DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 & 6-10 are pending as amended on 02/09/26.
Response to Amendment
This final action is a response to the amendment filed on February 9, 2026. Claims 1 & 6-8 have been amended as a result of the previous action; the rejections have been redone accordingly.
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 of this title, 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 1-4 & 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes, US 2017/0159699 in view of Orkin et al., US 4,704,918.
With regard to claims 1 & 10, Barnes teaches a method of forming a flexible coupling (10) which is connected between two parts for transmitting torque between them in a transmission shaft system, said flexible coupling having a tubular section between two end sections which is modified to provide openings (30) to form a living hinge section of reduced bending stiffness which allows flexion of the tubular section (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-2]).
While this reference does not expressly disclose that the tubular section comprises a CFRP material, it does briefly allude to using ‘composite’ material [0020] which would likely render this limitation obvious. In any event, this was a conventional material for constructing such shafts, as shown for example by Orkin, which teaches a tubular coupling shaft made of CFRP (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-8]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Orkin with those of Barnes, in order to predictably reduce the weight of the formed shaft using a common alternate species of material. Orkin further teaches that a core may be removed after winding & curing in the usual fashion [Col. 3, 30-34]. Orkin also teaches an alternate species of conventional shaft shape, having an increased diameter cylinder shaft connected to the cylindrical end sections via frustoconical tapers moving directly from the large diameter section to the small diameter ends, which would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in this art to try, in order to predictably modify shaft strength/dimensions in a well-known manner with predictable success. Orkin teaches that end sections may feature cross-section “flares” to help further anchor against axial forces (e.g. [FIG. 1]), or one may obviously omit this additive feature if its functionality were not desired, thus forming end sections with a plain, “straight cylindrical shape” (e.g. abstract) as claimed.
With regard to claims 2-4 & 6-7, Barnes teaches forming a pattern of slots (30) to form a hinge section as noted above, and Orkin teaches formation of its own engineered openings, created via a continuous fiber braiding process which comprises deflection of said fibers around pegs extending from a longitudinal core during a winding of alternating, crossed layers of the fibers at various angles (e.g. [FIGS. 4-5, 8]), and thus it would have been obvious to form the openings taught by Barnes via the selective fiber buildup method taught by Orkin with predictable success.
With regard to claim 8, Barnes taught the alternate species of hole cutting [0020].
With regard to claim 9, in the various patterns of the prior art, there are regions of material left in place which may ‘extend over’ the various formed gaps as desired.
Examiner also notes US 4,185,472 & US 2017/0198734
as relevant to the pending claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, “Remarks,” filed February 9, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are primarily drawn toward the claims as amended but are not persuasive. While Applicants note that the exemplary embodiment depicted in Figure 1 of Orkin teaches a flare feature in an end fitting which is said to aid in anchoring the laid CFRP material against axial forces, this flare is described as an additive feature, which could be dispensed with if not desired – see MPEP 2144.04(II)A. Further, the prior art also explicitly describes (e.g. abstract) the option of omitting this flare to yield end sections with “a straight cylindrical shape” whereby the pins are relied on more heavily as anchoring against such forces (also, the outer diameters of even the ‘flare’ embodiment are shown to have straight cylindrical shapes, thus appearing to also meet the claims). Thus, the newly claimed change in shape is also not considered to be non-obvious in view of the cited art. The cited shaft with tapered end cylinder fittings was fairly commonplace at the time of invention; see also US 4,185,472 & US 2017/0198734 which also show examples of such common CFRP shaft shapes. Therefore the instant claims as written are still not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights