Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant elected a universal joint (Group I) and timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 13, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 3, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of a reference (See Cite No. 1 under Non-Patent Literature Documents) listed that is not in the English language.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the slider shaft fully passes through the hollow spider to have both ends of the slider shaft outside of the shaft tube”. Applicant states that the limitation is supported at paragraphs 0027-0028 and Fig. 4. However there is no mention or showing there, or anywhere else in the application as originally filed, of the slider shaft 110 being able to pass through the hollow spider 102 so that both of its ends are outside the shaft tube 108. To the contrary, Fig. 4 taken in conjunction with Figs. 2-3 shows that just one end (the right end) of the slider shaft 110 can pass through the hollow spider 102 so that it is outside the shaft tube 108
Claims 1-10 are 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 1 recites the limitation, “the slider shaft fully passes through the hollow spider to have both ends of the slider shaft outside of the shaft tube”. As noted above, there is no mention or showing anywhere in the application of the slider shaft 110 being able to pass through the hollow spider 102 so that both of its ends are outside the shaft tube 108, and that Fig. 4 taken in conjunction with Figs. 2-3, shows that just one end (the right end) of the slider shaft 110 can pass through the hollow spider 102 so that it is outside the shaft tube 108. Examiner notes that that left end of the slider shaft 110 is connected to a component shown in the vehicle 20 of Fig. 1. Which means in order for that end, to pass though the hollow spider 102 it would either have to be disconnected from any component attached to it, or that component would have to be small enough to pass through the hollow spider 102. Neither explanation is provided in the specification or the drawings. Furthermore, even if both ends of the slider shaft 110 were free to pass through the hollow spider 102, at least the right end would have to pass into the second yoke 106. However, Figs. 2-3 show the right end of the slider shaft 110 is too large to pass into the second yoke 106. Even if the opening in the second yoke 106 were made larger it still wouldn’t be able to accommodate an end of the slider shaft 110 because that opening would be occupied by a component shown in the vehicle 20 of Fig. 1. 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.
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 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