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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 19’, 20’. 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 3, lines 5-7, the specification is objected to because it refers to specific claims and does not identify the subject matter of the claims as the scope of the aforementioned claims could change during prosecution. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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. In claim 1, line 12, it is unclear as to what is meant by “are soft finished and hardened, i.e. remain unmachined after hardening;” line 13, “PCD” is not identified anywhere in the claim therefore it is unclear as to what is meant by the acronym “PCD”; lines 27-34, recite redundant limitations which do not further limit the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second working PCD value" in lines 35 and 38 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second working PCD value" in lines 35 and 38 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second working PCD value" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first PCD value ranges" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first outer ball tracks" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second outer ball tracks" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first outer ball tracks" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second outer ball tracks" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first inner ball tracks" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second inner ball tracks" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first outer ball tracks" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second outer ball tracks" in lines 5, 6, and 16 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the constant velocity joint" in lines 18-19 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached PTO-892 are cited to show counter track joints.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMIE E COZART whose telephone number is (571)272-4528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/JERMIE E COZART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights