Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-21 & 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 joint shown in Fig. 1 (Species I) and timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 6, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because detailed description fails to describe the ratio recited in the last two lines of claim 27.
In the reply filed April 22, 2026, applicant argues this objection is overcome because the ratio is mentioned in the specification at the summary. However, the objection remains because it pertains to the detailed description, not the summary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 16-17, 22-23 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofmann, US 6,958,016.
Claims 16 & 22. Hofmann discloses a tripod joint, comprising:
a joint outer part (11) including a first longitudinal axis (A11) and a cavity (14) running parallel to the first longitudinal axis with an open end (31), wherein three recesses (15) running parallel to the first longitudinal axis are formed in the joint outer part; and
a joint inner part (12) including a second longitudinal axis (A12) and a central body (17) on which three trunnions (19) are formed with trunnion axes extending radially from the second longitudinal axis, wherein respective roller bodies (13) are arranged on each of the trunnions, wherein each roller body has an outer ring (25) and an inner ring (23, 123) rotatable therewith about a common axis of rotation (AR), as well as bearing bodies (24) arranged between the outer ring and the inner ring, and wherein each roller body is movably received in the recesses, movable along the first longitudinal axis (col. 7, lines 4-8);
wherein, for each of the roller bodies: one of the inner ring and outer ring together with the bearing bodies is displaceable relative to the other of the inner ring and outer ring along the common axis of rotation (col. 7, lines 4-8);
wherein the outer ring forms with the inner ring a first stop (27) which limits (col. 4, lines 27-29) a displacement path (SA) of the inner ring relative to the outer ring along the common axis of rotation and away from the second longitudinal axis (see for example Fig. 6B);
wherein, at least when the common axis of rotation and the trunnion axis are arranged coaxially, the inner ring forms, with the trunnion, a second stop (38) that limits a displacement of the inner ring along the trunnion axis towards the second longitudinal axis; and
wherein the displacement of the inner ring relative to the trunnion along the trunnion axis away from the second longitudinal axis is limited only by the first stop (see for example Fig. 3).
Claim 17. Fig. 3 shows that for each of the roller bodies (13) the first stop (27) is arranged on a second side of the bearing bodies (24) facing away from the second longitudinal axis (A12).
Claim 23. Fig. 3 shows each of the roller bodies (13), the first stop (27) formed by a circlip (27) arranged on the outer ring (25).
Claim 28. Fig. 3 shows a first pitch circle radius (nominally indicated by reference character WR) of the inner joint part (12) is smaller than a second pitch circle radius (nominally indicated by reference character WZ) of the outer joint part (11).
In the reply filed April 22, 2026, applicant argues that Hofmann fails to anticipate the claims because second stop 38 allegedly does not limit movement of the inner ring relative to the trunnion. However, a comparison of Figs. 3-4, 5B & 6B clearly shows the inner ring 23, 123 moves relative to the head 21 of trunnion 19, and Fig. 6B shows the second stop 38 limiting said movement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann. At Figs. 1-3, Hofmann shows the joint inner part (12) has, in a first cross-section extending transversely to the second longitudinal axis and between a pitch circle radius (nominally indicated by reference character WR) of the inner part of the joint and the central body (17), a smallest first wall thickness present along a circumferential direction about the second longitudinal axis (A12) and a greatest second wall thickness on the pitch circle radius. Hofmann does not expressly disclose the ratio of first wall thickness / second wall thickness is at least 0.7. However, in appears in Fig. 3 that it is at least 0.7. Regardless, 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the proportion of the of first wall thickness / second wall thickness is at least 0.7, as such practice is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 & 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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