Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-14 & 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant elected the tripod roller shown in Figs. 3-4, (Species I) and timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 16, 2025.
In the reply filed January 2, 2026, applicant’s representative continues to argue against the election of species requirement in spite examiner’s reply to his arguments in the previous Office action where the requirement was made final. Any further arguing should be made by way of petition.
Applicant’s representative argues that claims 6-14 & 17-19 should not have been withdrawn in spite of examiner explaining in the previous Office action how those claims recite limitations that are disclosed only in the description of unelected species. If applicant believes these claims read on the elected species than applicant must identify where in the application the features corresponding to the limitations recited in those claims are described as pertaining to the elected species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to show a bearing length of the rolling elements in an axial direction is smaller than a length of the inner ring on its outer peripheral surface as recited in claims 2 & 3. Instead, Fig. 4 shows the length of rolling bearings 33 is equal to the length of the inner ring 32 on its outer peripheral surface. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
In the reply filed January 2, 2026, applicant’s representative argues the drawings need not show a bearing length of the rolling elements in an axial direction is smaller than a length of the inner ring on its outer peripheral surface as recited in claims 2 & 3. However 37 CFR 1.83(a) requires that feature recited in the claims must be shown in the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2 & 3 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation, “a bearing length of the rolling elements
in an axial direction is smaller than a length of the inner ring on its outer peripheral surface”. Claim 3 recites similarly. However, Fig. 4 clearly shows the length of roller bearings 33 is equal to the length of the inner ring 32. The disclosure fails 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.
In the reply filed January 2, 2026, applicant argues the claims are enabled in spite of its failure to provide a working example of the claimed invention. Even so, applicant has failed to explain how, without undue experimentation, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to make an invention that its inventor can’t even draw
Claims 2, 3 & 20 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 2 & 3 recites the limitation, “a bearing length” of the roller elements 33. However, the specification and drawings disclose contact length lw of the roller elements 33, not a “bearing length”. The purpose of, or reason for this disparity is unknown. In the reply filed January 2, 2026, applicant’s representative argues against this rejection by conflating bearing and contact length as “bearing/contact length lW”. The argument only adds to the unclarity of the claims.
Claim 20, line 7 recites the limitation, “a tripod star”. It is unclear if this tripod star is the same as, or different from that previously recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 15-16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naohiro, JP 2006-90515 A. Figs. 1-2, 4 & 7 show a tripod joint assembly, comprising:
a tripod star (20) comprising radially projecting pins (22);
a tripod roller (37), mounted on each pin, the tripod roller comprising:
an outer ring (34) comprising an outer ring circumference annular running surface, for
rolling in a tripod housing (10), and an inner circumferential surface,
an inner ring (32) comprising an inner ring circumference annular running surface (32b) for mounting on a pin of the tripod star and with an outer circumferential surface (32a) and end faces (32c),
rolling elements (36) configured in an annular space between the inner peripheral
surface of the outer ring and the outer peripheral surface of the inner ring,
wherein the outer ring is rotatably mounted on the outer circumferential surface of the inner ring;
axial locking rings (35), configured to be fixed to the outer ring to secure the outer ring axially relative to the inner ring,
wherein the inner ring comprises recesses (42) on at least one of the end faces for receiving lubricant,
wherein the recesses on the outer peripheral surface of the inner ring are configured to open into the annular space of the rolling elements to supply the rolling elements with lubricant, and
a tripod housing comprising a pair of tracks (14) for each tripod roller for guiding the annular running surface of the outer ring of a respective tripod roller,
wherein Figs. 7a-b show the end faces of the inner ring comprise recesses (42) opening into the inner ring circumference annular running surface (32c) such that the recesses are configured as grooves (42) with a constant cross-section in the longitudinal direction of each respective groove.
In the reply filed January 2, 2026, applicant’s representative argues that recesses on the end face of an inner roller are not recesses on the outer peripheral surface of the inner ring. The argument contradicts applicant’s claims where “the recesses on the outer peripheral surfaces of the inner ring” (see claim 1, line 13) are the “recesses on at least one of the end faces” of the inner ring (see claim 1, line 11).
Applicant’s representative further argues that in Naohiro the recesses 42 do not open in the annular space of the rolling elements. However, as noted above, Fig. 7 clearly shows the recesses 42 opening into the annular space of the rolling elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naohiro. Figs. 7a-b show the end faces (32c) of the inner ring (32) comprise recesses (42), and Fig. 4 shows a contact length of the rolling elements (36) is smaller in an axial direction than the length of the outer circumferential surface (32a) in the axial direction. Naohiro does not expressly disclose a depression of the recesses (42) on the end faces (32c) at their respective opening into the annular space is in each case smaller than half the difference between a length of the inner ring and the contact length. However, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has generally been recognized that the optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration requiring only routine skill in the art. In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961).
Conclusion
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