DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: under 37 CFR 1.75(i) for failing to separate claim elements by line indentation in at least claims 1 and 11 . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7775892 B2 (Dagonneau) in view of US 2731933 A (Phillips).
Regarding claim 1, Dagonneau discloses a vehicular output shaft assembly configured for a rotating electrical machine, comprising: an elongated tubular shaft having a cavity at least partially defined by an inner diameter of the elongated tubular shaft and a shaft radial surface (Figure 1 shows the overall welded tube shaft and element 8 shows the central tube which is elongated and hollow and Figure 2, the inner surface of element 8 defines an internal cavity and the outer surface of the tube is the shaft radial surface); An output coupling ( Figure 2, the end pieces of element 4 attached to element 8 the tube) having an inner diameter and a coupling radial surface ( Column 3 lines 9-11 defines inner diameter as inner surface of element 24 of figure 2 and the coupling radial surface as the outer surface of element 22 of figure 2), the elongated tubular shaft and the output coupling are welded together between the shaft radial surface and the coupling radial surface ( Figure 2 shows element 8 and end piece of element 4 are welded by element 20 also claims 11 and 14 states that two end pieces are welded together).
Dagonneau fails to disclose an integrated ring received within the cavity of the elongated tubular shaft and the inner diameter of the output coupling, wherein the integrated ring positions the shaft radial surface and the coupling radial surface to abut and wherein the integrated ring remains fixed in the cavity after the elongated tubular shaft and the output coupling are welded together.
However, Philips teaches it is well known in the art of welded pipe joints to use an internal welding ring (11) that is received within the cavities (pipe ends 12 and 13) of the tubular members (see column 2 lines 65-70), positions the radial end surfaces to abut and remains permanently fixed (see column 6 lines 10-19).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicular output shaft assembly of Dagonneau such that it includes an integrated ring received within the cavity of the elongated tubular shaft and the inner diameter of the output coupling wherein the integrated ring positions the shaft radial surface and the coupling radial surface to abut, and wherein the integrated ring remains fixed in the cavity after the elongated tubular shaft and the output coupling are welded together as Philips teaches it is known in the art of welded pipe joints to use an internal welding ring to properly space and concentrically algin abutting tubular members prior to welding and to securely hold the members against separation by permanently fusing the ring with the weld material as fixed structural component ( column 5 lines 45-54) .
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dagonneau and Philips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 1, and wherein Dagonneau further teaches the output coupling includes a female splined fitting (Figure 1 the connection end element 14 is provided with a connection fluting element 16 which is a spline as stated in Column 3 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dagonneau and Philips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the output coupling comprises powdered metal.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the out coupling of the combination of Dagonneau and Philip’s invention to be comprised of powdered metal. Sintering is the standard industrial process used to create high precision, pressed and molded automotive components. Substituting powdered metal for the steel couplings in Dagonneau would perform the same function in the same way with the predictable result, A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined coupling structure of Dagonneau with the pressed manufacturing process to create a powdered metal material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use manufacturing efficiency. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) also in re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dagonneau and Philips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 1, and wherein Dagonneau further teaches the elongated tubular shaft is formed from high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel (Column 2 lines 20-24 shows that the shaft and endpieces are formed from high strength alloys such as a boron steel).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dagonneau and Philips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 1, and wherein Dagonneau further teaches a weld path extends directly between the shaft radial surface and the coupling radial surface (Figure 1 element 20 is the bead of welding which is formed directly at the junction where the radial end wall of the end piece and the end face of tube meet).
Regarding claim 11, Dagonneau discloses a vehicular output shaft assembly configured for a rotating electrical machine (abstract) comprising an elongated tubular shaft (8) having a cavity and an output coupling (end pieces 4) facilitating a welded connection (bead of welding 20) between the elongated tubular shaft and the output coupling between a shaft radial surface and a coupling radial surface.
Dagonneau fails to disclose an integrated ring having an outer surface configured to be received within a cavity of an elongated tubular shaft and an inner diameter of an output coupling, wherein the integrated ring positions a shaft radial surface and a coupling radial surface to abut and wherein the integrated ring remains fixed in the cavity after forming the welded connection between the elongated tubular shaft and the output coupling.
However, Philips teaches it is known int the art of welded pipe joints to use an internal welding ring (11) that is received within the cavities of the tubular members (12 and 13) ( see column 2 lines 66-68 and column 5 lines 39-43), positions the radial end surfaces (12a and 13a) to abut ( see column 5 lines 49-51) to facilitate a welded connection and remains permanently fixed in the cavity after forming the welding connection between the members ( see column 6 lines 14-19 and column 7 lines 61-63).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicular output shaft assembly of Dagennou such that it includes and integrated ring received within the cavity of the elongated tubular shaft and the inner diameter of the output coupling wherein the integrated ring positions the shaft radial surface and the coupling radial surface to abut and wherein the integrated ring remains fixed in the e cavity after the elongated tubular shaft and the output coupling are welded together as Philips teaches it is known in the art of welded pipe joints to use an internal welding ring to properly space and concentrically align abutting tubular members prior to welding and to secularly hold the members against separation by permanent fusing the ring with the weld material as a fixed structural component ( see column 5 lines 45-54).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dagonneau and Philips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 11, but fails to teach wherein the output coupling comprises powdered metal.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the out coupling of the combination of Dagonneau and GB’s invention to be comprised of powdered metal. Sintering is the standard industrial process used to create high precision, pressed and molded automotive components. Substituting powdered metal for the steel couplings in Dagonneau would perform the same function in the same way with the predictable result, A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined coupling structure of Dagonneau with the pressed manufacturing process to create a powdered metal material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use manufacturing efficiency. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) also in re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dagonneau and Philips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 1, wherein Philips further teaches the integrated ring includes an outer diameter surface (sharp outer edges of welding ring 11) (see column 6 lines 21-24) that engages the inner diameters (inner surfaces 18 and 19) of the elongated tubular shaft and output coupling along an axial length of the outer diameter surface of the integrated ring (see figures 1-4 and see column 6 lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dagonneau and Philips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 11, and wherein Philips further teaches the outer surface of the integrated ring (sharp outer edges of 11) engages an inner diameter of the elongated tubular shaft (see column 6 lines 19-25) and the inner diameter of the output coupling (inner surfaces 18 and 19) along a full axial length of the outer surface of the integrated ring (see figures 1-4 and see column 6 lines 25-32).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7775892 B2 (Dagonneau) and US 2731933 A (Phillips) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5533825 A (Stone).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dagonneau and Phillips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 1, but fails to teach the output coupling includes a helical gear.
However, in further view of Stone teaches the output coupling includes a helical gear (Figure element 52, also in column 3 lines 57-63 describes intermeshing gears describes the curved helical teeth).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the helical gear geometry of Stone into the combination of Dagonneau and Phillips to increase torque- transmission capacity and reduce mechanical stress where helical gears are a standard mechanical solution for transmitting torque smoothly between rotating shafts (column 2 lines 1-15).
Claims 7-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7775892 B2 (Dagonneau) and US 2731933 A (Phillips), and further in view of US 2914090 A (Isenberg).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dagonneau and Phillips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising a bushing received by an inner diameter of the integrated ring.
However, Isenberg teaches it is known the art of tubular supports to use an internal spacer ring structure comprising bushing (14) received by an inner diameter of the integrated ring (see figures 1-4 and column 4 lines 7-11).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the integrated ring of Dagonneau and Phillips such that it further includes a bushing received by an inner diameter of the integrated ring as taught by Isenberg. Such modification would provide the benefit of serving as a supporting guide means for the tubes (column 1 lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dagonneau and Philips and Isenberg teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 7, but does not teach further comprising a cooling tube received by the bushing.
However, Isenberg teaches a conduit system wherein the annular hub 14 (referred to the bushing) encircles and receives an inner conveyor pipe (11) (NOTE: cooling tube does not add any structure therefore the inner tube 11 is referred to the cooling tube (11) received by the bushing (14) (see figures 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Dagonneau, Phillips and Isenberg by further including a tube received by the bushing as taught by Isenberg. Such modification would provide the benefit of enabling fluid conveyance through the central cavity while permitting the slidability of the conveyor pipe due to contraction and expansion, protecting the central conduit from mechanical stress, vibration and structural fatigue during thermal cycling of the rotating machine (see column 3 line 25- column 4 line 5).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dagonneau and Phillips and Isenberg teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 7, and wherein Isenberg further teaches a plurality of spokes (22) between the inner diameter of the integrated ring and an outer diameter of the integrated ring (see figures 1-3 and column 2 line 68- column 3 line 7).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dagonneau and Phillips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 11, but fails to teach further comprising a bushing received by an inner diameter of the integrated ring.
However, Isenberg teaches it is known the art of tubular supports to use an internal spacer ring structure comprising bushing (14) received by an inner diameter of the integrated ring (see figures 1-4 and column 4 lines 7-11).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the integrated ring of Dagonneau and Phillips such that it further includes a bushing received by an inner diameter of the integrated ring as taught by Isenberg. Such modification would provide the benefit of serving as a supporting guide means for the tubes (column 1 lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dagonneau and Philips and Isenberg teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 13, but does not disclose further comprising a cooling tube received by the bushing.
Isenberg teaches a conduit system wherein the annular hub 14 (referred to the bushing) encircles and receives an inner conveyor pipe (11) (NOTE: cooling tube does not add any structure therefore the inner tube 11 is referred to the cooling tube (11) received by the bushing (14) (see figures 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Dagonneau, Phillips and Isenberg by further including a tube received by the bushing as taught by Isenberg. Such modification would provide the benefit of enabling fluid conveyance through the central cavity while permitting the slidability of the conveyor pipe due to contraction and expansion, protecting the central conduit from mechanical stress, vibration and structural fatigue during thermal cycling of the rotating machine (see column 3 line 25- column 4 line 5).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dagonneau and Phillips and Isenberg teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 13, and wherein Isenberg further teaches a plurality of spokes (22) between the inner diameter of the integrated ring and an outer diameter of the integrated ring (see figures 1-3 and column 2 line 68- column 3 line 7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7775892 B2 (Dagonneau) and US 2731933 A (Phillips) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8482173 B2 (Wright et al.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dagonneau and Phillips teaches the vehicular output shaft assembly recited in claim 1 but fails to teach further comprising a bearing cap inserted in a distal end of the elongated tubular shaft.
However, in further view of, Wright et al. teaches further comprising a bearing cap inserted in a distal end of the elongated tubular shaft (Figure 1 elements 50 and 52 are the bearing caps and includes opening elements 56 and 68 which the shaft element 22 passes through as stated in column 2 lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the inner bearing cap’s structure taught by Wright et al. into the distal ends of the combination of Dagonneau and Phillip’s invention to reduce vibrations and for standardization. The combination of Dagonneau and Phillip’s invention teaches the architecture of a hollow vehicular shaft consisting of a central tube and endpieces and Wright et al teaches a rotating electrical machine assembly where a shaft is supported at its distal ends by bearing caps having openings. It would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill of the art to make use of the mechanical components functions to insert bearing caps of Wright et al. into the distal openings of the combination of Dagonneau’s and Phillip’s tubular shaft to facilitate rotation and support of the internal assembly (abstract and column 7 lines 20-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument on page 8 of the remarks that Dagonneau teaches away from use of a hollow tube to weld two end pieces together (Col. 1, lines 18-41), this is not persuasive for the following reasons: Dagonneau background states verbatim “In the state of the art, welded tube shafts are known that are constructed of two endpieces each welded to one and of a hollow tube. Each endpiece comprises a first portion provided with connection fluting such as splines. The splines are adapted to connect the shaft, for example to a correspondingly splined inner joint part of a constant velocity joint. Each endpiece has a tubular second portion that is welded to the hollow tube” (see column 1 lines 16-25) Dagonneau then identifies the narrow problem it actually solves “Because of those various fabrication parameters, the structural stability and the service lifetime of the known shaft are compromised.” (see column 1lines 40-42) and Dagonneau’s own claim 14 does not criticize, discredit or discourage the hollow tube plus two endpieces architecture, as its background criticizes only prior hear treatment/decarburization parameter and not the use of a hollow tube to join two endpieces and a reference teaches away only if the disclosure criticize the prior art per MPEP 2114.02, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding applicants’ argument on pages 8-9 of the remarks that express teachings of Dagonneau would necessarily be destroyed by having to do away with a bead welding 20 formed via friction welding, wherein the bead welding 20 necessarily extends radially inwardly from an inner surface 24, as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, and as well understood by a POSA (Col. 3, lines 4-9; Col 4, lines 22-24) is not persuasive. The newly cited secondary reference, Philips, is specifically designed to be utilized as a backing ring to remedy the formation of such beads. Phillips expressly teaches that its ring is used to “prevent the molten metal from dripping the conduit passage to form icicles or other obstructions therein” (see Phillips, column 1, lines 18-44). Therefore, applying the permeant backing ring of Philips to the joint of Dagonneau successfully accommodates the weld material without destroying the function of the assembly.
Regarding applicants’ argument on page 8-9 of the remarks Dagonneau expressly teaches identical end pieces 4, 6 (Col. 2, lines 57-59), each having an inner structure with a rectilinear generatrix 32 inclined relative an axis X-X at an angle between 10-50, and particularly between 20-40 degrees (Col. 3, lines 28-33) this is accurate but not persuasive for the following reasons: Dagonneau’s claim 14 states two end pieces welded to a common tube, however adapting a backing/alignment ring’s outer profile mating ( cylindrical or taper) bore is a routine design choice ( MPEP 2144.04) and a person of ordinary skill in the art would select the geometry to match the members being joined.
Regarding applicants’ arguments on page 9 of the remarks that a POSA looking from Dagonneau to Kane would not be motivated by the teachings of Kane to include an internal annular ring and Applicant notes the chill ring 15 of Kane is temporary, and is not a component of a shaft assembly, as claimed----––these arguments-- are not persuasive because in light of the substantial amendments made to claim 1, a second round of prior art consideration was performed. Consequently, the new prior art references (Phillips and Isenberg) now teach the limitations of claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALMUTASIM HEZAM AIYASH whose telephone number is (571)272-6104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5PM.
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.
/A.H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights