DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 26, 29, and 30 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.
The recitation “and/or” appearing in claims 26 and 29, renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear as to whether the scope of the claim includes one, the other, or both relevant recitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-30are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroer US 2021/0071646 A1 in view of Boing et al. US 2014/0302957 A1.
Schroer discloses:
Claim 16- a work machine (80, 84) including a drive shaft (22) having an axial end embodied as a hollow shaft, said drive shaft including a molding (33) in a region of the hollow shaft; a transmission including an output shaft (12) connected in a rotationally fixed manner to the drive shaft with the connection of the output shaft to the drive shaft configured to be flexurally stiff to support transverse forces (the device is capable of this function), the output shaft extending along an axis (15) with an axial end having a stub which is at least partially disposed in the hollow shaft of the drive shaft (see Fig 1); and a holding element (30) fastened by fastening means (44) to the axial end of the output shaft in such a manner that the molding is jammed in a region between the holding element and an axial contact surface of a remaining part of the output shaft (fig 2).
Schroer discloses all of the claimed subject matter as described above. Schroer does not disclose a torque arm configured such that the torque arm and the connection between the output shaft and the drive shaft support the transmission on the work machine by at least 90% of forces arising during operation.
Boing teaches a torque arm configured such that the torque arm (71, 72) and the connection between the output shaft and the drive shaft support the transmission on the work machine by at least 90% of forces arising during operation for the purpose of reliably and stably supporting a transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schroer and provide a torque arm configured such that the torque arm and the connection between the output shaft and the drive shaft support the transmission on the work machine by at least 90% of forces arising during operation, as taught by Boing, for the purpose of reliably and stably supporting a transmission.
Claim 17- a radial support supporting (shown at 23 in fig 1) the drive shaft on the output shaft for dissipating transverse forces.
Claim 18- comprising an axial support supporting the drive shaft (shown at 23 in fig 1) on the output shaft for dissipating longitudinal forces .
Claim 19- wherein the drive shaft is constructed in a modular manner such that the axial end of the drive shaft as a first axial portion is configured as a flange (24) which is attached axially to a second axial section (22) of the drive shaft, said flange forming at the axial end an axial shaft section which is configured as the hollow shaft (20 is hollow at flange 24).
Claim 20- wherein the holding element has a round or ring-shaped configuration (fig 2).
Regarding claim 21- Schroer discloses all of the claimed subject matter as described above. Schroer does not disclose that the flange is a casting.
Castings are old and well known for the purpose of molding a complex shape efficiently.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schroer and provide casting, for the purpose of molding a complex shape efficiently.
Claim 22- an output shaft short spline (17) provided on the axial end of the output shaft to which the drive shaft is connected; and a drive shaft short spline (27) provided on the axial end of the drive shaft to which the output shaft is connected.
Claim 23- wherein the torque arm and the connection between the output shaft and the drive shaft completely support the transmission on the work machine against the forces arising during operation (as modified the device is capable of this function)
Claim 24- a first radial drive shaft centering feature (23) provided on the axial end of the drive shaft; and a first radial output shaft centering feature (unnumbered portion of 12 located at 23) provided on the axial end of the output shaft to which the drive shaft is connected, wherein the first radial drive shaft centering feature and the first radial output shaft centering features are in mutual contact in a radially centering manner (see 23 in fig 2).
Claim 25- a second radial drive shaft centering (second instance of 23) feature axially spaced apart from the first radial drive shaft centering feature on the axial end of the drive shaft; and a second radial output shaft centering feature (second portion adjacent second instance of 23) axially spaced apart from the first radial output shaft centering feature on the axial end of the output shaft, wherein the first and second output shaft centering features and first and second drive shaft centering features are assigned in pairs to two axially spaced-apart centering feature pairs which are in mutual contact in a radially centering manner, respectively (fig 2).
Regarding claim 26- Schroer discloses the claimed invention except for utilizing metal. It is old and well known to utilize metal for its low cost, machinability and high strength. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 27-29- It is old and well known to utilize software to analyze physical interaction of mechanical components in order to optimize a mechanical design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize software to analyze physical interaction of mechanical components in order to optimize a mechanical design.
Regarding claim 30- It is old and well known to utilize computer simulation data in order to design mechanical components so as to be manufactured by 3D printing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize computer simulation data in order to design mechanical components so as to be manufactured by 3D printing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0016973 A1 discloses a structurally similar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERENCE BOES whose telephone number is (571)272-4898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6:30.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
TERENCE BOES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/TERENCE BOES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights