DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 13 are objected to as each appears to broaden the limitations of their respective independent claims. Claims 2 and 13 each recite the inner race being fixed to the shaft without a retaining ring, while their respective independent claims recited the inner race is fixed to the shaft without a secondary component. Given the negative limitation, limiting the secondary component to only a retaining ring would, in essence, broaden claim 2 versus claim 1 and claim 13 versus claim 2, as the claim would now allow for a secondary component other than a retaining ring, instead of not allowing any secondary component as recited in the respective independent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,517,278 (Moulinet) in view of US 4,118,134 (Mansel).
Regarding claim 1, Moulinet discloses a constant velocity joint (2; see Figures 1-3), comprising:
an outer race (4);
an inner race (6) configured for pivotal movement relative to the outer race (see column 1, lines 12-17); and
a shaft (14),
wherein the inner race is fixed to the shaft without a secondary component (see Figure 1, and column 3, lines 33-67, where the inner race is fixed to the shaft via deformed tabs 56 of the inner race),
wherein the shaft has a plurality of splines (20) disposed within a bore of the inner race (see Figure 1).
While Moulinet does not disclose the plurality of splines as being hardened, Moulinet does not explicitly disclose the plurality of splines being a plurality of unhardened splines.
Mansel teaches a shaft (14) to race (12) connection via a plurality of unhardened splines (18) being received in a bore (26) of the race in order to avoid the time consuming, expensive procedures, of hardening (see column 1, lines 35-65). 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 constant velocity joint of Moulinet such that the plurality of splines are a plurality of unhardened splines, as Mansel teaches providing a plurality of unhardened splines avoids the time consuming, expensive procedures, of hardening.
Regarding claim 2, Moulinet teaches the inner race (6) is fixed to the shaft (14) without a retaining ring (see Figure 1, and column 3, lines 33-67, where the inner race is fixed to the shaft via deformed tabs 56 of the inner race).
Regarding claim 3, Moulinet teaches the inner race (6) is fixed to the shaft (14) by mechanically upset material of at least one of the inner race and the shaft (see Figure 1, and column 3, lines 33-67, where the inner race is fixed to the shaft via deformed tabs 56 of the inner race).
Regarding claim 4, Moulinet teaches the inner race (6) is fixed to the shaft (14) by mechanically upset material of the inner race (see Figure 1, and column 3, lines 33-67).
Regarding claim 5, Moulinet teaches material of the inner race (6) is swaged (see NOTE below).
NOTE: The limitation “the inner race is swaged” constitutes a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “even 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). See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 6, Moulinet teaches material of the inner race (6) is roll formed (see NOTE 2 below).
NOTE 2: The limitation “the inner race is roll formed” constitutes a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “even 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). See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Moulinet teaches material of the inner race (6) is staked (see NOTE 3 below).
NOTE 3: The limitation “the inner race is staked” constitutes a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “even 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). See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 8, Moulinet teaches including at least one recess (50) in the shaft (14), wherein the mechanically upset material of the inner race (6) forms at least one radially inwardly extending tab (56), the at least one tab disposed in locked receipt in the at least one recess (see Figure 1, and column 3, lines 33-67).
Regarding claim 9, Moulinet teaches the at least one recess (50) includes a plurality of recess (see column 3, lines 56-59, at “retention surfaces”, and claim 17, at “pairs of respective first and second axial-retention surfaces”) and the at least one tab (56) includes a plurality of tabs (see Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Moulinet teaches a plurality of rolling members (40) disposed between the outer race (4) and the inner race (6; see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Moulinet discloses a method of assembling an inner race (6) of a constant velocity joint (2) to a shaft (14; see Figures 1-3), comprising:
providing the shaft having a plurality of splines (20);
disposing the inner race about the splines of the shaft (see Figure 1); and
fixing the inner race to the shaft without a secondary component (see Figure 1, and column 3, lines 33-67, where the inner race is fixed to the shaft via deformed tabs 56 of the inner race).
While Moulinet does not disclose the plurality of splines as being hardened, Moulinet does not explicitly disclose the plurality of splines being a plurality of unhardened splines.
Mansel teaches a method of connecting a shaft (14) to race (12) via a plurality of unhardened splines (18) being received in a bore (26) of the race in order to avoid the time consuming, expensive procedures, of hardening (see column 1, lines 35-65). 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 method of Moulinet such that the plurality of splines are a plurality of unhardened splines, as Mansel teaches providing a plurality of unhardened splines avoids the time consuming, expensive procedures, of hardening.
Regarding claim 13, Moulinet teaches fixing the inner race (6) to the shaft (14) without a retaining ring (see Figure 1, and column 3, lines 33-67, where the inner race is fixed to the shaft via deformed tabs 56 of the inner race).
Regarding claim 14, Moulinet teaches mechanically upsetting material of at least one of the inner race (6) and the shaft (14) to fix the inner race to the shaft (see Figure 1, and column 3, lines 33-67, where the inner race is fixed to the shaft via deformed tabs 56 of the inner race).
Regarding claim 18, Moulinet teaches forming at least one recess (50) in the shaft (14), and forming at least one tab (56) with the mechanically upset material of the inner race (6), with the at least one tab disposed in locked receipt in the at least one recess (see Figure 1, and column 3, lines 33-67).
Regarding claim 19, Moulinet teaches forming a plurality of recesses (50) in the shaft (14; see column 3, lines 56-59, at “retention surfaces”, and claim 17, at “pairs of respective first and second axial-retention surfaces”), and forming a plurality of tabs (56) with the mechanically upset material of the inner race, with each of the tabs being disposed in a separate one of the recesses (see Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Moulinet teaches forming an annular recess (50) in the shaft (14), and forming at least one tab (56) with the mechanically upset material of the inner race, with the at least one tab disposed in locked receipt in the annular recess (see Figures 1-3, and column 3, lines 33-67).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moulinet and Mansel, and further in view of the publication, How Cold Working Strengthens Metal (Bell).
The combination of Moulinet and Mansel teaches the method of claim 14, but does not expressly teach mechanically upsetting material of the inner race in a swaging process, roll forming process, or a staking process to fix the inner race to the shaft.
Bell teaches swaging, roll forming, and staking as processes known in the art of metal working to mechanically upset material of a component (see pages 1-2). 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 method of the combination of Moulinet and Mansel, such that mechanically upsetting material of the inner race is done via a swaging process, roll forming process, or a staking process to fix the inner race to the shaft, as Bell teaches swaging, roll forming, and staking as processes known in the art of metal working to mechanically upset material of a component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed August 17, 2026, with respect to the previous rejections set forth in the non-final rejection mailed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection as set forth above.
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.
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 in the field of constant velocity joints.
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
September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights