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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 23 February 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claims 1 and 8 positively recite both a three and four arm driveshaft flange. The disclosure does not describe the relationship between a three and four arm driveshaft flange and how a three arm driveshaft flange can also be a four arm driveshaft flange at the same time. Further, the specification does not appear to describe the three and four arm flanges as being used on opposite ends of the same shaft simultaneously. Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 are not enabled by the disclosure when having positive recitation of both a three and four arm flange within the same claim.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 above and are rejected for at least the reasons listed above.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claims 1 and 8 first set forth a positive recitation for both a three and four arm driveshaft, however, it is not clear what Applicant is attempting to claim. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim that a three arm and four arm driveshaft flange are the same. It is further unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim that a three arm driveshaft flange and four arm driveshaft flange are used together on the same driveshaft. However, neither interpretation seems to be supported by the specification. Accordingly, it is unclear how both a three arm and four arm flange are positively claimed as if being used simultaneously. It is interpreted by Examiner that either a three arm or four arm driveshaft member is to be used at any given time, not both. Therefore, Examiner interprets the claims comprising a positive recitation of both a three and four arm driveshaft to only require one of the two types of driveshafts.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 above and are rejected for at least the reasons listed above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Duerre (US 2007/0219002 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Duerre discloses a driveshaft flange (1) used in a driveshaft (see Figs. 1-2 and Abstract), which provides rotational movement and power transmission between a differential and a gearbox in motor vehicles, the driveshaft flange comprising:
a three-arm driveshaft flange (1, see Fig. 2) comprising a triangular three-arm flange (see Fig. 1) produced from sheet metal by a cold forming method and a triangular or circular three-arm centering part (10) produced from sheet metal by a cold forming method and joined to the three-arm flange by a fitting process;
and a four-arm driveshaft flange (see 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above) comprising a quadrangular four-arm flange produced from sheet metal by a cold forming method and a circular four-arm centering part produced from sheet metal by a cold forming method and joined to the four-arm flange by a fitting process.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of claim 1 are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 1 is that the three-arm flange and centering part are capable of being produced from sheet metal by a cold forming method.
Regarding claim 2, Duerre discloses comprising a three-arm flange tube housing (A in annotated Figure 2 below) located on the surface of said three-arm flange (1 in Fig. 2) and enabling the three-arm driveshaft flange to be fixed to the driveshaft tube (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2.
Regarding claim 3, Duerre discloses comprising a three-arm centering part joining extension (B in annotated Figure 2 below) located on the top side of said three-arm centering part (10), which enables the three-arm flange and the three-arm centering part to be joined to each other (see Fig. 2) by means of a bottom fitting into the three-arm flange tube housing on the surface of the three-arm flange (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
468
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 2.
Regarding claim 4, Duerre discloses comprising a three-arm centering part extension (B in annotated Figure 2 above) located on the underside of said three-arm centering part (10) and enabling the three-arm driveshaft flange (1) to be centered (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Duerre discloses comprising a four-arm flange tube housing (A in annotated Figure 2 above) located on the surface of said four-arm flange (1 in Fig. 2) and enabling the four-arm driveshaft flange to be fixed to the driveshaft tube (see Fig. 2 and NOTE below).
NOTE: Duerre paragraph [0031] discloses that the flanges can be three or four arm flanges. Accordingly, Duerre discloses the claim limitations as the three and four arm flanges are interchangeable.
Regarding claim 6, Duerre discloses comprising a four-arm centering part joining extension (B in annotated Figure 2 above) on the top side of said four-arm centering part (10), which allows the four-arm flange (1 in Fig. 2) and the four-arm centering part to be joined to each other by means of a bottom fitting into the four-arm flange tube housing on the surface of the four-arm flange (see Fig. 2).
NOTE: Duerre paragraph [0031] discloses that the flanges can be three or four arm flanges. Accordingly, Duerre discloses the claim limitations as the three and four arm flanges are interchangeable.
Regarding claim 7, Duerre discloses comprising a four-arm centering part extension (B in annotated Figure 2 above) located on the underside of said four-arm centering part (10) and enabling the four-arm driveshaft flange (1 in Fig. 2) to be centered.
NOTE: Duerre paragraph [0031] discloses that the flanges can be three or four arm flanges. Accordingly, Duerre discloses the claim limitations as the three and four arm flanges are interchangeable.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmicker (US 12,000,440 B2) in view of Breese (US 7,178,423 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Schmicker discloses a driveshaft flange production method (see Fig. 7) for a driveshaft flange used in a driveshaft (see Fig. 7 and Abstract), which provides rotational movement and power transmission between the a differential and a gearbox in motor vehicles (see Abstract), and comprising the following process steps:
cutting of flat steel material (see Column 2 lines 17-26) in the form of a three-arm flange (14 in Fig. 7), and comprising a three-arm centering part (2 in Fig. 7), thereby forming a three-arm driveshaft flange (see Fig. 7), and/or a four-arm flange and a four-arm centering part forming said four-arm driveshaft flange in a press with cutting mould in the form of blanking dies (see 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above),
production of the three-arm flange and the three-arm centering part forming said three-arm driveshaft flange (see Figs. 7-8 and Column 2 lines 17-26) and/or said four-arm flange and the four-arm centering part forming said four-arm driveshaft flange by forming the cut parts in the forming press with deep drawing mould,
joining of the three-arm flange and the three-arm centering part forming the three-arm driveshaft flange (see Figs. 7-8) and/or the four-arm flange and the four-arm centering part forming the four-arm driveshaft flange by interference fitting.
Schmicker discloses the three-arm centering part (2 in Fig. 7), but fails to disclose as claimed cutting of flat steel material in the form of a three-arm centering part.
However, Breese teaches the forming of an interior cylindrical driveshaft support member (21) by means of deforming, shaping, and cutting sheet-metal material allowing some material to be removed (see Column 5 lines 7-40 of Breese), in order to provide a cylindrical driveshaft support member being made from a one-piece low cost material construction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method of Schmicker, with Breese, such that the three-arm centering part of Schmicker is made from cutting of flat steel material, in order to provide a driveshaft member being made from a one-piece low cost material construction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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 on 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights