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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 20, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 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: 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; 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; and 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 be elastically deformed (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)), and wherein the elastic arm is positioned to face the cutout (Figs. 2 and 3) and extends along a longitudinal direction of the elastic body (Figs. 2-4), wherein one side (i.e., the side near the body portion 21 of the elastic member 20) of the elastic arm is fixed to the elastic body, and another side of the elastic arm is movably inserted into an elastic movement path (e.g., the hole/path formed by elastic mounting portion 15) formed to pass through an inner surface of the elastic body and moves in the elastic movement path when the elastic arm is elastically deformed upon contact with the bearing. The connection connects the elastic body to the cover in a cantilever shape (Figs. 1-3). A portion of a surface of the elastic arm is exposed from the elastic movement path and contacts the bearing (Figs. 5 and 6). 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 20, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Kang (KR 10-2016-0036289 A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Kang's elastic member mounting portion 15 is a mounting seat for elastic member 20, not an elastic movement path formed through an inner surface of an elastic body into which another side of elastic portion 22 is movably inserted and in which that side moves during elastic deformation. Thus, Kang does not disclose the claimed fixed-side/movable-side relationship between the elastic arm and the elastic movement path, and therefore does not disclose every limitation of amended Claim 1 arranged as claimed.” If the hole/path formed by elastic mounting portion 15 (not the elastic member mounting portion 15) is taken as corresponding to the claimed elastic movement path, then Kang satisfies the limitations of claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights