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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous rejections. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haefner et al. (EP 3293407), hereinafter Haefner, in view of Mullenberg (US 4,465,395)
In re. claim 1, Haefner teaches a modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection, comprising a shaft (1) with multifunctional fitted bolts (5) along the rotational axis of the shaft (fig. 10), and consisting of one hub (2) with a reverse geometry of the shaft (fig. 12), as well as dual-sided axial locks (3,4) (fig. 10).
Haefner fails to disclose the shaft is characterised in being based on equilateral and equiangular polygons, whose respective corner points are expanded by with multifunctional fitted bolts.
Mullenberg teaches a modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection, comprising a shaft (4) characterised in being based on equilateral and equiangular polygons (generally triangular) (col. 3, ln. 11-13), whose respective corner points are expanded by multifunctional fitted bolts (20).
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 Haefner to incorporate the teachings of Mullenberg to have the recited polygon configuration, since Haefner states the transmission elements may have different configurations, for example corresponding polygon cross sections, and doing so would allow the invention to be applied to polygon cross section shafts.
In re. claim 2, Haefner as modified by Mullenberg (see Mullenberg) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 1,with exactly the same number of multifunctional fitted bolts as the number of corners by which the underlying polygon is characterized (fig. 2).
In re. claim 3, Haefner as modified by Mullenberg (see Haefner) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 2, with the multifunctional fitted bolts (5) being characterised in their its length always being equal to the connection of the shaft and one hub (figs. 10 and 13).
Haefner as modified by Mullenberg fail to disclose the multifunctional fitted 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.
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 Haefner as modified by Mullenberg to have the recited radius ratio, as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), doing so enables the invention to be utilized with the resultant shaft diameter.
In re. claim 4, Haefner as modified by Mullenberg (see Mullenberg) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection characterised according to claim 3, whose multifunctional fitted bolts are positioned at selectable locations relative to a respective corner point of the polygonal shaft as a function of the application-specific surface pressure, such that the multifunctional fitted bolts are positioned exclusively along a connecting line between the shaft's centre point and the respective corner point of the polygon, within a value range of the difference of corner point and bolt radius in relation to the sine of an internal angle of the polygon in minimum as well as the sum of corner point and bolt radius in maximum (polygonal configuration provides recited function).
In re. claim 5, Haefner as modified by Mullenberg (see Haefner) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 4, with the length of the grooves in the shaft and hub corresponding exactly to the length of the multifunctional fitted bolts (5) (figs. 10 and 13).
In re. claim 6, Haefner as modified by Mullenberg (see Haefner) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 5, wherein each multifunctional fitted bolt is positionable at selectable locations within the value range along the connecting line between the centre of the shaft and the corner point (position understood to change with rotation).
In re. claim 7, Haefner as modified by Mullenberg (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 (polygonal shape provides recited function).
In re. claim 8, Haefner as modified by Mullenberg (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 equivalent function).
In re. claim 9, Haefner as modified by Mullenberg (see Haefner) teach the modularly constructed shaft-hub-connection according to claim 8, wherein each multifunctional fitted bolt comprises a continuous longitudinal bore and a plurality of connecting bores on the circumference (fig. 10), the outlet opening of which is located exactly on the contact surface of shaft and hub (fig. 10), to achieve full-surface lubrication of the contact surfaces in the compound by means of a lubricant (equivalent structure provides equivalent function).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Haefner does not disclose or suggest expansion of polygon corner points by multifunctional fitted bolts as part of the shaft geometry itself. The bolts in Haefner do not define or modify the polygonal geometry of the shaft, nor are they described as participating in torque transmission through controlled corner expansion.
The examiner references figure 11, which shows the shaft (1) with multiple recesses (12). The shaft geometry is expanded by the addition of fitting bolts (5), as shown in figure 10. Without the addition of bolts (5), it is unclear how torque would be transmitted from the shaft (1) to the shaft (2). Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues the hollow cylinders, also known as multifunctional fitting bolts, of the present invention are dimensionally determined and rigid by means of a specific calculation, whereas in the Haefner, the bolts that may be used have arbitrary shapes and can be movable.
The examiner notes that the claims do not recite any specific calculation to which the applicant is referring. Instead, the claims recite a dimensional arrangement at the corner points of the recited polygon. Such an arrangement is provided by the secondary reference to Mullenberg. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues Although Mullenberg mentions polygonal shafts, it does not disclose a modular shaft-hub system in which the shaft is defined by equilateral and equiangular polygons whose corner points are intentionally expanded by multifunctional fitted bolts arranged along the rotational axis. Rather, Mullenberg's expandable elements are dedicated fastening components, not structural elements that define shaft geometry or cooperate with reverse-geometry hubs and axial locks.
As stated above, the features of the claim argued by the applicant as not being present in the Mullenberg reference have been cited to the primary reference of Haefner. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues the general statement in Haefner that transmission elements may have different configurations does not provide a specific teaching or motivation to redesign Haefner's shaft to be based on equilateral and equiangular polygons with expanded corner points formed by multifunctional fitted bolts. The cited references address different design problems using different technical approaches, and there is no suggestion that their teachings should be combined in the manner required by claim 1.
The examiner notes that the applicant has failed to reproduce the entire statement in Haefner recited in the previous rejection. As stated in Haefner, “the transmission elements may have different configurations, for example corresponding polygon cross sections”. That is, the motivation to modify the shape provided to a polygonal shape is explicitly provided in the primary reference itself. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues neither Haefner nor Mullenberg discloses or suggests multifunctional fitted bolts that simultaneously define shaft geometry, transmit torque, and cooperate with dual-sided axial locking elements. Haefner's bolts serve a locking function.
As stated above, Haefner shows that the recesses (12) in the shaft (1) and the hub (2) are defined by the diameter of the bolt (12) in figures 10-12. The applicant’s statement the torque is not transmitted has been provided with no supporting portion in the disclosure. Instead, para [0011] of Haefner states the transmission elements, which are the bolts (12), enable the transmission of very large torques between the shaft and the hub. Even though bolts (12) support rings (3, 4) to provide the locking function mentioned by the applicant, this is clearly not the only function of the bolts. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues Although Haefner discloses axial locking, it does so in a context that does not include polygon corner expansion or multifunctional fitted bolts defining shaft geometry.
As stated above, the features of the claim argued by the applicant as not being present in the Mullenberg reference have been cited to the primary reference of Haefner. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention achieves technical effects not taught or suggested by the cited references, including increased effective connection length without significantly increased assembly effort, improved reusability of the shaft due to integrated sealing and lubrication, and enhanced modularity through interchangeable hubs. These system-level benefits further underscore the non-obviousness of the claimed subject matter.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed invention achieves technical effects not taught or suggested by the cited references, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
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 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