DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 22 January 2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Schultz (US 4,182,193 A).
Regarding claim 1, Schultz discloses a shaft (12 and 32), for transmitting a torque and/or an axial force, having a longitudinal shaft axis (see Fig. 3), a shaft lateral surface (surface pointed to by 32 in Fig. 3), and a shaft end (A in annotated Figure 4 below), the shaft lateral surface having at least one recess (34) with an axial recess wall (B in annotated Figure 3 below) and a radial recess wall (C in annotated Figure 3 below) adjacent to the axial recess wall, the radial recess wall having a first wall end (D in annotated Figure 3 below) and a second wall end (E in annotated Figure 3 below), and the at least one recess being open axially in the direction of the shaft end (see Fig. 3), wherein the radial recess wall has a recess radius (see Fig. 3), such that the radial recess wall has, at least in portions, a concave recess (see F in annotated Figure 2 below) arc shape (see NOTE below) facing away from the longitudinal shaft axis, such that at least a portion of the at least one recess widens as a radial distance from the longitudinal shaft axis increases (see Fig. 2).
NOTE: See in annotated Figure 2 below that the radial recess wall has a concave shape and an arc shaped portion that faces away from the longitudinal shaft axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
555
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 3.
PNG
media_image3.png
444
743
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 3.
PNG
media_image4.png
668
563
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 2.
Regarding claim 2, Schultz discloses characterized in that the recess arc shape (F in annotated Figure 2 above) of the radial recess wall (C in annotated Figure 3 above) extends from the first wall end (D in annotated Figure 3 above) to the second wall end (E in annotated Figure 3 above) and/or the recess radius is variable.
Regarding claim 3, Schultz discloses characterized in that the recess arc shape (F in annotated Figure 2 above) of the radial recess wall (C in annotated Figure 3 above) corresponds to at least a portion of a hypotrochoid (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Schultz discloses characterized in that a hypotrochoid center of the hypotrochoid is located on the longitudinal shaft axis (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Schultz discloses characterized in that the shaft lateral surface (surface pointed to by 32 in Fig. 3) has a spindle toothing (38) with at least one spindle tooth (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Schultz discloses characterized in that the axial recess wall (B in annotated Figure 3 above) of at least one of the at least one recess (34) is formed at least in portions by a cut surface (see Fig. 3) of the at least one spindle tooth (38).
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of claim 6 are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 6 is that the at least one recess is capable of being formed in portions by a cut surface.
Regarding claim 7, Schultz discloses characterized in that the cut surface (flat surface of tooth 38) of the at least one spindle tooth (38) is located at a distance from the first wall end (D in annotated Figure 3 above) and/or the second wall end of the radial recess wall.
Regarding claim 8, Schultz discloses characterized in that the at least one recess (34) comprises a plurality of recesses (34, see Fig. 3) and the at least one spindle tooth (38) comprises a plurality of spindle teeth (38, see Fig. 3), the number of recesses corresponding to the number of spindle teeth (see Fig. 3), and the axial recess wall (B in annotated Figure 3 above) of each of the recesses (34) being formed at least in portions by the cut surface (flat surface of tooth 38) of one of the spindle teeth.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of claim 8 are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 8 is that the axial recess wall is capable of being formed at least in portions by the cut surface of one of the spindle teeth.
Regarding claim 9, Schultz discloses characterized in that a rim (14, see Fig. 5) is provided between the axial recess wall (B in annotated Figure 3 above) and the shaft end (A in annotated Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 10, Schultz discloses a hub (14, 16) having a longitudinal hub axis (axis shown in Fig. 3), a hub opening (15) extending along the longitudinal hub axis, and an inner wall radially delimiting the hub opening (see Fig. 3), wherein the inner wall has at least one hub arcuate portion (42) with a hub arc radius (inner surface of 42 in Fig. 3), such that the at least one hub arcuate portion (42) has a convex hub (see Fig. 3) arc shape (see NOTE below and Fig. 3) facing the longitudinal hub axis (see Fig. 3), such that at least a portion of the at least one hub arcuate portion widens as a distance from the longitudinal hub axis increases (see Figs. 2 and 5).
NOTE: See in Fig. 3 that the at least one hub arcuate portion (42) has a convex shape protruding inwardly, and further has an arc shape facing the longitudinal hub axis (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Schultz discloses characterized in that the hub arc radius (inner surface of 42 in Fig. 3) is constant (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Schultz discloses characterized in that the at least one hub arcuate portion (42) has a first hub arc end (I in annotated Figure 3 below) and a second hub arc end (J in annotated Figure 3 below), each of the hub arc ends adjoining an undercut (40).
PNG
media_image5.png
694
398
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 3.
Regarding claim 13, Schultz discloses characterized in that the at least one hub arcuate portion (42) has, at the first hub arc end (I in annotated Figure 3 above), a tangentially continuous transition (K in annotated Figure 2 below) to the undercut (40) adjoining the first hub arc end and/or has, at the second hub arc end (J in annotated Figure 3 above), a tangentially continuous transition (L in annotated Figure 2 below) to the undercut (40) adjoining the second hub arc end.
PNG
media_image6.png
647
504
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 2.
Regarding claim 14, Schultz discloses characterized in that the at least one hub arcuate portion (42) comprises a plurality of hub arcuate portions (42, see Fig. 3) which are located uniformly in a peripheral direction of the hub opening (15, see Fig. 3) around the longitudinal hub axis (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Schultz discloses a shaft-hub connection (see Fig. 3) having a shaft (12 and 32) according claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), a hub (14, 16) arranged on the shaft (see Figs. 4-5) the hub having a longitudinal hub axis (axis shown in Fig. 3), a hub opening (15) extending along the longitudinal hub axis, and an inner wall radially delimiting the hub opening (see Fig. 3), wherein the inner wall has at least one hub arcuate portion (42) with a hub arc radius (inner surface of 42 in Fig. 3), such that the at least one hub arcuate portion (42) has a convex hub (see Fig. 3) arc shape (see NOTE below and Fig. 3) facing the longitudinal hub axis (see Fig. 3), such that at least a portion of the at least one hub arcuate portion widens as a distance from the longitudinal hub axis increases (see Figs. 2 and 5),
wherein the at least one hub arcuate portion (42) is arranged in the at least one recess (34, see Fig. 2),
wherein the inner wall of the hub opening (15) is located in the region of the at least one hub arcuate portion (42) so as to face the radial recess wall (C in annotated Figure 3 above) of the at least one recess (34), and
wherein a first side surface (surface of 16 in Fig. 5) of the hub is in operative connection with the axial recess wall (B in annotated Figure 3 above) in the at least one recess (34).
Regarding claim 16, Schultz discloses characterized in that the at least one hub arcuate portion (42) corresponds in number and arrangement to the at least one recess (34, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Schultz discloses characterized in that the shaft (12 and 32) has, in the region of the first hub arc end (G in annotated Figure 3 below) and in the region of the second hub arc end (H in annotated Figure 3 below) of the at least one recess (34), an oversize (36) relative to the hub (14, 16) and in that the shaft has, in a central region of the at least one hub arcuate portion (42), between the first hub arc end (G in annotated Figure 3 below) and the second hub arc end (H in annotated Figure 3 below), backlash (44) relative to the hub.
PNG
media_image7.png
620
274
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. Annotated Figure 3.
Regarding claim 18, Schultz discloses characterized in that the rim (44) of the shaft (12 and 32) is reshaped radially outward and axially in the direction of the hub (14, 16), so that a second side surface (surface of 14) of the hub, located opposite the first side surface (surface of 16), is in operative connection with the reshaped rim (see Figs. 4-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz (US 4,182,193 A) in view of Metral (US 8,925,402 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Schultz discloses an pulley having the shaft-hub connection (see Fig. 3) according claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), but fails to disclose as claimed that the system has an electric actuator.
However, Metral teaches a system comprising a pulley and electric actuator in order to drive the pulley, such that the intended function and use of the pulley can be completed by using the driving force of the electric actuator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft hub connection of Schultz, with Metral, such that it comprises an electric actuator, such that the intended function and use of the pulley can be completed by using the driving force of the electric actuator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026, page 5, recites: “…It is clear from the above that the wall defining recess F is convex, rather than concave…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is clear from the wall shown by F in annotated Figure 2 that the wall has a concave recess shape while also comprising an arc section as seen in annotated Figure 2.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026, page 5, recites: “…With regard to claim 10, the Examiner has similarly shown a concave hub arcuate portion, whereas claim 10 recites a convex hub arcuate portion…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Member 42 in which Examiner considers to be the convex hub for the rejection of claim 10 is convex as seen in Fig. 5. The tip portion of member 42 has a concave shape, however, the main structure of 42 is a convex member.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026, page 10, recites: “…It is noted that claim 15 depends from claim 1 and has also been amended to incorporate the subject matter of independent claim 10…”. Examiner notes that even though claim 15 is amended, the newly amended subject matter of claim 15 does not overcome the rejection for at least the same reasons as claim 10.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026, pages 10-11, recite: “…Metral does not cure the above-identified defects of Schultz. Thus, neither Schultz nor Metral, when taken alone or in combination, provide for: " such that the radial recess wall (22) has, at least in portions, a concave recess arc shape facing away from the longitudinal shaft axis (12) such that at least a portion of the at least one recess (18) widens as a radial distance from the longitudinal shaft axis (12) increases", as recited by newly-amended independent claim 1. Further, neither Schultz nor Metral, when taken alone or in combination, provide for: " such that the at least one hub arcuate portion (56) has a convex hub arc shape facing the longitudinal hub axis (50), such that at least a portion of the at least one hub arcuate portion (56) widens as a distance from the longitudinal hub axis (50) increases", as recited by newly-amended independent claim 10…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s comments are moot with regard to Metral not teaching the claimed subject matter of the concave recess arc shape. Metral is not relied upon in the rejection to teach the concave recess arc shape. Further, Schultz does disclose the claimed subject matter of the hub arcuate portion (42) having a convex hub arcuate shape (42) and further that the hub arcuate portion widens as a distance from the longitudinal hub axis increases (see Figs. 2 and 5).
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026, page 11, recites: “…In addition to the above, it is respectfully noted that dependent claims 3 and 4 require that the recess arc shape of the radial recess wall (22) corresponds to at least a portion of a hypotrochoid. A hypotrochoid is a very particular type of curve. Specifically, a hypotrochoid is a "roulette" traced by a point attached to a circle of radius r rolling around the inside of a fixed circle of radius R, where the point is a distance d from the center of the interior circle, where the parametric equations defining a hypotrochoid are given in paragraph [0014] of the originally- filed specification. Not only is there no teaching or suggestion of a hypotrochoid shape found in Schultz, whether taken alone or in combination with Metral, but Schultz's Fig. 2 clearly shows a constant radius, which is impossible in a hypotrochoid. Thus, it is believed that claims 3 and 4 are even further distinguished from the cited prior art…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 3 only requires the prior art to have a recess arc shape that corresponds to at least a portion of a hypotrochoid. Accordingly the recess arc shape of the prior art has a partial arc curvature resembling that of a part of a hypotrochoid. Further, claim 4 requires a center of a hypotrochoid to be located at the shaft center axis. A center of a hypotrochoid is interpreted to be an axis. The prior art has an axis at its shaft center and therefore meets the claim limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026, page 12, recites: “…Contrary to the Examiner's assertion on page 7 of the Office Action, Schultz clearly does not show a similar undercut at the juncture of the hub arc ends of the concave portion 42…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear what Applicant means by “a similar undercut”. The prior art meets the claim limitations and is sufficient to hold the rejection.
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 ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights