Drawings
The drawings, included those filed March 30, 2016, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they do not show features corresponding to the following claim limitations:
Claim 17: “a polygonal circumferential contour with at least three maxima and three minima”. In the reply filed March 30, 2026 applicant argues the features are shown in Fig. 4 by blue and green circles. However, Fig. 4 is black and white and it shows a curved, not a polygonal, profile.
Claims 17-19: “a maximum peak-to-valley value”. In the reply filed March 30, 2026 applicant argues the features are shown in Fig. 4 by a yellow oval. However, Fig. 4 is black and white.
Claim 21: “a polygonal circumferential contour with at least six maxima and six minima”. In the reply filed March 30, 2026 applicant argues the features are shown in Fig. 5B by green circles. However, Fig. 5B is black and white and it shows a curved, not a polygonal, profile.
Claim 27: “wherein the first outer ball tracks [22A] have a first outer undercut [H22A] at the opening [20] side, and the second outer ball tracks [22B] have a second outer undercut [H22B] at the opening [20] side”. In the reply filed March 30, 2026 applicant argues the features are shown in Fig. 1D. However, as noted before and now Fig. 1D includes reference characters H22A & H22B, but it and every other figure shows the outer ball tracks 22A, 22B curved, not undercut, at the opening side.
Claim 22: all limitations therein. In the reply filed March 30, 2026 applicant argues the features of claim 22 are shown in Fig. 1D as fully supported by paragraphs 0018 and 0077. However, neither paragraph 0018 nor 0077 refers to Fig. 1D.
Claim 30: “two-point contact”. In the reply filed March 30, 2026 applicant argues claim 30 is cancelled. However, in the claim listing claim 30 appears with text and is identified as previously presented.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the detailed description of the invention fails to describe details corresponding to the limitations of claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 17-32 are replete with limitations that are not shown in the drawings and/or not described in the detailed description of the invention. In other words, applicant has failed to provide a working example of the claimed invention. As such, it would not be possible for one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In making this determination the examiner affirms that he has considered the breadth of the claims;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the nature of the invention;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the state of the prior art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the level of one of ordinary skill;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the level of predictability in the art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the amount of direction provided by the inventor; any
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
existence of working examples; and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Claims 17-32 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 17-32 are replete with limitations that are not shown in the drawings and/or not described in the detailed description of the invention. Without such, it is not possible to accurately determine the metes and bounds of the claims.
Conclusion
The absence of a prior art rejection should not be construed as an indication of allowable subject matter but for the presence of a 112 rejection(s). Rather such absence is due to the fact that the Office is constrained from making a prior art rejection where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim(s). In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Greg Binda whose telephone number is (571)272-7077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 et.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/Greg Binda/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights