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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 March 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
The lined through references fall into one of the following categories: (a) the reference is a US Publication of a US Patent, which is already of record in the application, making the publication redundant; or (b) the reference is not considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 21 July 2026. These drawings are approved.
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 and 4-22 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.
Claims 1 and 16 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that the length of the line section is “reversibly changeable”. This limitation fails to clearly define any actual physical structure of the invention, or include an explanation of how the physical structure of the invention is capable of this action.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to maintain” is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 4 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear due whether the “first, at least substantially rectilinearly running end region” and the “second, at least substantially rectilinearly running end region” of the tubular or hose-like hollow body are the same elements as the “first end region” and “second end region” as previously set forth in claim 1, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claims 4 and 17 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “can be” are actually part of the invention, or merely optional configurations.
Claims 4 and 17 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “reversibly deflected”. This limitation fails to clearly define any actual physical structure of the invention, or include an explanation of how the physical structure of the invention is capable of this action.
Claim 6 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to be” is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 10 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to be” is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claims 10, 13, and 20-21 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrases “in a self-centering manner” and “in a self-sealing manner”. Neither of these limitations describe any actual physical structure of the invention , or include an explanation of how the physical structure of the invention is capable of this action.
Claim 11 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to receive” is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 14 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “adapted to receive” is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 17 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured such that” is generally narrative (see section 6 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-22, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stech (8,869,850) in view of Vitolo et al (10,828,941).
Per claims 1 and 16, Figures 18-20 of Stech shows a device for transmitting pressurized air between a first duct 204 formed within a first transmission-side cardan shaft section 202, and a second duct 212 formed within a second wheel-side cardan shaft section 210. The wheel-side cardan shaft section 210 is connected in an articulated manner to an end region 206 of the first transmission-side cardan shaft segment 202. The device includes a line section 232 fluidically connected to the first 204 and second 212 ducts. The length of the line section 232 is “reversibly changeable” due to being flexible. The line section 232 is a tubular hose-like hollow body, with first and second rectilinearly running end regions. The line section 232 maintains fluid connection while compensating for axial displacements and angular relative movements between the first 202 and second 210 cardan shaft sections. The ends of the hollow body of the line section 232 are received in respective first 206 and second 214 receptacles provided at the end regions of the respective cardan shaft sections (202 and 210) and fluidly connected to the respective ducts (204 and 212).
Per claims 4 and 17, the second end region is capable of being arranged offset and/or reversibly deflected with respect to the first end region of the hollow body of the line section 232.
Per claim 5, when the tubular hose-like hollow body is arranged with the first and second end regions being “not offset and deflected”, a longitudinal axis of the first end region is concentric with the longitudinal axis of the second end region.
Per claims 6 and 18, Stech shows the first cardan shaft section 202 includes a bushing receptacle 238 for receiving the first end region of the tubular hose-like hollow body; and the second cardan shaft section 210 includes a bushing receptacle 238 for receiving the second end region of the tubular hose-like hollow body.
Per claims 7 and 19, the first 202 and second 210 cardan shaft sections form a cardan shaft arrangement 200.
Per claim 8, a joint arrangement 220 connected the first 202 and second 210 cardan shaft section in an articulated manner, with the line section 232 allowing compressed air therethrough.
Per claims 9 and 20, the first cardan shaft section 202 includes a bushing receptacle 238 for receiving the first end region of the tubular hose-like hollow body.
Per claims 10 and 21, the bushing receptacle 238 receives the first end region in both a self-centering and self-sealing manner (see Figure 19).
Per claims 11 and 22, the connection between the bushing receptacle 238 and the first end region permits rotational movement.
Per claim 12, the second cardan shaft section 210 includes a bushing receptacle 238 for receiving the second end region of the tubular hose-like hollow body.
Per claim 13, the bushing receptacle 238 receives the second end region in both a self-centering and self-sealing manner (see Figure 19).
Per claim 14, the connection between the bushing receptacle 238 and the second end region permits rotational movement.
Per claim 15, the cardan shaft arrangement is connected to a tire pressure adjustment system.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Stech does not show the line section 232 running along a screw-like or helical or spiral line. Vitolo et al teaches the use of a cardan shaft arrangement having a line section 20 running along a screw-like or helical or spiral line between first and second cardan shaft sections. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the line section of Stech in the manner taught by Vitolo et al, as a substitute equivalent configuration, for the purpose of allowing full operation of the CV (aka cardan) joint while reducing displacements of the line section due to centrifugal force (column 11, lines 23-28 of Vitolo et al), and to allow for axial and/or radial movement of the line section due to movement of the cardan shaft arrangement while reducing wear on the portions of the line section body and the seals and bushing of the cardan shaft portions due by reducing or eliminating friction (caused by axial movement) therebetween.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It should be noted that a request for an interview within a response is not conducive to compact prosecution, given the fact that the Examiner must make a formal examination of the amendment within said response regardless of the outcome of the interview. The proper time to request an interview is after the Applicant receives an Office action.
The Applicant argues that the phrase “reversibly changeable” is not indefinite, since the claims have been amended to include “reversible deflection” and “length accommodation” as the cardan joint articulates. However, the claims still fail to connect any physical structure to the phrase “reversibly changeable”; and in addition the phrase “reversible deflection” is also indefinite and not defined by identification of the physical structure of the invention capable of such an action. Namely, no nexus has been provided between these phrases and the helical or spiral configuration of the tubular hose-like hollow body of the line section. In other words, the claims should simply and clearly define that the helical or spiral configuration of the tubular hose-like hollow body of the line section allows length changes and deflection in response to articulation of the cardan joint.
The Applicant argues that the phrases “self-centering” and “self-sealing” are not indefinite, and “understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art as structural configurations”. The Applicant then gives an example of “self-centering” as “a receptacle having tapered or otherwise shaped internal geometry that aligns the inserted end region automatically upon insertion”; and an example of “self-sealing” as a receptacle incorporating sealing elements, such as O-rings or equivalent, that establish a fluid-tight seal without separate assembly steps”. However, none of this structure is included in the claims. Furthermore, the examples provided by the Applicant are not guaranteed to be the only definition or structure capable of defining these phrases; and one of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily be apprised of the physical structure needed to meet these phrases.
The Applicant argues that the flexible tube 232 of Stech is rectilinear and “no portion of it runs along a helical or spiral line” and “it does not compensate for axial displacements or angular relative movements by virtue of any helical or spiral geometry”. First, it should be noted that the Applicant is arguing the references separately (see section 10 below). Second, the flexible tube 232 of Stech does actually “compensate for axial displacements and angular movements”, given the fact that Stech discloses the ends (242 and 244) of the “plunge and articulate in each of the passageways 204 and 212 to accommodate the varying distance D between the distal end of the first drive axle 202 and the proximal end of the second drive axle 210 as the CV axle assembly displaces” (column 7, lines 59-64). The tube 232 of Stech merely lacks a helical or spiral shape, which Vitolo is used to teach.
The Applicant argues that while Vitolo does teach the use of a helical hose, that hose “does not occupy the position or perform the function recited in amended claim 1”. The Applicant argues that the helical hose of Vitolo is disposed around a boot of the axle shaft on the exterior thereof. The Applicant further argues that the helical hose of Vitolo is not “received within any cardan shaft section, does not connect two fluid ducts formed within two articulated cardan shaft sections, and is not received at each end region in a receptacle of a respective cardan shaft section”. However, it again should be noted that the Applicant is arguing the references separately (see section 10 below). Furthermore, it should be noted that the use of the helical hose of Vitolo as an exterior connection between fluid ducts (a rigid tube and a rotary joint) is merely a single use of the helical hose and not the only use thereof. First, it is well known in the art that a helical hose may be utilized in any situation that a linear hose may be used, space permitting. Second, it is well known in the art that helical hose generally allows axial, radial, and/or angular displacement between the ends thereof more easily and with less stress thereon than an equivalent linear hose. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the use of a helical hose as taught by Vitolo is fully capable of being used in the assembly of Stech, for the reasons set forth in the rejection above. In addition, the Applicant has failed to provide any evidence, in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132, to support the argument to the contrary.
The Applicant argues that the helical hose of Vitolo “is not designed to pass through the interior of an articulated joint between two cardan shaft sections” and that “substituting Vitolo’s external helical hose 20 into the internal plunging configuration of Stech would require removing the hose from its exterior mounting, passing it through the interior of the CV joint, and connecting each end to a receptacle of a respective axle section – a fundamental restructuring that goes beyond any teaching or suggestion in either reference”. However, this argument is again based upon the assumption that the helical hose of Vitolo can only be used in the manner disclosed in the reference. This simply is not the case, as discussed above. The arrangement of the helical hose on the exterior of an assembly as shown in Vitolo is merely a single example of its use. There is no “fundamental restructuring” of either reference, given the fact that the linear flexible hose of Stech (which connects two fluid ducts of a fluid system) is fully capable of being simply substituted with a helical hose (which is also disclosed by Vitolo), for the reasons set forth in the rejection above. In addition, the Applicant has failed to provide any evidence, in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132, to support the argument to the contrary.
The Applicant argues that replacing the linear tube of Stech with the helical tube of Vitolo would “not reduce centrifugal displacement in the manner taught by Vitolo, because Vitolo’s teaching regarding centrifugal displacement is specific to an external hose wound around an axle shaft”. However, this is not the case, given the fact that the principle will work exactly the same regardless of whether the helical tube is located internally or externally of an assembly. Namely, any displacement (axial, radial, or angular) between the two elements to which the ends of the helical tube are connected will be compensated for by the helical nature of the tube. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence, in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132, to support these arguments.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights