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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” has been used to designate two different structures in Figures 2 and 3.
Figures 10 and 11 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h) and 37 CFR 1.84(u) because Figures 10 and 12 each include multiple views under a single label, and therefore the views are not “clearly separated from one another”. Further, “[t]he different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals”.
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.
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 11-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,806,772 (Frost) in view of US 3,133,431 (Zech).
Regarding claim 11, Frost discloses a ball constant velocity sliding joint (see Figures 1-10), comprising:
an outer joint part (1) with a first axis of rotation extending along an axial direction and with outer ball tracks (3) and outer center lines (see Figure 4 adjacent “ beta’ ”);
a joint inner part (2) with inner ball tracks (4) and inner center lines (see Figure 9 adjacent “beta”);
a plurality of torque-transmitting balls (7), which are guided in outer ball tracks and inner ball tracks assigned to one another and forming track pairs (see Figure 5); and
a cage (5) provided with a plurality of cage windows (11), each of which receives one or more of the balls (see Figures 4 and 5);
wherein the center lines extend along the ball tracks from a first end region along the axial direction to a second end region (see Figures 4 and 9);
wherein the center lines of each track pair each extend at an inclination angle (beta), that is inclined relative to the axial direction in a radial direction, and at a helix angle (beta’), that is inclined relative to the axial direction in a circumferential direction, and each extend in opposite directions (see Figures 4 and 9),
Frost does not expressly disclose the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at most four degrees and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees, or the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at most four degrees.
Zech teaches it is known in the art of ball constant velocity sliding joints with inclination angles (see Figure 4 and 5) and helix angles (see Figures 1 and 3) to modify said angles in order to achieve the desired operating angle for the joint (see column 5, lines 67-74), said structure providing a means of achieving the desired operating angle that is simple, inexpensive, and durable (see column 2, lines 5-7).
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. inclination angles, helix angles) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 ball constant velocity sliding joint of Frost such that the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at most four degrees and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees, or the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at most four degrees, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art; Zech providing motivation for such a modification in teaching it is known in the art to modify said angles in order to achieve the desired operating angle for the joint as a means of achieving the desired operating angle that is simple, inexpensive, and durable.
Regarding claim 12, Frost teaches the center lines are straight (see Figures 4 and 9).
Regarding claim 13, Frost teaches eight, ten, or twelve balls (7; see column 2, line 50).
Regarding claim 14, Frost teaches in the circumferential direction adjacent outer ball tracks (3) and adjacent inner ball tracks (4) are each inclined in different directions, that is each have opposite inclination (beta) angles and helix (beta’) angles (see Figures 6 and 9, and column 4, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Frost and Zech teaches the ball constant velocity sliding joint of claim 11, but does not expressly teach, if the inclination angles (beta of Frost) each have an absolute value of at most four angular degrees, the absolute value of the helix angles (beta’ of Frost) is at most eighteen angular degrees.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. inclination angles, helix angles) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 ball constant velocity sliding joint of Frost such that the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at most four angular degrees, the absolute value of the helix angles is at most eighteen angular degrees, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art; Zech providing motivation for such a modification in teaching it is known in the art to modify said angles in order to achieve the desired operating angle for the joint as a means of achieving the desired operating angle that is simple, inexpensive, and durable.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Frost and Zech teaches the ball constant velocity sliding joint of claim 15, but does not expressly teach the absolute value of the inclination angles (beta of Frost) is at most two angular degrees in each case.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. inclination angles) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 ball constant velocity sliding joint of Frost such that the absolute value of the inclination angles is at most two angular degrees in each case, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art; Zech providing motivation for such a modification in teaching it is known in the art to modify said angles in order to achieve the desired operating angle for the joint as a means of achieving the desired operating angle that is simple, inexpensive, and durable.
Regarding claim 19, Frost teaches the joint inner part (2) is displaceable relative to the joint outer part (1) in the axial direction by at least five millimeters (see column 3, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Frost and Zech teaches the ball constant velocity sliding joint of claim 11, but does not expressly teach the inclination angles (beta of Frost) each have an absolute value of at most four degrees and the helix angles (beta’ of Frost) each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. inclination angles, helix angles) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 ball constant velocity sliding joint of Frost such that the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at most four degrees and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art; Zech providing motivation for such a modification in teaching it is known in the art to modify said angles in order to achieve the desired operating angle for the joint as a means of achieving the desired operating angle that is simple, inexpensive, and durable.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Frost and Zech teaches the ball constant velocity sliding joint of claim 11, but does not expressly teach the inclination angles (beta of Frost) each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees and the helix angles (beta’ of Frost) each have an absolute value of at most four degrees.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. inclination angles, helix angles) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 ball constant velocity sliding joint of Frost such that the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at most four degrees, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art; Zech providing motivation for such a modification in teaching it is known in the art to modify said angles in order to achieve the desired operating angle for the joint as a means of achieving the desired operating angle that is simple, inexpensive, and durable.
Regarding claim 22, Frost discloses a motor vehicle (see Figures 1-10 and column 1, lines 6-23), comprising:
a drive unit (see “motor” in column 1, line 8);
wheels (an inherent feature of a motor vehicle; see, e.g., US 6,270,419 to Jacob at column 1, lines 54-61); and
a ball constant velocity sliding joint that includes
an outer joint part (1) with a first axis of rotation extending along an axial direction and with outer ball tracks (3) and outer center lines (see Figure 4 adjacent
“ beta’ ”);
a joint inner part (2) with inner ball tracks (4) and inner center lines (see Figure 9 adjacent “beta”);
a plurality of torque-transmitting balls (7), which are guided in outer ball tracks and inner ball tracks assigned to one another and forming track pairs (see Figure 5); and
a cage (5) provided with a plurality of cage windows (11), each of which receives one or more of the balls (see Figures 4 and 5);
wherein the center lines extend along the ball tracks from a first end region along the axial direction to a second end region (see Figures 4 and 9);
wherein the center lines of each track pair each extend at an inclination angle (beta), that is inclined relative to the axial direction in a radial direction (see Figure 9), and at a helix angle (beta’), that is inclined relative to the axial direction in a circumferential direction (see Figure 6), and each extend in opposite directions (see column 4, lines 39-44);
wherein the ball constant velocity sliding joint is configured to transmit torque from the drive unit to the wheels (see column 1, lines 6-23; it is further noted this is an inherent feature of a motor vehicle; see, e.g., US 6,270,419 to Jacob at column 1, lines 54-61).
Frost does not expressly disclose the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at most four degrees of angle and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees of angle, or the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at least nine angular degrees and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at most four angular degrees.
Zech teaches it is known in the art of ball constant velocity sliding joints with inclination angles (see Figure 4 and 5) and helix angles (see Figures 1 and 3) to modify said angles in order to achieve the desired operating angle for the joint (see column 5, lines 67-74), said structure providing a means of achieving the desired operating angle that is simple, inexpensive, and durable (see column 2, lines 5-7).
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. inclination angles, helix angles) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 ball constant velocity sliding joint of Frost such that the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at most four degrees and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees, or the inclination angles each have an absolute value of at least nine degrees and the helix angles each have an absolute value of at most four degrees, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art; Zech providing motivation for such a modification in teaching it is known in the art to modify said angles in order to achieve the desired operating angle for the joint as a means of achieving the desired operating angle that is simple, inexpensive, and durable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Frost and Zech, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 6,913,540 (Iihara).
The combination of Frost and Zech teaches the ball constant velocity sliding joint of claim 11, but does not expressly teach the balls (7 of Frost) contact the respective ball track (3, 4 of Frost) at two contact points in each case, which are each arranged in a cross-section arranged transversely to a running direction of the respective center line at a contact angle to a ball track base, wherein the contact angles are between 38 and 44 degrees of angle.
Iihara teaches balls that contact a respective ball track (50, 51) at two contact points in each case, which are each arranged in a cross-section arranged transversely to a running direction of the respective center line at a contact angle (β) to a ball track base, wherein the contact angles are between 38 and 44 degrees of angle, in order to provide for good rotational performance at high speeds (see column 3, lines 50-67). 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 ball constant velocity sliding joint of the combination of Frost and Zech, such that the balls contact the respective ball track at two contact points in each case, which are each arranged in a cross-section arranged transversely to a running direction of the respective center line at a contact angle to a ball track base, wherein the contact angles are between 38 and 44 degrees of angle, as taught in Iihara, in order to provide for good rotational performance at high speeds.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Frost, Zech, and Iihara, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US 2021/0140489 (Saito).
The combination of Frost, Zech, and Iihara teaches the ball constant velocity sliding joint of claim 17, but does not expressly teach first contact angles of the outer ball tracks (3 of Frost) and second contact angles of the inner contact tracks (4 of Frost) differ from each other by an absolute value of at least one degree of angle.
Saito teaches first contact angles of outer ball tracks (4) and second contact angles of inner contact tracks (5) differ from each other by an absolute value of at least one degree of angle in order to increase efficiency of the joint (see paragraphs [0034]-[0038][0046], [0047]). 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 ball constant velocity sliding joint of the combination of Frost, Zech, and Iihara, such that first contact angles of the outer ball tracks and second contact angles of the inner contact tracks differ from each other by an absolute value of at least one degree of angle, as taught in Saito, in order to increase efficiency of the joint.
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM 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, 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
February 27, 2026