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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-4, 7, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr et al., US6672983 in view of Takeru, Foreign Patent Document, JP2000018332.
Regarding independent claim 1, Mohr et al. discloses a toothed transmission belt (10, Fig. 1) comprising: an endless elongate body (4, 10, Figs. 1 & 3 show endless elongate body) having a central longitudinal axis (midpoint of belt 10, Fig. 1 in the longitudinal or cord-wise direction, cords 12, Fig. 1, where first and second toothing meet) and a transverse axis (axis transverse to cords 12, Fig. 1) comprising: a first elastomeric material (“elastomer used to form the body 14 of the belt” Column 2, lines 52-56), a plurality of cords (12, Fig. 1), and a first toothing (18, see Annotated Figure 1 of Mohr et al. below) comprising a plurality of spaced apart teeth oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis (teeth 18 are arranged substantially transversely to the longitudinal axis which is in the direction of cords 12, Fig. 1) and each being obliquely to the transversal axis of the belt forming therewith a helix angle (α) relative to the transverse axis (the teeth 18, Fig. 1, may be formed in an … angled offset pattern…adjacent rows of teeth which are at oppositely balanced oblique angles to the longitudinal direction L of the belt 10, Fig. 1; Col 2, line 63-64) and a second toothing (18, see Annotated Figure 1 of Mohr et al., below) comprising a plurality of spaced apart teeth oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis (teeth 18 are arranged substantially transversely to the longitudinal axis which is in the direction of cords 12, Fig. 1) and each being obliquely at a helix angle (β) relative to the transverse axis (A) of the belt (the teeth 18, Fig. 1, may be formed in an … angled offset pattern…adjacent rows of teeth which are at oppositely balanced oblique angles to the longitudinal direction L of the belt 10, Fig. 1; Col 2, line 63-64) wherein each tooth of the plurality of spaced apart teeth of the first toothing and the second toothing has a flat upper surface (each tooth 18 has a flat upper surface, see Annotated Figure 1 of Mohr et al. below) wherein the first toothing and the second toothing are both configured to cooperate with and engage in hollows of a toothed pulley of a reversible electric machine (“the driver pulley is of the conventional construction, having a tooth configuration mating with the tooth configuration of the belt” Column 3, lines 21-24. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The toothed structure of the belt of Mohr et al. is equivalent to applicant’s toothed belt structure and thus would be capable of cooperating with the toothed pulley of a reversible electric machine just as applicant’s claimed invention.) to transmit power to an axle of a vehicle (“a simplistic description of a timing belt system is that the system consists of a toothed timing belt, a driver pulley which is powered to drive the timing belt, and a driven pulley about which the timing belt travels” Column 1, lines 29-32; the driven shaft may be an axle of a vehicle. Functional language is given little patentable weight, because the structure of Mohr et al. is equivalent to applicant’s invention, it is therefore assumed that Mohr et al. is capable of transmitting power to an axle of a vehicle just as applicant’s claimed invention) wherein the toothed transmission belt is operable in a first direction and is operable in a reverse direction relative to the reversible electric machine (It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Thus the toothed transmission belt of Mohr et al. would be capable of operating in a first direction and a reverse direction just as applicant’s claimed toothed transmission belt).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Mohr et al.
Mohr et al. does not disclose a tooth height (H1) wherein each tooth has a plurality of V-shaped grooves recessed therein that are spaced apart, oriented parallel to the central longitudinal axis and define a second height (H2) measured from the flat upper surface to an apex of a V-shaped groove and the V-shaped grooves are configured to cooperate with ribs of a poly-V pulley of an engine shaft and/or of a compressor shaft; and wherein the tooth height (H1) is greater than the second height (H2).
Takeru teaches teeth with flat tooth tops from which a tooth height (H1) is measured (see Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru below) and each has a plurality of V-shaped grooves (6, Fig. 1) recessed therein that are spaced apart (V-shaped grooves 6 are spaced apart and recessed in teeth 5, Fig. 1), oriented parallel to the central longitudinal axis (V-shaped grooves 6 are oriented parallel to the central longitudinal axis which is parallel to the cord direction 2, Fig. 1), and define a second height (H2) measured from the flat upper surface to an apex of a V-shaped groove (See Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru below) and the V-shaped grooves (6, Fig. 1) are configured to cooperate with ribs (20, Fig. 4) of a poly-V pulley (19, Fig. 4) of an engine shaft and/or of a compressor shaft (It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The structure of the belt of Takeru is equivalent to applicant’s belt structure and thus would be capable of cooperating with a poly-V pulley of an engine shaft and/or of a compressor shaft just as applicant’s claimed invention.); and wherein the tooth height (H1) is greater than the second height (H2) (see Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru, below, which shows tooth height is greater than rib height).
PNG
media_image2.png
272
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the invention to modify the transmission belt of Mohr et al. to add the V-shaped grooves to the toothings as taught by Takeru in order for the belt to cooperate with a poly-V pulley. One would have been motivated to make this modification to enable “friction transmission and engagement transmission with one belt” (Paragraph [0001]; Takeru).
Regarding claim 2, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and the helix angles of the first and second toothing are opposite with respect to the transverse axis, A (“oppositely balanced oblique angles” Col 2, lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 3, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above and the first toothing has an alpha helix angle comprised between 10° and
45° or between -10° and -45°, and the second toothing has a beta helix angle comprised between 10° and 45° or between -10° and -45° (“oppositely balanced oblique angles” Col 2, lines 60-64; “the teeth 18 on the inside surface of the belt 10 have a configuration similar to that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,209,705” Column 2, line 67 – Column 3, line 2, Mohr et al.; US5209705, to Gregg, states “the oblique angle 17 can range from 15 degrees to 45 degrees” Column 2, line 13 and are also “oppositely balanced angles” of the first and second toothings, Column 2, lines 3-13, Gregg).
Regarding claim 4, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1 and wherein the alpha helix angle has an equal value but opposite sign with respect to said beta helix angle (“oppositely balanced oblique angles”; Mohr et al.; Col 2, lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 7, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1 and the first toothing is staggered with respect to the second toothing (“angled offset pattern”; Col 2, lines 60-64; Mohr) by a distance comprised between 10% and 90% of the largest between P1 and P2 (centerlines of the teeth 18, Fig.1, in the adjacent rows are offset from each other by a distance of up to 10% to 90% of their pitch; Col 2, lines 64-67; Mohr et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and first and second toothings.
Mohr et al. does not disclose each tooth of the first and second toothings has a generally truncated pyramid shape.
Takeru et al. teaches each tooth of the first and second toothings (5, Fig. 1; See Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru above) has a generally truncated pyramid shape (top of ribs 6 is truncated rather than meeting at a point, making teeth 5 have a generally truncated pyramid shape, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teeth of Mohr et al. to have the truncated pyramid shape as taught by Takeru to ensure meshing with both a poly-V pulley and a toothed pulley. One would have been motivated to make this modification to “simplify the structure of a transmission device and reduce its cost” (Abstract, Problem to be Solved; Takeru).
Regarding claim 18, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a first and second toothing.
Mohr et al. does not disclose the V-shaped grooves are not present in the plurality of hollows one each being oriented between neighboring first toothings and neighboring second toothings.
Takeru teaches wherein the V-shaped grooves (6, Fig. 1) are not present in the plurality of hollows (hollows between teeth 5, Fig. 1, are not interrupted by the V-shaped grooves, see Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru above) one each being oriented between neighboring first toothings and neighboring second toothings (V-grooves 6 present between two first teeth, and two second teeth as shown in Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teeth of Mohr et al. to have the truncated pyramid shape as taught by Takeru to ensure meshing with both a poly-V pulley and a toothed pulley. One would have been motivated to make this modification to “simplify the structure of a transmission device and reduce its cost” (Abstract, Problem to be Solved; Takeru).
Regarding claim 19, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above and wherein the first toothing has an alpha helix angle comprised between - 20° and -10° and said beta helix angle is comprised between 20° and 10° (“oppositely balanced oblique angles” Col 2, lines 60-64; “the teeth 18 on the inside surface of the belt 10 have a configuration similar to that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,209,705” Column 2, line 67 – Column 3, line 2, Mohr et al.; US5209705, to Gregg, states “the oblique angle 17 can range from 15 degrees to 45 degrees” Column 2, line 13 and are also “oppositely balanced angles” of the first and second toothings, Column 2, lines 3-13, Gregg).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr et al., US6672983, in view of Takeru, Foreign Patent Document, JP2000018332 and Non-Patent Literature (NPL), Koyama, “Noise of helical synchronous belt drives,” (hereinafter Koyama).
Regarding claim 5, Mohr et al. in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above and a first and second toothing.
Mohr et al. in view of Takeru, does not teach a tooth pitch between 5 and 14mm.
Koyama teaches a tooth pitch of 8mm (Abstract, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the invention to modify the first and second toothing of Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, to have the 8mm pitch of Koyama. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce the noise of the belt during use (Abstract, line 1; Koyama).
Regarding claim 20, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above and a first and second toothing.
Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, does not teach a tooth pitch between 8 and 11mm.
Koyama teaches a tooth pitch of 8mm (Abstract, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the invention to modify the first and second toothing of Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, to have the 8mm pitch of Koyama. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce the noise of the belt during use (Abstract, line 1; Koyama).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr et al., US6672983, in view of Takeru, Foreign Patent Document, JP2000018332 and Foreign Patent Document Shiriike WO2011074182 (refer to NPL English translation, “WO_2011074182_A1_I_Shiriike”, for reference to paragraph and line numbers).
Regarding claim 6, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above and a transmission belt with ribs.
Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, does not teach a rib pitch between 2 and 5mm.
Shiriike teaches a rib pitch between 2 and 5mm (“a width between rib base ends of 1.0 to
3.6mm”; Description of Embodiments, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the invention to modify the ribbed transmission belt of Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, with the rib pitch of Shiriike “to suppress the occurrence of slip noise and the reduction in power transmission capability
when the belt runs” (Description of Embodiments, paragraph 29; Shiriike).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr et al. US6672983 in view of Takeru, Foreign Patent Document, JP2000018332 and Janne US5382198.
Regarding claim 9, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1 and a rubber transmission belt (“endless belt body 1 made of a rubber material” Paragraph [0013], lines 1-2).
Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, does not teach a transmission belt made of natural rubber (NR),
polychloroprene (CR), butadiene- acrylonitrile rubber (NBR) and relative hydrogenated elastomers
known as hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubbers (HNBR) or zinc salts of hydrogenated acrylonitrile
butadiene rubber grafted with esters of unsaturated carboxylic acid, polyisoprene, styrene-butadiene
rubbers, ethylene- alpha-olefin elastomers, EPDM, polyurethane, fluoroelastomers, ethylene acrylic
elastomers (AEM), bromobutyl, chlorosulfonated polythene (CSM) or chlorosulfonated alkyl, chlorinated
polythene, epoxidized natural rubber, SBR, carboxylated NBR, carboxylated HNBR, ACM and mixtures of
these compounds.
Janne teaches a belt made of natural rubber (NR), polychloroprene (CR), butadiene- acrylonitrile
rubber (NBR) and relative hydrogenated elastomers known as hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubbers
(HNBR) or zinc salts of hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber grafted with esters of unsaturated
carboxylic acid, polyisoprene, styrene-butadiene rubbers, ethylene- alpha-olefin elastomers, EPDM,
polyurethane, fluoroelastomers, ethylene acrylic elastomers (AEM), bromobutyl, chlorosulfonated
polythene (CSM) or chlorosulfonated alkyl, chlorinated polythene, epoxidized natural rubber, SBR,
carboxylated NBR, carboxylated HNBR, ACM and mixtures of these compounds (belt is made of an
elastomeric material such as polychloroprene, polyurethane, NBR, IIR, IR, SBR, CSM, EPDM, other
thermosets, thermoplastic elastomers and other polymer alloys; Column 2, lines 53-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the invention to modify the rubber transmission belt of Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, with the elastomeric material as taught by Janne. One would have been motivated to do so as these materials are “known to be suitable for use in such belts” (Col. 2, lines 54-56; Janne).
Regarding claim 10, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1 and a transmission belt (12, Fig. 1; DiGiacomo).
Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, does not teach a transmission belt made of a copolymer of
polyolefin or a rubber containing units of acrylonitrile.
Janne teaches a belt made of a rubber containing units of acrylonitrile (belt made of NBR, Col 2,
lines 53-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the invention to modify the transmission belt of Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, with the butadiene-
acrylonitrile rubber (NBR) of Janne. One would have been motivated to do so as this material is “known
to be suitable for use in such belts” (Col. 2, lines 54-56; Janne).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr et al., US6672983, in view of Takeru, Foreign Patent Document, JP2000018332 and DiGiacomo US7901311.
Regarding independent claim 11, Mohr et al. discloses a transmission system (Column 2, lines 15-16) comprising; a toothed pulley fitted on a shaft (Column 3, lines 22-24); a transmission belt wound around the toothed pulley (Column 3, lines 22-24) and a transmission belt (10, Fig. 1) comprising: an endless elongate body (4, 10, Figs. 1 & 3 show endless elongate body) having a central longitudinal axis (midpoint of belt 10, Fig. 1 in the longitudinal or cord-wise direction, cords 12, Fig. 1, where first and second toothing meet) and a transverse axis (axis transverse to cords 12, Fig. 1) comprising: a first elastomeric material (“elastomer used to form the body 14 of the belt” Column 2, lines 52-56), a plurality of cords (12, Fig. 1), and a first toothing (18, see Annotated Figure 1 of Mohr et al. above) comprising a plurality of spaced apart teeth oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis (teeth 18 are arranged substantially transversely to the longitudinal axis which is in the direction of cords 12, Fig. 1) and each being obliquely to the transversal axis of the belt forming therewith a helix angle (α) relative to the transverse axis (the teeth 18, Fig. 1, may be formed in an … angled offset pattern…adjacent rows of teeth which are at oppositely balanced oblique angles to the longitudinal direction L of the belt 10, Fig. 1; Col 2, line 63-64) and a second toothing (18, see Annotated Figure 1 of Mohr et al., above) comprising a plurality of spaced apart teeth oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis (teeth 18 are arranged substantially transversely to the longitudinal axis which is in the direction of cords 12, Fig. 1) and each being obliquely at a helix angle (β) relative to the transverse axis (A) of the belt (the teeth 18, Fig. 1, may be formed in an … angled offset pattern…adjacent rows of teeth which are at oppositely balanced oblique angles to the longitudinal direction L of the belt 10, Fig. 1; Col 2, line 63-64) wherein each tooth of the plurality of spaced apart teeth of the first toothing and the second toothing has a flat upper surface (each tooth 18 has a flat upper surface, see Annotated Figure 1 of Mohr et al. above) wherein the first toothing and the second toothing are both configured to cooperate with and engage in hollows of a toothed pulley of a reversible electric machine (“the driver pulley is of the conventional construction, having a tooth configuration mating with the tooth configuration of the belt” Column 3, lines 21-24. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The toothed structure of the belt of Mohr et al. is equivalent to applicant’s toothed belt structure and thus would be capable of cooperating with the toothed pulley of a reversible electric machine just as applicant’s claimed invention.) to transmit power to an axle of a vehicle (“a simplistic description of a timing belt system is that the system consists of a toothed timing belt, a driver pulley which is powered to drive the timing belt, and a driven pulley about which the timing belt travels” Column 1, lines 29-32; the driven shaft may be an axle of a vehicle. Functional language is given little patentable weight, because the structure of Mohr et al. is equivalent to applicant’s invention, it is therefore assumed that Mohr et al. is capable of transmitting power to an axle of a vehicle just as applicant’s claimed invention) wherein the toothed transmission belt is operable in a first direction and is operable in a reverse direction relative to the reversible electric machine (It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Thus the toothed transmission belt of Mohr et al. would be capable of operating in a first direction and a reverse direction just as applicant’s claimed toothed transmission belt).
Mohr et al. does not disclose a compressor; a reversible electric machine, a first poly-V pulley fitted on a drive shaft of an engine; a second poly-V pulley fitted on a shaft driving a compressor; and a transmission belt wound around the first poly-V pulley and the second poly-V pulley, a tooth height (H1) wherein each tooth has a plurality of V-shaped grooves recessed therein that are spaced apart, oriented parallel to the central longitudinal axis and define a second height (H2) measured from the flat upper surface to an apex of a V-shaped groove wherein the tooth height (H1) is greater than the second height (H2) and the V-shaped grooves are configured to cooperate with ribs of a poly-V pulley of an engine shaft and/or of a compressor shaft; and.
Takeru teaches a transmission system having a first poly-V pulley (19, Fig. 2), and a transmission belt (B, Fig. 2) wound around the toothed pulley (15, Fig. 2), the first poly-V pulley (19, Fig. 2); teeth with flat tooth tops from which a tooth height (H1) is measured (see Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru above) and each has a plurality of V-shaped grooves (6, Fig. 1) recessed therein that are spaced apart (V-shaped grooves 6 are spaced apart and recessed in teeth 5, Fig. 1), oriented parallel to the central longitudinal axis (V-shaped grooves 6 are oriented parallel to the central longitudinal axis which is parallel to the cord direction 2, Fig. 1), and define a second height (H2) measured from the flat upper surface to an apex of a V-shaped groove (See Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru above) wherein the tooth height (H1) is greater than the second height (H2) (see Annotated Figure 1 of Takeru, above, which shows tooth height is greater than rib height) and the V-shaped grooves (6, Fig. 1) are configured to cooperate with ribs (20, Fig. 4) of a poly-V pulley (19, Fig. 4) of an engine shaft and/or of a compressor shaft (It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The structure of the belt of Takeru is equivalent to applicant’s belt structure and thus would be capable of cooperating with a poly-V pulley of an engine shaft and/or of a compressor shaft just as applicant’s claimed invention.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the invention to modify the transmission belt of Mohr et al. to add the V-shaped grooves to the toothings as taught by Takeru in order for the belt to cooperate with a poly-V pulley thus using the power from one drive source to simultaneously drive other components of the transmission system. One would have been motivated to make this modification to enable “friction transmission and engagement transmission with one belt” (Paragraph [0001]; Takeru) and to “simplify the structure of a transmission device and reduce its cost” (Abstract, Problem to be Solved; Takeru).
DiGiacomo teaches a transmission system having a compressor (4, Fig. 1); a toothed pulley (10, Fig. 2) fitted on a shaft of a reversible electric machine (5, Fig. 1), a first poly-V pulley (6, Fig. 1; Column 3, line 28) fitted on a drive shaft of an engine (2, Fig. 1); a second poly-V pulley (8, Fig. 1; Column 3, line 28) fitted on a shaft driving a compressor (4, Fig. 1); and a transmission belt (12, Fig. 1) wound around the toothed pulley, the first poly-V pulley and the second poly-V pulley (12 is wound around pulleys 10, 6, and 8, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transmission system of Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, to use the belt in a transmission system having a reversible electric machine, compressor and engine in order to effectively operate engine accessories because it is “suitable to transmit movement between an internal combustion engine and a plurality of auxiliary parts” (Column 2, lines 40-43; DiGiacomo). One would have been motivated to make this modification to “avoid installing a separate generator and starting motor, [therefore] it is common practice to provide a single electric machine of a reversible type” (Column 1, lines 25-27, DiGiacomo).
Regarding claim 15, Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 11 and a transmission system.
Mohr et al., in view of Takeru, does not teach wherein said toothed pulley has a diameter smaller than the diameter of the poly-V pulley/pulleys.
DiGiacomo teaches a transmission belt cooperating with toothed pulleys and poly-V pulleys and a toothed pulley with a smaller diameter than the diameter of the poly-V pulley/pulleys (toothed pulley 10, Fig. 1, is smaller in diameter than the poly-V pulleys 6 and 8, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transmission system of Mohr et al., in view of Takeru to have the toothed pulley smaller in diameter than the poly-v pulley as taught by DiGiacomo in order to optimize the gear ratio of engine driven accessories and the space available near the transmission system. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure engine components are easily accessible, fit properly, and optimize the gear ratio of accessory components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument on pages 1-3 of Remarks, filed 9/1/2025 that the proposed modification would change the principle of Mohr because the belt of Mohr is intended to be used as a timing belt and cooperates with a flat, toothless driven pulley, it is noted that, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the prior art combination is capable of performing the intended use (“configured to cooperate with…a toothed pulley of a reversible electric machine…ribs of a poly-V pulley of an engine shaft and/or a compressor shaft” Claim 1, lines 17-20). Thus the modification of Mohr with Takeru to provide the capability to cooperate with a poly-V pulley would not change the principle of operation of Mohr, because the principle of operation of Mohr is a belt which cooperates with pulleys.
In response to applicant’s argument on pages 3-4 of Remarks filed 9/1/2025, that Mohr teaches away from having a driven pulley other than one that is flat and toothless, it is noted that Mohr discloses a belt a pulley with a structure capable of cooperating with toothed pulleys. Mohr teaches an improvement by having a tootheless pulley, but does not teach away from other types of pulleys (see MPEP 2145(X)(D)(1)). Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00pm - 6:00pm EST.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619