Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of a universal joint (Group I) in the reply filed on February 24,2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the claim groups have considerable overlapping subject matter, such that examination of all currently pending claims in a single application is appropriate”. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of Groups I and II are distinct and examination of both in a single application would pose serious burden on the examination for the reasons stated in the restriction requirement mailed January 13, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 24, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 23, 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 each reference 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 § 102
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frins, US 1,894,986.
Claim 1. Frins shows a universal joint assembly that could be used for a steering shaft assembly comprising:
a first yoke (25, 25);
a second yoke (13);
a hollow spider (22) defining a central opening (see Figs. 1-3) extending from a first end to a second end, wherein the first yoke is operatively coupled (see Fig. 2) to the hollow spider and positioned on the first end of the hollow spider, the second yoke operatively coupled (see Figs. 1-2) to the hollow spider and positioned on the second end of the hollow spider; and
a slider shaft (11) extending through the first yoke and aligned with the central
opening of the hollow spider, wherein the slider shaft is selectively translated through the central opening (see “axial movement” at page 1, line 76).
Claim 2. Figs. 1-2 show a shaft tube (26) coupled to the slider shaft (11) and to the first yoke, wherein the slider shaft, the shaft tube and the first yoke (25, 25) are rotationally coupled to each other.
Claim 3. Wherein Fig. 2 shows the shaft tube (26) and the first yoke (25, 25) are integrally formed as a single, monolithically formed component (see also page 1, line 68).
Claim 7. Wherein the slider shaft (11) includes a splined portion (28) engaged with a splined inner portion ((see “grooves” at page 1, line 74) of the shaft tube (26) to rotationally couple the slider shaft and the shaft tube to each other.
Claim 8. Wherein Fig. 2 shows the first yoke (25, 25) is operatively coupled to a first pair of opposite sides of the hollow spider (22) and the second yoke (13) is operatively coupled to a second pair of opposite sides of the hollow spider.
Claim 10. Wherein the first yoke (25, 25) and the second yoke (13) are operatively coupled to the hollow spider (22) with a plurality of bearing assemblies (24, 21) operatively coupled to the hollow spider.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frins.
Claim 4. Frins discloses shaft tube (26) and first yoke (25, 25) as an integral assembly but does not expressly disclose them as separate components operatively coupled together. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make shaft tube (26) and first yoke (25, 25) as two separate parts operatively coupled together, since such a modification would have involved merely making parts of an integral assembly separable. Making parts of an integral assembly separable is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See also Item 7a below.
Claim 9. Frins discloses hollow spider (22) but does not expressly disclose the spider having a rectangular shape. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the spider (22) with a rectangular shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the spider. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frins in view of Duncan, US 8,092,312. As noted at item 5a above, it would have been obvious to make shaft tube (26) and first yoke (25, 25) of Frins as two separate parts operatively coupled together. Frins does not expressly disclose welding or press/stake fit as a means for operatively coupling them together. At col. 3, lines 15-17, Duncan teaches using either welding or press/stake fit as a means for operatively coupling a yoke and shaft tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the universal joint assembly of Frins by making the shaft tube (26) and first yoke (25, 25) as two separate parts coupled by means of welding or press/stake fit in order operatively couple those parts together as taught by Duncan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davies shows that the hollow spider of a universal joint assembly can be made with either a circular shape (28, 128) or a rectangular shape (228).
At col. 2, lines 30-37, Riccitelli discloses joining a yoke and shaft together by either welding or press/stake fit.
Schofield discloses a shaft coupling comprising: two yokes B, B; a hollow spider C and slider shaft E.
Each of Baits and Domizi discloses a universal joint assembly.
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