DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ argument that nothing Sellinger teaches or suggest that any of the projection should or could engage a flat surface of an adjacent flank, and indeed…device 3” is not persuasive since the reference of Ukai shows projection structure (e.g. figure 4) that are able to contact flat surface (e.g. figure 6, where 2 contacts flat surface, see annotated figure 6 of Ukai) or another projection.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ argument with regard to contacting of plurality of structures or projection structure to the flat surface or to another plurality of structures or another projection structure (e.g. contact two projection structures facing each other is also taught by Ukai when structures are formed as shown in figure 5).
Applicants’ argument that the teaching reference of Sellinger should teach contact to flat surface is not persuasive since this is already taught by Ukai, Furthermore the reference of Sellinger is used to teach that a projection structure is formed to plurality of projection structures.
Applicants’ argument that the reference of Sellinger teaches is not persuasive since Sellinger teaches to have continuous structure or plurality of structures. Furthermore Ukai teaches the intended use.
Applicants’ argument with regard to “is thereby enlarged” is not persuasive since applicant is only claiming bellows and the structure of bellow is taught by Ukai in view of Sellinger.
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) 14-21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukai in view of Sellinger (WO2023093945A1).
Ukai discloses a joint arrangement (e.g. abstract and figures) with a bellows, the bellows extends between a first end and a second end as a hollow body along an axis (e.g. see figure 4), comprising a wall that encloses the axis between the ends along a circumferential direction and has an inner surface (e.g. inner surface having 2) that forms an inner space (e.g. inner space of bellows), wherein the wall is formed at least by a plurality of pleats (e.g. each pleats shown in figure 4) arranged side by side along the axis (e.g. see figure 4), wherein each pleat extends along the axis starting from a first smallest diameter via a first flank (e.g. flank between 8 and 9) to a first largest diameter (e.g. figure 4) and via a second flank (e.g. flank between 9 and 7) to a second smallest diameter (e.g. figure 4), and a flank (e.g. flank between 8 and 9) of at least one pleat has a structure (e.g. 2) distributed along the circumferential direction (e.g. figure 4), wherein each structure is formed by depression on the inner surface enlarging the inner space or by an elevation (e.g. 2) on the inner surface reducing the inner space (e.g. the inner space reduced by 2), wherein the pleats and structures are configured such that when the pleats lie against each other, the structures are elastically deformed by a flat surface (e.g. inner surface of flank between 9 and 7 which is flat surface) of an adjacent pleat (e.g. figure 4), where the flat surface does not include one of the structures (e.g. the flat surface having no structures), and a contact surface between the flanks of one pleat, present in the inner space, is thereby enlarged (e.g. bellows is capable of deforming to have the flank between 9 and 7 contacts 2, figure 4). Regarding claim 15: Wherein, in the case of two pleats arranged adjacent to one another along the axis, only one of two opposing flanks has the structures {e.g. figure 4 which shows 2 on only opposing flanks and in another embodiment the reference states that one skilled in the art can put the element 2 on opposite flank instead, see “On the other hand, a convex strip 2a (shown by a virtual line in FIG. 5) may be formed on the sidewardly inclined surface of the first crest 9 on the inner side of the second trough, this being the position which comes into contact with the above-described convex strip 2, and even if no convex strip 2 is formed on the side of the first crest, the same effect as is described above in relation to the convex strip 22 is produced.”}. Regarding claim 16, Wherein the respective structure extends in a radial direction transverse to the axis over a height (e.g. see the thickness and height of the elevation 2). Regarding claim 18, wherein the structures on the flank each have a curved shape (see shape of the elevation 2). Regarding claim 19, wherein the curved shaped is an elliptical shape whose largest shape diameter extends at least in the radial direction {e.g. embodiment with just elevation 2a, “a convex strip 2a (shown by a virtual line in FIG. 5) may be formed on the sidewardly inclined surface of the first crest 9 on the inner side of the second trough, this being the position which comes into contact with the above-described convex strip 2, and even if no convex strip 2 is formed on the side of the first crest, the same effect as is described above in relation to the convex strip 22 is produced.”}. Regarding claim 22, wherein the diameters of the pleats decrease successively starting from the first end and towards the second end, wherein the structures are arranged exclusively on the second flanks of the pleats pointing towards the second end (e.g. see figure where the elevation is only on one flank of each pleats). Regarding claim 24: The joint (e.g. see background of invention that describes constant velocity joint which inherently having an outer joint part, a cavity, an inner joint part and rolling bodies arranged between the outer and inner joint parts, evidence is provided by applicants own specification see page 1, lines 8-10) includes an outer joint part with a cavity, an inner joint part, and a plurality of rolling bodies arranged between the outer joint part and the inner joint part, wherein the inner joint part is pivotably arranged in the cavity and wherein the bellows encloses the cavity with respect to a surrounding area of the joint (e.g. see figures which show constant velocity joint in Ukai). Regarding claims 25-26: Ukai discloses a motor vehicle (e.g. “a mechanical shaft joint of a constant velocity-type which provides a join between a driving shaft and an axle of a passenger car” in the background/summary and see rejection of claims above).
Ukai discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the structure is formed as plurality of structures. Sellinger discloses plurality of pleats with flanks, wherein one of the flanks having plurality of supports (e.g. plurality of projections 10 as shown in figure 2) on the inner surface and the supports are formed as elevations and Sellinger also teaches plurality of pleats with flanks, wherein one of the flank having a support on the inner surface as a continuous elevation (e.g. “a single axial projection 10 can be formed as a circumferential bead”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the elevation of Ukai to be circumferentially spaced elevations as taught by Sellinger with reasonable expectation of success to reduce weight (inherent since material is less) or having a single element or plurality of elements is considered to be art equivalent (see section of Sellinger provided below).
Below is section of reference of Sellinger from IDS filed on 4/17/2025.
PNG
media_image2.png
124
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Ukai and Sellinger teach that the structures and along the circumferential direction, the flank of the at least one pleat has a flat surface (e.g. this would be the case when the elevation of Ukai are circumferentially spaced as taught by Sellinger, a flat surface is provided between adjacent elevations).
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Ukai and Sellinger teach that all structures arranged on a flank are designed either as an elevation or as a depression (e.g. this would be the case when the elevation of Ukai are circumferentially spaced as taught by Sellinger).
Regarding claim 21: The combination of Ukai and Sellinger teach that all structures arranged on a flank are designed either as an elevation and as a depression (e.g. this would be the case when the elevation of Ukai are circumferentially spaced as taught by Sellinger, where each flat surface between adjacent elevations are depressions).
Claim 16 rejection based on optimum range.
Regarding claim 16: Ukai discloses the claimed invention except wherein height / [(largest diameter - smallest diameter) / 2] > 0.6. Discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kulling, 895 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ 2d 1056. Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the height of Ukai be greater than 0.6, with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice. It is further noted that height would be based on size of the bellow and the joint structure.
Claim(s) 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukai and Sellinber as applied to claims above, and further in view of Christiansen (US. 20240068604A1).
Ukai discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose that all the pleats have the structures. Christainsen discloses bellows with pleats, each pleat having first flank and second flank opposite the first flank and all the second flanks of the pleats having a structure (e.g. see structure 170 on flank 130). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure all pleats of Ukai to have structures as taught by Christiansen with reasonable expectation of success to provide stiffening portion at each of the second flanks (e.g. see description of 170 in Christiansen) and also to prevent full contact between flanks (e.g. full contact between 126 and 130 is prevented by structure of 170 in Christiansen).
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 VISHAL A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-7060. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am 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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/VISHAL A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675