DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Biro 7131197.
Biro discloses the claimed invention as recited in the claims as shown below:
1. An assembling device for assembling a boot and a sealing ring to an inner race of a constant velocity joint in which a fixing part of the boot is fastened to the inner race by the sealing ring, comprising:
a guider 36 provided with a guide surface on an outer surface to guide the boot and the sealing ring along a longitudinal direction of the inner race; and
a pusher 4 that provides a force to move the boot and the sealing ring along the guide surface to reach a support surface of the inner race.
2. The assembling device of claim 1, wherein the guide 36 is inclined surface being inclined as it is stepped inward) surface is an inclined guide surface formed to be inclined with respect to a movement direction of the boot and the sealing ring.
3. The assembling device of claim 2, wherein the inclined guide surface is formed to be inclined at an angle of 1° to 5°. ALLOWED
4. The assembling device of claim 1, further comprising a supporter 6 interposed between the boot and the sealing ring assembled to each other and configured to move along a circumference of the guide in a movement direction of the boot and the sealing ring as the pusher moves, allowing the boot and sealing ring to be pushed.
5. The assembling device of claim 4, wherein the fixing part has a ring shape, and the supporter has a protrusion that is inserted between an inner surface of the fixing part and the guide surface. See Fig.1 The shape of the device is circular and therefore has a ring shaped.
6. The assembling device of claim 5, wherein the protrusion has a wedge shape (See Fig.1 This the stepped shape which narrows into a wedge shape going from with wide to narrow) that becomes sharper towards a leading edge.
7. The assembling device of claim 1, wherein the pusher is configured to move under a load of 300 to 1500 N while pushing the boot and the sealing ring. This is a metal structure which will have those loads depending upon the user and pressure exerted by a tool.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biro 7131197 in view of Zweekly et al 5355574.
Biro discloses the claimed invention as recited above and regarding inclined guide surface is formed to be inclined at an angle of 1° to 5° which could be a plus or minus 1 percent due to the edge being beveled as matter of manufacture of the surface not being perfectly shaped.
Zweekly discloses edges of an assembly device being disclosed as being at beveled 1 degrees or more as shown in Fig.1 allows for the edge to be less than a sharpe edge which is known a manufacturing tolerance and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was filed to have known to use this range of an angle of 1° to 5° which could be a plus or minus 1 percent due to the edge being beveled that allows for manufacture to yield the predictable result of not having a sharpe edge. KSR
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Notice the structure cited that was not claimed but should be please see below:
PNG
media_image1.png
826
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The 892 form discloses prior art being made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
LEE D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 November 4, 2025