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
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 05 November 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following listed features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The distances between the articulation centers of the constant velocity joints and the center of the plate-shaped portion varying.
One of the first constant velocity joint and the second constant velocity joint implemented as a sliding- type constant velocity joint, and a remaining one of the first constant velocity joint and the second constant velocity joint implemented as a fixed-type constant velocity joint.
The first and second outer race being coupled by welding.
The first and second outer race being coupled by bolting.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi (JP 01210619 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yaegashi discloses a constant velocity joint assembly (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a first constant velocity joint (A in annotated Figure 1 below) comprising a first shaft (6), a first inner race (26 on A in annotated Figure 1 below) coupled to the first shaft, a first outer race (24 on A in annotated Figure 1 below) accommodating the first inner race (see Fig. 1), and a first ball (22 on A in annotated Figure 1 below) disposed between the first inner race and the first outer race (see Fig. 1);
a second constant velocity joint (B in annotated Figure 1 below) disposed opposite the first constant velocity joint (see Fig. 1), the second constant velocity joint comprising a second shaft (4), a second inner race (26 on B in annotated Figure 1 below) coupled to the second shaft, a second outer race (24 on B in annotated Figure 1 below) accommodating the second inner race (see Fig. 1), and
a second ball (22 on B in annotated Figure 1 below) disposed between the second inner race and the second outer race (see Fig. 1); and a link (14, 16) comprising a plate-shaped portion (16) disposed between the first outer race and the second outer race (see Fig. 1), a first coupling portion (C in annotated Figure 1 below) configured to allow an end portion (20) of the first shaft to be engaged therewith, and a second coupling portion (D in annotated Figure 1 below) configured to allow an end portion (18) of the second shaft to be engaged therewith (see Fig. 1),
wherein the end portion of the first shaft has a portion in direct contact with the first coupling portion during articulating motion (see Fig. 1), and the portion in direct contact with the first coupling portion is formed in a spherical shape (see Fig. 1), and
where A (E in annotated Figure 1 below) represents an inner diameter of the first coupling portion, and B (F in annotated Figure 1 below) represents a diameter of the spherical portion of the end portion of the first shaft (see Fig. 1).
However, Yaegashi fails to disclose wherein the constant velocity joint assembly satisfies a following parameter relationship:
1.005 ≤ A/B ≤ 1.020.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. coupling portion and spherical portion diameter ratio) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 inner diameter of the first coupling portion and the diameter of the spherical portion of the end portion of the first shaft such that it meets the criteria 1.005 ≤ A/B ≤ 1.020, in order to provide a spherical portion of the first shaft that fits correctly within the receiving first coupling portion, such that excessive wear, friction, and noise are avoided when the joint is utilized to transmit torque.
PNG
media_image1.png
846
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
232
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 2, Yaegashi teaches wherein the end portion (18) of the second shaft (4) has a portion in direct contact with the second coupling portion (D in annotated Figure 1 above) during articulating motion (see Fig. 1), and the portion in direct contact with the second coupling portion is formed in a spherical shape (see Fig. 1), and
where C (G in annotated Figure 1 below) represents an inner diameter of the second coupling portion, and D (H in annotated Figure 1 below) represents a diameter of the spherical portion of the end portion of the second shaft.
However, Yaegashi fails to disclose wherein the constant velocity joint assembly further satisfies a following parameter relationship:
1.005 ≤ C/D ≤ 1.020.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. coupling portion and spherical portion diameter ratio) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 inner diameter of the second coupling portion and the diameter of the spherical portion of the end portion of the second shaft such that it meets the criteria 1.005 ≤ C/D ≤ 1.020, in order to provide a spherical portion of the second shaft that fits correctly within the receiving second coupling portion, such that excessive wear, friction, and noise are avoided when the joint is utilized to transmit torque.
PNG
media_image3.png
237
360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 3, Yaegashi teaches wherein the end portion (18) of the second shaft has a portion in direct contact with the second coupling portion (D in annotated Figure 1 above) during articulating motion (see Fig. 1), and the portion in direct contact with the second coupling portion is formed in a spherical shape (see Fig. 1), and
where E (I in annotated Figure 1 below) represents a distance between a center of the spherical portion (20) of the end portion of the first shaft and a center of the spherical portion (18) of the end portion of the second shaft, and F (J in annotated Figure 1 below) represents a pitch circle diameter (PCD) of the first constant velocity joint (A in annotated Figure 1 above).
However, Yaegashi fails to disclose wherein the constant velocity joint assembly further satisfies a following parameter relationship:
0.2 ≤ E/F ≤ 0.3.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. ratio of the distance between a center of the spherical portion of the first and second end portion and a pitch circle diameter of the first constant velocity joint) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 ratio of the distance between a center of the spherical portion of the first and second end portion and a pitch circle diameter of the first constant velocity joint such that it meets the criteria 0.2 ≤ E/F ≤ 0.3, in order to provide a joint that allows for sufficient rotation without interference between the two end spherical portions while also preventing the joint from being too large so that material cost and space constraints are optimized.
PNG
media_image4.png
569
764
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 4, Yaegashi teaches where G (K in annotated Figure 1 below) represents a pitch circle diameter (PCD) of the second constant velocity joint (B in annotated Figure 1 above), and E (I in annotated Figure 1 above).
However, Yaegashi fails to disclose further satisfying a following parameter relationship:
0.2 ≤ E/G ≤ 0.3.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. ratio of the distance between a center of the spherical portion of the end first and second end portion and a pitch circle diameter of the second constant velocity joint) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 ratio of the distance between a center of the spherical portion of the end first and second end portion and a pitch circle diameter of the second constant velocity joint such that it meets the criteria 0.2 ≤ E/G ≤ 0.3, in order to provide a joint that allows for sufficient rotation without interference between the two end spherical portions while also preventing the joint from being too large such that material cost and space constraints are optimized.
PNG
media_image5.png
510
688
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 5, Yaegashi teaches where F (J in annotated Figure 1 above) represents a pitch circle diameter (PCD) of the first constant velocity joint (A in annotated Figure 1 above), and H (L in annotated Figure 1 below) represents a distance between an articulation center of the first constant velocity joint (A in annotated Figure 1 above) and an articulation center of the second constant velocity joint (B in annotated Figure 1 above).
However, Yaegashi fails to disclose further satisfying a following parameter relationship:
1.0 ≤ H/F ≤ 1.1.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. ratio of the pitch circle diameter of the first joint and the distance between an articulation center of the first and second constant velocity joint) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 ratio of the pitch circle diameter of the first joint and the distance between an articulation center of the first and second constant velocity joint such that it meets the criteria 1.0 ≤ H/F ≤ 1.1, in order to provide a joint that allows for sufficient rotation without interference between the two end spherical portions while also preventing the joint from being too large such that material cost and space constraints can be optimized.
PNG
media_image6.png
676
639
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 6, Yaegashi teaches where G (K in annotated Figure 1 above) represents a pitch circle diameter (PCD) of the second constant velocity joint (B in annotated Figure 1 above), and H (L in annotated Figure 1 above).
However, Yaegashi fails to disclose further satisfying a following parameter relationship:
≤ H/G ≤ 1.1.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. ratio of the pitch circle diameter of the second joint and the distance between an articulation center of the first and second constant velocity joint) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 ratio of the pitch circle diameter of the second joint and the distance between an articulation center of the first and second constant velocity joint such that it meets the criteria 1.0 ≤ H/G ≤ 1.1, in order to provide a joint that allows for sufficient rotation without interference between the two end spherical portions while also preventing the joint from being too large such that material cost and space constraints can be optimized.
Regarding claim 7, Yaegashi teaches wherein a distance (M in annotated Figure 1 below) between an articulation center of the first constant velocity joint (A in annotated Figure 1 above) and a center of the plate-shaped portion (16) of the link is different from a distance (N in annotated Figure 1 below) between an articulation center of the second constant velocity joint (B in annotated Figure 1 below) and the center of the plate-shaped portion (16) of the link (see NOTE below).
NOTE: It is understood that when the shafts 4 and 6 rotate at different angles, the articulation centers of each joint appear to move upward and downward with respect to the center of the plate-shaped portion. Accordingly, when one shaft is horizontal and the other is angled, the distance from the articulation centers to the center of the plate-shaped portion vary. Therefore, the distances vary based on positioning and the claim limitations are met.
PNG
media_image7.png
429
550
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 9, Yaegashi teaches wherein the first outer race (A in annotated Figure 1 above) and the second outer race (B in annotated Figure 1 above) are coupled to each other using welding (10, see attached Google Patents translation page 1).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi (JP 01210619 A) in view of Miller (US 3,017,755 A).
Regarding claim 8, Yaegashi teaches wherein one of the first constant velocity joint (A in annotated Figure 1 above) and the second constant velocity joint is implemented as a sliding-type constant velocity joint (see Fig. 1), but fails to teach as claimed that a remaining one of the first constant velocity joint and the second constant velocity joint is implemented as a fixed-type constant velocity joint.
However, Miller teaches a first constant velocity joint (12) being a sliding joint (see Fig. 1) and a second constant velocity joint (14) being a fixed-type joint (44, 46, see Fig. 1), in order to prevent excessive movement within the joint and unwanted removal of the shafts from the races for situations in which large amounts of axial movement is not necessary.
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 Yaegashi, with Miller, such that it comprises one sliding joint and one fixed-type joint, in order to prevent excessive movement within the joint and unwanted removal of the shafts from the races for situations in which large amounts of axial movement is not necessary.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi (JP 01210619 A) in view of Schreck (US 1,861,364 A).
Regarding claim 10, Yaegashi teaches the first outer race (A in annotated Figure 1 above) and the second outer race (B in annotated Figure 1 above) are coupled, but fails to teach as claimed that the first and second outer race are coupled to each other using bolting.
However, Schreck teaches a shaft end coupling (see Fig. 1) comprising outer races (14, 14’) that are bolted together (15, see Fig. 1), in order to provide a connection means that can be disassembled without deformation for situations when a joint needs servicing or repair.
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 outer races of Yaegashi, with Schreck, such that the outer races of Yaegashi are bolted to one another, in order to provide a connection means that can be disassembled without deformation for situations when a joint needs servicing or repair.
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