Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/004,663

STEERING APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 30, 2024
Examiner
FRISBY, KEITH J
Art Unit
3614
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
783 granted / 1011 resolved
+25.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+1.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1032
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1011 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 3, 2025 has been entered. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “be” should be deleted or changed to --is--. Appropriate correction is required. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-11 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. The new limitation “the elastic part includes a cutout configured to elastically deform such that the internal shape of the elastic part maintains an elliptical shape” in claim 1 does not accurately describe the invention, since the cutout 633 is not configured to elastically deform such that the internal shape of the elastic part 620 maintains an elliptical shape. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the internal shape of the elastic part" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The above rejections could be overcome by changing “elastically deform such that the” to --allow the elastic part to be elastically deformed such that an--. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2018/0119788 A1). Lee discloses a steering apparatus 1 for a vehicle comprising: a housing 300; a worm wheel 200 is positioned inside the housing and mounted on a steering shaft 20; a worm shaft 110 operably engaged with the worm wheel to rotate; a bearing 150 mounted on the worm shaft; and a damper 400 rotatably surrounds the bearing and elastically presses (via shaft pressing parts 420) the bearing to allow the worm shaft to engage with the worm wheel; wherein the damper comprises: a cover 416 that is mounted on an opening 320 of the housing; and an elastic part (e.g., 411) is protruded from the cover, elastically presses (via shaft pressing parts 420) the bearing, and allows the worm shaft to engage with the worm wheel. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (KR 10-2016-0036289 A). Kang discloses a steering apparatus 1 for a vehicle comprising: a housing 2; a worm wheel 3 is positioned inside the housing and mounted on a steering shaft (Fig. 1); a worm shaft 5 operably engaged with the worm wheel to rotate; a bearing 6 mounted on the worm shaft; and a damper 100 rotatably surrounds the bearing and elastically presses the bearing to allow the worm shaft to engage with the worm wheel; wherein the damper comprises: a cover 13 that is mounted on an opening of the housing; and an elastic part (e.g., the portion of the bearing guide 10 that is spaced apart from the cover 13, and also, optionally, elastic member 20 and/or damper 30) is protruded from the cover, elastically presses the bearing, and allows the worm shaft to engage with the worm wheel, and wherein the elastic part includes a cutout (shown near the bottom of an elastic body (e.g., the portion of the bearing guide 10 that is spaced apart from the cover 13) in Fig. 3) configured to allow the elastic part to elastically deform such that an internal shape of the elastic part maintains an elliptical shape (since the structure set forth in the cited reference is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent to the cited reference - see MPEP §2112.01(I)). The elastic part comprises: an elastic body (e.g., the portion of the bearing guide 10 that is spaced apart from the cover 13) spaced apart from the cover and surrounds the bearing; a connection (e.g., at the top of the elastic body – see Figs. 1-3) to connect the cover and the elastic body; and an elastic arm (e.g., 22) mounted on the elastic body and providing an elastic force to the bearing while being elastically deformed upon contact with the bearing. The connection connects the elastic body to the cover in a cantilever shape (Figs. 1-3). The elastic body further comprises an elastic movement path (e.g., 15) formed to pass through an inner surface of the elastic body and provides a path for the elastic arm to move when in contact with the bearing. The elastic part further comprises a reinforcing part (shown at the top of the connection in Fig. 3) to connect the cover and the connection. The cutout is positioned toward the worm wheel (Figs. 1-3). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kang (KR 10-2016-0036289 A) in view of Son (KR 10-2024-0024547 A). The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Kang teaches the limitations of claim 3, as explained above. Kang does not teach the limitations of claims 7-9. Son teaches a plurality of O-rings 420 mounted in O-ring mount grooves 411. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an invention as taught by Kang with O-rings mounted in O-ring mount grooves in place of or in addition to the damper 30, according to the known technique taught by Son, in order to absorb “misalignment of the worm shaft (200) axis due to the manufacturing tolerance and assembly dispersion of the parts and provides support rigidity according to the radial load of the bearing part (300)” (paragraph 0038). Substituting O-rings as in Son for the damper 30 in Kang would advantageously simplify production requirements, since it would allow for the use of readily available parts (i.e., O-rings) rather than requiring the production of a unique part, thereby potentially reducing costs. MPEP §2143(I)(B). Substituting O-rings as in Son for the damper 30 in Kang or using O-rings as in Son in addition to the damper 30 in Kang would also advantageously help to further seal the interior of the housing to keep contaminants and/or debris from getting into the housing. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 10-2016-0036289 A) in view of Ishii et al. (WO 2021/241135 A1). Kang teaches the limitations of claim 3, as explained above. Kang does not teach the limitations of claims 7-9. Ishii teaches an O-ring 46 mounted in an O-ring mount groove 68. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an invention as taught by Kang with an O-ring mounted in an O-ring mount groove in place of or in addition to the damper 30, according to the known technique taught by Ishii, so that “leakage of the grease sealed in the housing 14 to the outside is prevented” (paragraph 0064). An additional advantage of substituting an O-ring as in Ishii for the damper 30 in Kang or using an O-ring as in Ishii in addition to the damper 30 in Kang is that “the guide member 45 can be elastically energized toward the side close to the worm wheel 15” (paragraph 0066). Substituting an O-ring as in Ishii for the damper 30 in Kang would also advantageously simplify production requirements, since it would allow for the use of readily available parts (i.e., O-rings) rather than requiring the production of a unique part, thereby potentially reducing costs. MPEP §2143(I)(B). Substituting an O-ring as in Ishii for the damper 30 in Kang or using an O-ring as in Ishii in addition to the damper 30 in Kang would also advantageously help to further seal the interior of the housing to keep contaminants and/or debris from getting into the housing. Ishii does not teach a plurality of O-rings. However, the recitation of additional O-rings does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art, since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04(VI). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Response to Amendment The amendment to the claims filed on December 3, 2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(4)(i) because canceled claim 5 includes claim text. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states: (c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). (1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment. (2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.” (3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining. (4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim. (i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.” (ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim. (5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to Lee, the new limitations of claim 1 that allegedly distinguish the claimed invention from Lee are not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, as explained above. The limitations of claim 1 that are in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 are anticipated by Lee, as explained above. Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to Kang, since the structure set forth in Kang is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the claimed properties or functions (i.e., the elastic part includes a cutout configured to allow the elastic part to elastically deform such that an internal shape of the elastic part maintains an elliptical shape) are presumed to be inherent to the cited reference. See MPEP §2112.01(I). In response to applicant's argument that Kang fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “specific cutout geometry for suppressing bearing tilt”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the new limitations of claim 1 that allegedly distinguish the claimed invention from Kang are not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, as explained above. The limitations of claim 1 that are in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 are anticipated by Kang, as explained above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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. /KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Sep 18, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Dec 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594802
MOTOR VEHICLE WITH MULTI-MODE EXTREME TRAVEL SUSPENSION-SUSPENSION HYDRAULIC DESIGN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583722
Stability System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583413
THREE-DIMENSIONAL AIR BAG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579918
COVER FINISH ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578063
A vehicle with a cryogenic container and efficient routing of the connection line
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+1.4%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1011 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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