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 06 February 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 line 1 recites: “…the third stop or the fourth stop…”. This should be corrected to read - - a third stop or a fourth stop - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olszewski (US 6431986 B1) in view of Oh (KR 20070063069 A) and Miao (US 9,394,949 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Olszewski discloses a multipod joint (see Fig. 2) with an outer joint part (15) with a first longitudinal axis and a cavity running parallel to the first longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2), wherein at least two recesses (opening within 15) extending parallel to the first longitudinal axis are distributed in the outer joint part along a first circumferential direction (see Fig. 2), which extends around the first longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2), and an inner joint part (14, 17) with a second longitudinal axis (A in Fig. 2, see Fig. 2), comprising at least one central body (14) to which at least two trunnions (17) are formed with trunnion axes (B in Fig. 2) extending radially from the second longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2), wherein a roller body (1) rotatable at least about the trunnion axis is arranged on each trunnion (see Fig. 2); wherein each roller body is movably received in one of the recesses along the first longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2); wherein each roller body has an axis of rotation (see Fig. 2), an outer ring (2), an inner ring (3) arranged concentrically to the outer ring and concentric to the axis of rotation (see Fig. 2), and a plurality of rolling elements (4) between the outer ring and the inner ring, which are arranged next to each other along a second circumferential direction in a receiving space extending along the second circumferential direction of the outer ring so that the inner ring can rotate relative to the outer ring about the axis of rotation (see Fig. 2); wherein the inner ring is displacable relative to the outer ring and the rolling elements along the axis of rotation (see Fig. 2); wherein the outer ring forms a first stop (A in annotated Figure 1 below) with the inner ring at a first end face of the roller body facing away from the second longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1-2), which first stop limits a first displacement path of the inner ring relative to the outer ring (see Fig. 1), wherein the first displacement path extends along a first direction parallel to the axis of rotation and away from the second longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1-2); wherein the multipod joint is designed such that, in an intended operating range of the multipod joint contact between the inner ring and the outer ring is not possible at a second end face of the roller body facing the second longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1), or that only the inner ring contacts the central body.
Olszewski fails to disclose as claimed the cavity has an open end, and wherein the inner ring forms a second stop with the trunnion, which limits a second displacement path of the inner ring relative to the trunnion, wherein the second displacement path extends along a second direction parallel to the axis of rotation and towards the second longitudinal axis.
However, Oh teaches wherein the inner ring (B in annotated Figure 24 below) forms a second stop (C in annotated Figure 24 below) with the trunnion (D in annotated Figure 24 below), which limits a second displacement path of the inner ring relative to the trunnion (see Fig. 24), wherein the second displacement path extends along a second direction parallel to the axis of rotation and towards the second longitudinal axis (see Fig. 24), in order to provide a means to limit the displacement between the trunnion and the inner ring when limited angular displacement is optimal.
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 multipod joint of Olszewski, with Oh, such that the inner ring of Olszewski comprises the second stop of Oh, in order to provide a means to limit the displacement between the trunnion and the inner ring when limited angular displacement is optimal.
The combination of Olszewski and Oh still fails to teach as claimed that the cavity has an open end.
However, Miao teaches that it is known in the art for a tripod type multipod joint (see Fig. 1) to comprises a cavity having an open end (see Figs. 1-2), in order to provide a means to connect and disconnect the multipod joint when 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 combination of Olszewski and Oh, with Miao, such that the cavity of Olszewski comprises an open end, in order to provide a means to connect and disconnect the multipod joint when necessary.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
587
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 24.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches wherein the inner ring has (3 of Olszewski), on the second end face, a cut-out (E in annotated Figure 1 below) extending circumferentially along the second circumferential direction, through which an outer circumferential surface of the inner ring contacting the rolling elements is shortened and an end face pointing toward the second longitudinal axis is reduced in size (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski).
PNG
media_image3.png
381
681
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches wherein the outer ring (2 of Olszewski) has a smallest first diameter (F in annotated Figure 1 below) on the second end face which is smaller than a second diameter (G in annotated Figure 1 below) of the outer circumferential surface and larger than a smallest third diameter (H in annotated Figure 1 below) of the cut-out.
PNG
media_image4.png
661
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches wherein the outer ring (2 of Olszewski) has a toroidal outer shape (see Fig. 1 for example of Olszewski) and the outer ring contacts the recess (opening with 15 of Olszewski) at two contact points (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski) in each case, wherein the contact points are spaced apart from each other in a radial direction (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches wherein the first stop (A in annotated Figure 1 above) is formed by a retaining ring (8 of Olszewski) arranged on the outer ring (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches wherein the second stop (C in annotated Figure 24 above) is formed by a concavely curved or conically shaped (I in annotated Figure 24 below) first section of an inner circumferential surface of the inner ring (3 of Olszewski), which adjoins along the first direction a cylindrically shaped (J in annotated Figure 24 below) second section of the inner circumferential surface, wherein a diameter of the inner circumferential surface in the first section is smaller than a diameter of the inner circumferential surface in the second section (see Fig. 24 of Oh).
PNG
media_image5.png
563
728
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 24.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches a roller body for a multipod joint according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the roller body (1 of Olszewski) has an axis of rotation (see Fig. 2 of Olszewski), an outer ring (2 of Olszewski), an inner ring (3 of Olszewski) arranged concentrically to the outer ring and to the axis of rotation (see Fig. 2 of Olszewski), and a plurality of rolling elements (4 of Olszewski) between the outer ring and the inner ring (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski), which are arranged next to each other along a second circumferential direction in a receiving space of the outer ring which extends circumferentially along the second circumferential direction (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski), so that the inner ring can rotate relative to the outer ring about the axis of rotation (see Figs. 1-2 of Olszewski); wherein the inner ring is displaceable relative to the outer ring and the rolling elements along the axis of rotation (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski); wherein the outer ring forms, with the inner ring, at a first end face of the roller body facing away from the second longitudinal axis, a first stop (A in annotated Figure 1 above) which limits a first displacement path of the inner ring relative to the outer ring (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski), wherein the first displacement path extends along a first direction parallel to the axis of rotation and away from the second longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1-2 of Olszewski); wherein the inner ring has a concavely curved or conically shaped (I in annotated Figure 24 above) first section on an inner circumferential surface, which adjoins along the first direction a cylindrically shaped second section (J in annotated Figure 24 above) of the inner circumferential surface (see Fig. 24 of Oh), wherein a diameter of the inner circumferential surface in the first section is smaller than a diameter of the inner circumferential surface in the second section (see Fig. 24 of Oh); wherein the inner ring has, on the second end face has a cut-out (E in annotated Figure 1 above) extending circumferentially along the second circumferential direction (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski), by means of which an outer circumferential surface of the inner ring contacting the rolling elements is shortened and an end face pointing toward the second longitudinal axis is reduced in size (see Fig. 1 of Olszewski).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches wherein the outer ring (2 of Olszewski) has a smallest first diameter (F in annotated Figure 1 above) on the second end face which is smaller than a second diameter (G in annotated Figure 1 above) of the outer circumferential surface and larger than a smallest third diameter (H in annotated Figure 1 above) of the cut-out (E in annotated Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches wherein the outer ring (2 of Olszewski) has on the second end face a third stop (K in annotated Figure 1 below) which is effective for the rolling elements (4 of Olszewski) with regard to the second direction and a fourth stop (L in annotated Figure 1 below) which is effective for the inner ring (3 of Olszewski) with regard to the second direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
614
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches wherein at least the third stop (K in annotated Figure 1 above) or the fourth stop is formed by the outer ring (2 of Olszewski) itself.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olszewski (US 6431986 B1), Oh (KR 20070063069 A), and Miao (US 9,394,949 B2), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Oh ‘575 (US 8,025,575 B2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches the multipod joint of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein an intended operating range comprises a largest deflection angle occurring between the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis of between 12 and 20 angular degrees.
However, Oh ‘575 teaches a multipod joint (see Fig. 2) having an intended operating range comprising a largest deflection angle occurring between the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis of between 12 and 20 angular degrees (20 degrees disclosed by Oh in Column 6 lines 63-65), in order to provide a multipod joint that moves freely without substantial frictions or jamming (see Column 6 lines 60-68 of Oh ‘575).
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 combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao, with Oh ‘575, such that the multipod joint of Olszewski comprises a largest deflection angle of 20 angular degrees, in order to provide a multipod joint that moves freely without substantial frictions or jamming (see Column 6 lines 60-68 of Oh ‘575).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches at least wherein the outer ring (2 of Olszewski) on the second end face has a third stop (K in annotated Figure 1 above) that is effective for the rolling elements (4 of Olszewski) with regard to the second direction and a fourth stop (L in annotated Figure 1 above) that is effective for the inner ring (3 of Olszewski), but fails to teach as claimed wherein, in an extended state of the tripod joint, the fourth stop is spaced apart along the second direction at a distance Ds from the first cut-out, wherein the following applies for Ds (36): Ds > ¾ * PCD1 * cos (1/ α) ; where PCD1 is the pitch circle diameter of the inner joint part and α is the largest deflection angle occurring in the intended operating range between the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis.
There is no prior art that suggests modifying the combination in such a way to teach the claimed formula. Further, there is no prior art that discloses the claimed limitation alone. Accordingly, modifying the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao such that it meets the limitations of Ds > ¾ * PCD1 * cos (1/ α) ; where PCD1 is the pitch circle diameter of the inner joint part and α is the largest deflection angle occurring in the intended operating range between the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis, would require the use of hindsight and therefore be non-obvious. Claim 4 would be allowable for at least the reasons listed above if rewritten in independent form.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and would be allowable for at least the reasons listed above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches wherein, in an extended state of the tripod joint (see Figs. 1-2 of Olszewski), but fails to teach as claimed a PCD2 of the outer joint part is greater than a PCD1 of the inner joint part by a difference D, where the difference is given by: D ≥ ¼ * PCD1 * cos (1/α); where α is the maximum deflection angle occurring in the intended operating range between the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis.
There is no prior art that suggests modifying the combination in such a way to teach the claimed formula. Further, there is no prior art that discloses the claimed limitation alone. Accordingly, modifying the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao such that it meets the limitations of a PCD2 of the outer joint part is greater than a PCD1 of the inner joint part by a difference D, where the difference is given by: D ≥ ¼ * PCD1 * cos (1/α); where α is the maximum deflection angle occurring in the intended operating range between the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis, would require the use of hindsight and therefore be non-obvious. Claim 6 would be allowable for at least the reasons listed above if rewritten in independent form.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao teaches a toroidal outer shape (see Figs. 1-2 of Olszewski), but fails to teach as claimed wherein the toroidal outer shape satisfies the following condition: 0.5 ≤ 2 * Rs / Dr ≤ 1; where Rs is the radius of curvature of the toroidal outer shape in the region of the contact points and Dr is the largest diameter of the outer ring.
There is no prior art that suggests modifying the combination in such a way to teach the claimed formula. Further, there is no prior art that discloses the claimed limitation alone. Accordingly, modifying the combination of Olszewski, Oh, and Miao such that it meets the limitations of 0.5 ≤ 2 * Rs / Dr ≤ 1; where Rs is the radius of curvature of the toroidal outer shape in the region of the contact points and Dr is the largest diameter of the outer ring, would require the use of hindsight and therefore be non-obvious. Claim 8 would be allowable for at least the reasons listed above if rewritten in independent form.
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