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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the connecting line, center point of the shaft, internal angle, and the several hubs must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
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 Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-9, where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See CFR 1.75(i).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “as well as a sum of corner point” in line 8 is a grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the construction of the connection comprises the recited configuration, or is merely characterized by the recited configuration.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “a hub” is unclear if the hub is the same or in addition to the hub of the independent claim.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “which…is required” creates confusion as to what the phrase “which” encompasses.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullenberg (US 4,465,395).
In re. claim 1, Mullenberg teaches a modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection, comprising a shaft (4’) characterised in being based on equilateral and equiangular polygons (both the bore and joining portion have mating, non-circular polygonal cross sections) (abstract), whose respective corner points are expanded by multifunctional fitted hollow bolts (20) along the rotational axis of the shaft (fig. 3), and consisting of one hub (1’) with a reverse geometry of the shaft (bolts (20) extend into the shaft (4’) and the hub (1’)) (col. 3, ln. 38-42), as well as dual-sided axial locks (12, 14) (fig. 6), wherein the multifunctional fitted bolts are positioned exclusively along a connecting line between a center point of the shaft and respective corner points of the polygon (line extending from center point in figure below), within a value range of a difference of a corner point and a bolt radius in relation to a sine of an internal angle of the polygon in minimum as well as a sum of corner point and the bolt radius in maximum (geometric relationship understood to be inherent to polygons) and a cylindrical cavity (3’) resulting from circular grooves along the entire axis of rotation of the underlying shaft and hub is used (bolts (20) extend into the shaft (4’) and the hub (1’)) (col. 3, ln. 38-42) (fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re. claim 2, Mullenberg teaches the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 1, with exactly the same number of multifunctional fitted hollow bolts as the number of corners by which the underlying polygon is characterized (fig. 3).
In re. claim 3, Mullenberg teaches the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 2, with the multifunctional fitted hollow bolts being characterised in their radius being the quotient mathematically resulting from dividing the circumcircle diameter of the shaft's polygon by the number of its corners and its length always being equal to the connection of the shaft and hub (geometric relationship understood to be inherent to polygons).
In re. claim 4, Mullenberg teaches the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 3, whose multifunctional fitted hollow bolts are positioned at selectable locations relative to a respective corner point of the polygonal shaft within the value range along the connecting line between the center of the shaft and the corner point as a function of the application-specific surface pressure ( located in the vicinities of corners of the polygonal ) (abstract).
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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenberg as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2006/0040750).
In re. claim 5, Mullenberg fails to disclose the length of the multifunctional fitted hollow bolt corresponds exactly to the length of the groove in the shaft and that of a hub.
Chen teaches the length of the multifunctional fitted hollow bolt (76) corresponds exactly to the length of the groove in the shaft (3) and that of a hub (4) (figs. 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Mullenberg to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have the length of the multifunctional fitted hollow bolt correspond exactly to the length of the groove in the shaft and that of a hub, for the predictable result of increasing the contact surface area of the bolt interface, further reducing stress concentrations.
In re. claim 6, Mullenberg as modified by Chen (see Mullenberg) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 5, wherein each multifunctional fitted hollow bolt is configured to elastically absorb force variations arising from torque direction changes or peak loads (due to being located in the vicinities of corners of the polygonal) (abstract).
In re. claim 7, Mullenberg as modified by Chen (see Mullenberg) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 6, and which, in combination of all components, is required to reduce the surface pressure by the increase in the polygonal surface area compared to a pure polygonal connection with identical dimensions (due to being located in the vicinities of corners of the polygonal) (abstract).
In re. claim 8, Mullenberg as modified by Chen (see Mullenberg) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub connection according to claim 7, configured for reducing the frictional resistance of an original pure polygonal shell surface exactly by that of the contact surface with the bolts without multifunctional fitted bolts (equivalent structure provides the equivalent function).
In re. claim 9, Mullenberg as modified by Chen (see Mullenberg) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 8, wherein each multifunctional fitted hollow bolt comprises a continuous longitudinal bore (for bolt (15)) (fig. 6).
Mullenberg as modified by Chen (see Chen) teach a plurality of connecting bores on the circumference (for threadedly connecting cylinders) (para [0026]), the outlet opening of which is located exactly on the contact surface of shaft and hub (fig. 2) to achieve full-surface lubrication of the contact surfaces in the compound by means of a lubricant (recited structure provides the equivalent function).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 with regard to Haefner have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Mullenberg filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Mullenberg does not disclose that fasteners are positioned exclusively along a connecting line between the shaft center and a polygon corner. Further, Mullenberg does not disclose any defined positional range for such fasteners based on geometric relationships. Also, the positioning in Mullenberg is not constrained by a mathematically defined relationship involving bolt radius and polygon internal angle. At most, Mullenberg teaches general placement of fasteners near corners, without imposing any precise geometric constraint.
The examiner notes that Mullenberg specifies in the abstract that the fasteners are located in the vicinities of corners of the polygonal cross section of the joining portion of the shaft. The corner point is a precise location of a polygon, which is the geometric and mathematical relationship that the applicant is claiming, as best understood. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
