Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of a rotor shaft (Group I) in the reply filed on June 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 30, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the base arc length of the spline being greater than a width of the at least one keyway must be shown and indicated in the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 2-3 & 10 are objected to because in each claim “an inner surface” should be changed to “the inner surface”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation, “a base arc length of the spline is greater than a width of the at least one keyway.” There is no description of either “a base arc length of the spline” or “a width of the at least one keyway” anywhere in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation, “a base arc length of the spline is greater than a width of the at least one keyway.” There is no description of either “a base arc length of the spline” or “a width of the at least one keyway” anywhere in the specification. Without such it would not be possible for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 recites the limitation, “base arc length”. Its meaning is unknown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-4, 6-10 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diffenderfer, US 4,622,022. At Figs. 6-8, Diffenderfer discloses a rotor shaft comprising:
a tubular shaft (50) having an inner surface, an outer surface, a first end, and an opposing second end; and
at least one keyway (50b) formed in the outer surface of the tubular shaft, wherein an inner diameter of the tubular shaft aligned with the at least one keyway is less than an
inner diameter of the tubular shaft not radially with the at least one keyway (see Figs. 7-8),
wherein at least one spline (50g) is formed on an inner surface of the tubular shaft, the at least one spline radially aligning with the at least one keyway (see Figs. 7-8),
wherein two keyways (50b) are formed on the outer surface of the tubular shaft and two splines (50g) are formed on an inner surface of the tubular shaft, each of the two splines radially aligning with a respective one of the two keyways, and Fig. 3 shows the two keyways diametrically opposed from each other,
wherein the tubular shaft is formed from a carbon steel (col. 6, line 43, see also item 11a below),
wherein the tubular shaft is a half shaft (see Fig. 6),
wherein Fig. 6 shows a planar interfacing surface is formed at the first end (right end) of the tubular shaft and a boss (52) is formed at the second end of the tubular shaft,
wherein a thickness of the tubular shaft aligned with the at least one keyway is substantially equal to the thickness of the tubular shaft not aligned at the at least one keyway (col. 8, lines 63-65 and abstract),
wherein Figs. 6-7 show the at least one spline and the at least one keyway extend along a length of the tubular shaft.
Claims 1-4 & 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grosserüschkamp, US 12,540,641. At Fig. 2, Grosserüschkamp discloses a rotor shaft (1) comprising:
a tubular shaft (2) having an inner surface, an outer surface, a first end, and an opposing second end (5); and
at least one keyway (3) formed in the outer surface of the tubular shaft, wherein an inner diameter of the tubular shaft aligned with the at least one keyway is less than an
inner diameter of the tubular shaft not radially with the at least one keyway,
wherein at least one spline (4) is formed on an inner surface of the tubular shaft, the at least one spline radially aligning with the at least one keyway,
wherein two keyways (3) are formed on the outer surface of the tubular shaft and two splines (4) are formed on an inner surface of the tubular shaft, each of the two splines radially aligning with a respective one of the two keyways, the two keyways diametrically opposed from each other,
wherein the at least one spline and the at least one keyway extend along a length of the tubular shaft,
wherein the tubular shaft is formed from a carbon steel (col. 3, line 58),
wherein the tubular shaft is a half shaft,
wherein a planar interfacing surface is formed at the first end (nominally indicated by number 2 in Fig. 2) of the tubular shaft and a boss (6) is formed at the second end of the tubular shaft,
wherein a thickness of the tubular shaft aligned with the at least one keyway is substantially equal to the thickness (d2) of the tubular shaft not aligned at the at least one keyway (col. 5, lines 9-14),
wherein the at least one spline incudes a rectilinear surface parallel to and offset from an innermost surface of the at least one keyway.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosserüschkamp. At Fig. 2, Grosserüschkamp shows each of the two keyways (3) has a rectangular cross-sectional shape, but does not expressly show the splines (4) have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the splines (4) with a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the keyways. 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Metal Supermarkets discloses HSLA steel is a type of carbon steel.
Each of Craig and Schouller discloses a rotor shaft.
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