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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "7" and "8" have both been used to designate the same element of the invention. Reference characters cannot share the same leader line.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference character “54” is incorrectly described as denoting a “wheel”; however, it actually denotes a “wheel hub”. No actual wheel is shown in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6, 10-11, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 5, the phrase “is configured such that that” should be removed from line 2. This phrase is generally narrative and fails to describe any actual physical features of the invention.
In lines 2 and 6 of claim 6, the phrase “configured to be” should be removed. This phrase is generally narrative and fails to describe any actual physical features of the invention.
In line 2-3 and 6-7 of claim 10, and line 2 of claim 11, the phrase “configured to receive” should be replaced with the term - -receives- -. This phrase is generally narrative and fails to describe any actual physical features of the invention.
In line 2 and lines 6-7 of claim 13, the phrase “configured to receive” should be replaced with the term - -receives- -. This phrase is generally narrative and fails to describe any actual physical features of the invention.
In line 2 of claim 14, the phrase “is adapted to receive” should be replaced with the term - -receives- -. This phrase is generally narrative and fails to describe any actual physical features of the invention.
These corrections are for grammatical clarity, and to more clearly define the invention. 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 and 4-15 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 is 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.
Claims 10 and 13 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.
Claims 11 and 14 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrases “in a fixed manner” and “in a manner permitting a rotational movement”. Neither of these limitations describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-15 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 claim 1, 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.
Per claim 4, the line section 232 is a tubular hose-like hollow body, with first and second rectilinearly running end regions. The second end region is capable of being arranged offset and/or reversibly deflected with respect to the first end region.
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 claim 6, 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 claim 7, 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 claim 9, 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 claim 10, the bushing receptacle 238 receives the first end region in both a self-centering and self-sealing manner (see Figure 19).
Per claim 11, 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 claim 1, 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, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that placing reference characters on the same leader line is not improper and does not violate 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). However, this is not the case. Namely only a single reference character may be used to denote an element in the drawings. Furthermore, only a single reference character may use a single leader line per well-known drafting rules. It should be noted that since reference character 7 denotes the overall elements (i.e. the line section), it should include an arrowhead at the end of its leader line. In addition, reference character 8 (denoting the tubular body of the line section) is not technically required in the drawings.
With respect to reference character 54 being described as referencing a “wheel”, the Applicant argues that it may be its own lexicographer. However, in this instance, the term “wheel” has a well-known and established definition in the art, i.e. a structure formed of a rim (on which a tire is mounted), a disk or spider extending inwardly towards the central axis of the rim, and a centrally located hub or hub mounting portion. The element denoted by reference character 54 is NOT part of a “wheel”, and has its own well-known and established name in the art; namely a “wheel hub” or “axle hub”. Therefore, wherever possible, the Applicant should use the proper terminology as known in the art.
The Applicant argues that the phrase “reversibly changeable” is not indefinite, but merely “functional language”. However, this phrase fails to define any actual physical features or structure of the invention, and is actually indefinite, as it is unclear what physical structure is capable of performing this functional language.
The Applicant argues that since the hose of Vitolo is “wound around the axle shaft” is “would not be a suitable substitution or modification of Stech’s tube”, since Stech’s tube “extends inside” of an axle. It appears that the Applicant is arguing a literal combination of the references, which is not the case. Namely, Vitolo is used merely to teach that it is known in the art to use helical hoses with tire inflation systems. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art, that hoses are made in both “linear” or “straight” configurations as well as “helical” or “coiled” or “spiraled” configurations.
The Applicant argues that using “Vitolo’s wrapped-around helical hose 20 instead of Stech’s tube 232” would “render Stech unworkable or required a complete reworking of Stech’s scheme”. However, 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.
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 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