Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/291,726

COUNTERTRACK JOINT AND AXLE SHAFT

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 24, 2024
Examiner
BINDA, GREGORY JOHN
Art Unit
3679
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Gkn Driveline International GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1456 granted / 1798 resolved
+29.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1839
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§102
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§112
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1798 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Drawings The drawings 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”. Claims 17-19: “a maximum peak-to-valley value”. Claim 21: “a polygonal circumferential contour with at least six maxima and six minima”. 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”. 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, 24 & 26: all limitations therein. Claim 30: “two-point contact” 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because: They do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: PCDS & R. They include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 2. 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 abstract and summary at paragraph 0008 are not written in clear narrative form. Each is instead a run-on sentence. The word “aligned” is misspelled in paragraph 0054. The detailed description of the invention fails to describe details corresponding to the limitations of claims 22, 24 & 26. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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. Claim 17 recites the limitation, “a maximum peak-to-valley value of at least 30 micrometers.” See also claims 18-19. However the so-called “peak” and “valley” are undefined. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shinoda discloses a counter track joint comprising: ball tracks that open at opposite angle (a, b) and a radial gap (col. 7, lines 55-64). 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). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601379
CONSTANT VELOCITY JOINT AND DRIVESHAFT INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577977
INTEGRATED COMPOSITE DRIVE SHAFTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571431
FLEXIBLE METALLIC COUPLINGS FOR DRIVE SHAFTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571432
UNIVERSAL JOINT ASSEMBLY FOR SURGICAL TOOLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560205
CONSTANT VELOCITY JOINT AND DRIVESHAFT INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+11.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1798 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month