Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/484,508

TRIPOD JOINT

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 11, 2023
Examiner
BINDA, GREGORY JOHN
Art Unit
3679
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Gkn Driveline Zumaia SA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
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

§102 §103 §112
Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of the tripod joint shown in Fig. 1 (Species I) in the reply filed on January 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination with restriction would not pose undue burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the examiner is provided time to exam just one invention, not multiple inventions (i.e. multiple patentably distinct species). Therefore examination with restriction would pose undue burden on the examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 19-21 & 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 6, 2026. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Germany on October 14, 2022 and June 30, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed certified copies of the German applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The disclosure is objected to because detailed description fails to describe the ratio recited in the last two lines of claim 27. 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 Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation, “the displacement of the inner ring along the trunnion axis away from the second longitudinal axis is unrestricted”. However, to the contrary, the specification discloses at paragraph 0112, that displacement of the inner ring 15 along the trunnion axis 11 away from the second longitudinal axis 8 is limited (i.e. restricted). 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. Claim 22 is 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. Claim 22 recites the limitation, “the displacement of the inner ring along the trunnion axis away from the second longitudinal axis [is limited by the first stop and] is unrestricted”. It’s meaning is unknown. 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) 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). 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 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

Oct 11, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+11.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
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