrical portion (cylindrical portion of 37, fig. 4) is the worm wheel housing member (37, fig. 4).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada in view of Shibazaki Hiroshi (JP 2008302751 A; hereinafter, “Hiroshi”).
Regarding claim 3, Kawada is silent to disclose that the bearing support member is formed by bending a single plate material; however,
Hiroshi in another steering column device similar to Kawada expressly teaches that the bearing support member (103a- bearing support cylindrical portion 103a and a housing portion 103f that constitute an outer column 103A, fig. 3; [0005]) is formed by bending a single plate material (“bending a plate material” as disclosed by para. 0005; [para. 0006 further teaches that fig. 3 forms a cylindrical portion 103a by rounding the plate material]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified Kawada to incorporate the teaching of Hiroshi and replace the molding process with the press formed process by bending a single plate material as shown in fig. 3 and 4 of Hiroshi in order to advantageously suppress manufacturing cost as disclosed in para. 0004 of Hiroshi, in such that bearing can be securely positioned without misalignment and wear caused by the rotating shaft inside the steering column. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice to minimize manufacturing cost that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate.
In addition, Applicant's claim of a "(the bearing support member is formed by bending a single plate material)" is a product-by-process claim. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and not dependent upon the method of production. See MPEP 2113. The product of Applicant's product-by- process claim is the same as or an obvious variant of the process in (the modified Kawada in view of Hiroshi, details above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2014069423 A1 to Ishii discloses: When the steering shaft 5 is rotated by the steering wheel 1, the direction and magnitude of the torque applied to the steering shaft 5 is measured by the torque measuring device 8.
WO 2004040734 A1 to Segawa discloses: an electric power steering device where auxiliary steering torque generated by a brushless motor corresponding to steering torque applied to a steering wheel is transmitted with a reduced speed to an output shaft of a steering mechanism.
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