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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant recites “Nowhere does Mano disclose or suggest the feature of two sleeves which are inserted into the through-bore of the drive unit on both sides.”. The Examiner disagrees.
Per MPEP 2113- “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (Emphasis Added).
The claim limitation that the two sleeves are inserted into the through-bore of the drive unit, is a process limitation, and the product (the drive unit) produced, is presented the same as the drive unit presented in Mano (US 2017/0314593). Therefore, once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. (See In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, and MPEP 2113 Section II).
Additionally, the process limitation “inserted into the through-bore…” might also be interpreted as “the two sleeves are introduced into and exist inside the body of the drive unit”, in other words irrespective of (and unrelated to) a direction of insertion, however conveying a relative interior location of the sleeves, which Mano discloses.
Therefore, the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 remains, and all subsequent 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 dependent claim rejections remain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1,7-9, 13-15 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mano (US 2017/0314593).
Regarding Claim 1, Mano anticipates a drive assembly 20A,125A (Fig 7, “The attachment portions of the drive unit 20A are different from the attachment portions of the drive unit 20 discussed above. The drive unit 20A includes an attachment portion 216A. The attachment portion 216A includes a boss 216AL and a boss 216AR. A hole 2165 is located in the boss 216AL. A hole 2166 is located in the boss 216AR.”, para 0087, besides the differences listed in para 0087, drive unit 20A is substantially similar to drive unit 20) of a vehicle which [can be operated by means of muscle power and/or motor power] (“In the drive unit 20, human power supplied to the crank axle 22 and motor drive power, which depends on the magnitude of the human power, are supplied to a resultant-force output axle 35 and transmitted to the driving sprocket 34 (FIG. 1) via the support 33.” Para 0062 ), the drive assembly 20A,125A (Fig 7, para 0087) comprising:
a drive unit 20A (Fig 7 para 0087);
a frame interface 1251A1 and 1252A2 (Fig 7, paras 0088), wherein the drive unit 20A (Fig 7) is disposed at least partially between a first wall 1251A1 (Fig 7) and a second wall 1251A2 (Fig 7) of the frame interface, and the drive unit includes a through-bore holes 1254A, 1255, 2165, 2166 (Fig 7, “The bolt 60A is inserted from the left into the attachment portion 216A. The bolt 60A is inserted through the hole 1254A in the left side plate 1251A1. The thread on the bolt 60A engages the right-hand thread groove on the inner periphery 56A2 of the cylindrical member 56A. For example, the thread on the bolt 60A is preferably a right-hand thread.” para 0092, Figure 7 shows the holes 1254A,1255,2165 and 2166 are coaxial and the bolt passes through each hole);
two sleeves 216A and 216AR (Fig 7, “The attachment portion 216 includes a boss 216L and a boss 216R. The attachment portion 216 will be described in detail below with reference to FIG. 5.” Para 0061) [which are inserted into the through-bore of the drive unit on both sides] (“The boss 216R includes a threaded hole 2162 and an insertion hole 2163. The insertion hole 2163 is coaxial with the threaded hole 2162 and extends straight or substantially straight in the left-right direction with a constant or substantially constant diameter. The threaded hole 2162 is located closer to the boss 216L than the insertion hole 2163 in the left-right direction.” para 0065, Fig 7 additionally shows the sleeves 216A and 216AR supported and positioned inside the bracket between the left and right side walls, “…the bracket 125A includes left and right side plates 1251A1, 1251A2” para 0099 ); and
a through-bolt 60A (Fig 6) which [is inserted through the through-bore and the two sleeves and holds the drive unit on each of the first and second walls] (“When the bolt 60A is further tightened, for example, when the bolt 60A is further tightened in the right-hand thread direction, the cylindrical member 56A is further tightened in the left-hand thread direction. Thus, the attachment portion 216A is sandwiched between the left side plate 1251A1 and cylindrical member 56A. Further, the left side plate 1251A1 is tightly sandwiched by a head of the bolt 60A and the attachment portion 216A. Thus, the drive unit 20A is securely attached to the bracket 125A.” para 0099 ), [wherein the through-bolt braces the first and second walls against one another] (“…when the bolt 60A is further tightened in the right-hand thread direction, the cylindrical member 56A is further tightened in the left-hand thread direction. Thus, the attachment portion 216A is sandwiched between the left side plate 1251A1 and cylindrical member 56A.” para 0099).
Regarding Claim 7, Mano anticipates the two sleeves 216A and 216AR (Figs 7-8B) touch inside the through-bore 2165 and 2166 (Fig 8A, “The hole 1254A in the left side plate 1251A1 and the threaded hole 1255 in the right side plate 1251A2 are coaxial with the holes 2165 and 2166 of the attachment portion 216A. A gap is located between the left side plate 1251A1 and attachment portion 216A (boss 216AL) and between the right side plate 1251A2 and attachment portion 216A (boss 216AR).” para 0095), and wherein the two sleeves 216A and 216AR (Figs 7-8B) are configured such that the two sleeves 216A and 216AR (Figs 7-8B) are [clamped between the first and second walls by a screw connection via the through-bolt] (“When the bolt 60A is further tightened, for example, when the bolt 60A is further tightened in the right-hand thread direction, the cylindrical member 56A is further tightened in the left-hand thread direction. Thus, the attachment portion 216A is sandwiched between the left side plate 1251A1 and cylindrical member 56A. Further, the left side plate 1251A1 is tightly sandwiched by a head of the bolt 60A and the attachment portion 216A. Thus, the drive unit 20A is securely attached to the bracket 125A.” para 0099- Fig 8B shows the through bolt 60A tightened so that the sleeves are clamped between the first and second side wall ).
Regarding Claim 8, Mano anticipates the two sleeves 216A and 216AR (Figs 7-8B) and the drive unit 20A (Figs 7-8A) are configured such that the [drive unit is held between the first and second walls without tension] (“Thus, deformation of each of the left and right side plates 1251A1 and 1251A2 when the drive unit 20A is attached to the bracket 125A is not necessary. Accordingly, the drive unit 20A is securely attached to the bracket 125A even when the bracket 125A has a high stiffness and/or rigidity.” para 0100 ).
Regarding Claim 9, Mano anticipates the first wall 1251A1 (Figs 7-8B) includes [a predetermined bending point] (“… the bolt 60A is further tightened in the right-hand thread direction, the cylindrical member 56A is further tightened in the left-hand thread direction. Thus, the attachment portion 216A is sandwiched between the left side plate 1251A1 and cylindrical member 56A. Further, the left side plate 1251A1 is tightly sandwiched by a head of the bolt 60A and the attachment portion 216A. Thus, the drive unit 20A is securely attached to the bracket 125A.” (Emphasis added) para 0099).
Regarding Claim 13, Mano anticipates the through-bolt is a screw 60A (Figs 7 and 8B, para 0096) , and wherein the through-bolt is screwed into an internal thread 56A2 (Fig 8B, “bolt 60A reaches a midpoint of a length of the right-hand thread groove on the inner periphery 56A2 of the cylindrical member 56A while engaging the right-hand thread groove.” para 0096) of the second wall 1251A2 (“…for example, the cylindrical member 56A attached to the right side plate 1251A2…” para 0095).
Regarding Claim 14, Mano anticipates the through-bolt is a screw 60A (Figs 7 and 8B, para 0096) , and wherein [the through-bolt is screwed into a nut disposed on the second wall] (“A thread located on the bolt 60 may engage a thread groove located in a threaded hole in a separate nut… the separate nut may be attached to the housing 21 in advance, and then screwed onto the bolt 60, or the separate nut may be screwed onto the bolt 60 while outside the housing 21.” para 0105).
Regarding Claim 15, Mano anticipates [the nut is disposed in a non-rotatable manner in a recess of the second wall] (“A thread located on the bolt 60 may engage a thread groove located in a threaded hole in a separate nut… the separate nut may be attached to the housing 21 in advance, and then screwed onto the bolt 60, or the separate nut may be screwed onto the bolt 60 while outside the housing 21.” (emphasis added) para 0105).
Regarding Claim 22, Mano anticipates a vehicle 10 (Fig 1, para 0019 and 0020) which can be [operated by means of muscle power and/or motor power, the vehicle being an electric bicycle] (“FIG. 1 is a schematic right-side view of the electric-motor-assisted bicycle 10.” para 0019 ), the vehicle comprising:
a drive assembly including:
a drive unit 20A (Fig 7 para 0087);
a frame interface 1251A1 and 1252A2 (Fig 7, paras 0088), wherein the drive unit 20A (Fig 7) is disposed at least partially between a first wall 1251A1 (Fig 7) and a second wall 1251A2 (Fig 7) of the frame interface, and the drive unit includes a through-bore holes 1254A, 1255, 2165, 2166 (Fig 7, “The bolt 60A is inserted from the left into the attachment portion 216A. The bolt 60A is inserted through the hole 1254A in the left side plate 1251A1. The thread on the bolt 60A engages the right-hand thread groove on the inner periphery 56A2 of the cylindrical member 56A. For example, the thread on the bolt 60A is preferably a right-hand thread.” para 0092, Figure 7 shows the holes 1254A,1255,2165 and 2166 are coaxial and the bolt passes through each hole);
two sleeves 216A and 216AR (Fig 7, “The attachment portion 216 includes a boss 216L and a boss 216R. The attachment portion 216 will be described in detail below with reference to FIG. 5.” Para 0061) [which are inserted into the through-bore of the drive unit on both sides] (“The boss 216R includes a threaded hole 2162 and an insertion hole 2163. The insertion hole 2163 is coaxial with the threaded hole 2162 and extends straight or substantially straight in the left-right direction with a constant or substantially constant diameter. The threaded hole 2162 is located closer to the boss 216L than the insertion hole 2163 in the left-right direction.” para 0065 ); and
a through-bolt 60A (Fig 6) which [is inserted through the through-bore and the two sleeves and holds the drive unit on each of the first and second walls] (“When the bolt 60A is further tightened, for example, when the bolt 60A is further tightened in the right-hand thread direction, the cylindrical member 56A is further tightened in the left-hand thread direction. Thus, the attachment portion 216A is sandwiched between the left side plate 1251A1 and cylindrical member 56A. Further, the left side plate 1251A1 is tightly sandwiched by a head of the bolt 60A and the attachment portion 216A. Thus, the drive unit 20A is securely attached to the bracket 125A.” para 0099 ), [wherein the through-bolt braces the first and second walls against one another] (“…when the bolt 60A is further tightened in the right-hand thread direction, the cylindrical member 56A is further tightened in the left-hand thread direction. Thus, the attachment portion 216A is sandwiched between the left side plate 1251A1 and cylindrical member 56A.” para 0099).
Regarding Claim 23, Mano anticipates the vehicle 10 (Fig 1) comprising, a chainring 34 (Fig 1 para 0043) which is connected to an output shaft 22 (Figs 1 and 2) of the drive unit, and wherein the second wall 1251 (Fig 4) of the drive assembly is disposed on a side of the chainring 34 (Fig 4 shows the right side plate 1251 is disposed on the same side as the chainring 34 and chainring support 33, “A driving sprocket 34 is attached to the drive unit 20 with a support 33 located in between. A chain 36 is wound about the driving sprocket 34 and driven sprocket 32.” para 0043 and “Accordingly, FIG. 4 only shows the right side plate 1251.” para 0053).
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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano in view of Noda et al (US 2019/0039677)
Regarding Claim 2, Mano teaches each sleeve 216A and 216AR (Figs 7-8B).
Mano does not teach each sleeve of the two sleeves includes a shank and a flange, wherein the shank is disposed inside the through-bore, and the flange is disposed outside the through-bore.
Noda teaches a sleeve 150 (Fig 21, para 0118) includes a shank 150A (Fig 21, “The inner circumferential portion 150A of the sleeve 150 includes a female thread.” Para 0118, Fig 21 shows the sleeve extending along an interior of the hole) and a flange 150B (Fig 21, “The outer diameter of the flange 150B is larger than the inner diameter of the second through hole 116B. The flange 150B is located between the second projection 113B and the frame main body 134.” para 0118) wherein the shank 150A (Fig 21) [is disposed inside the through-bore] (Fig 21 shows the shank inside the through-bore 116B) , and the flange 150B (Fig 21) is [disposed outside the through-bore] (Fig 21 shows the flange extending outside and sitting outside of the through-bore 116B, “The outer diameter of the flange 150B is larger than the inner diameter of the second through hole 116B. The flange 150B is located between the second projection 113B and the frame main body 134.”, para 0118 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the shank and flange design of Noda with the sleeves of Mano with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a consistent force to be applied along the axial length of the bore and provide additional strength at each side wall of the support bracket. By modifying the sleeves of Mano to include the shank and flange of Noda the through-bore of Mano has additional support along the entire length of the bore and is less likely to fail while in operation.
Regarding Claim 10, Mano and Noda teach the shank 150A (Fig 21) of each sleeve includes a pressing region (See Noda Annotated Figure 21 below) , and [a press fit is formed between the pressing region and the through-bore] (“Preferably, the sleeve 150 is pressed-fitted into the second through hole 116B of the second projection 113B.” para 0118 ).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Noda Figure 21 showing the regions along the shank that are press fitted along the through-bore and screw.
Claims 3-4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano and Noda in further view of Sakamoto et al (US 20150283955 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Mano and Noda teach the two sleeves as described in claim 2 above.
Mano and Noda do not teach wherein each sleeve of the two sleeves includes a damping element which is disposed on a side of the flange of the sleeve facing the drive unit, and wherein the damping element is made of a vibration-damping material.
Sakamoto et al teaches a sleeve 31 (Fig 5, para 0034) includes a damping element 32 (Fig 5, “…each of the vibration isolating bushes 30 is structured such that the rubber bush 32 is sandwiched between the flanged tubular inner bush 31 and the flanged tubular outer bush 33…” para 0034) which is disposed [on a side of the flange of the sleeve] (“…the flange of the rubber bush 32 abuts on a front face of the flange 33b”. para 0036 ), and wherein the damping element 32 (Fig 5) [is made of a vibration-damping material] (“Each of the vibration isolating bushes 30 has a triple structure with an inner bush 31, a rubber bush 32, and an outer bush 33.” (Emphasis added) para 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the vibration isolating element with the sleeves of Mano and Noda with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide an element to prevent vibrations from affecting the bore and screw attachments. By modifying the sleeves of Mano and Noda to include the vibration isolating elements of Sakamoto, the through-bore of Mano and Noda has additional vibration absorbing elements that prevent the screw from vibrating out of the through-bore.
Regarding Claim 4, Mano, Noda and Sakamoto fully teach the damping element Sakamoto-30,31,32,33 (Fig 5) at least [partially surrounds the shank] (“the rubber bush 32 is sandwiched between the flanged tubular inner bush 31 and the flanged tubular outer bush 33, that a tube portion of the inner bush 31 is fitted inside a tube portion of the outer bush 33, and that the flanges overlap with one another.” Para 0034 and Figure 5 shows the rubber component 32 overlapping part of the shank element 31 of Sakamoto).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano in view of Hay (US 20130071203 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Mano teaches the two sleeves 216A and 216AR (Figs 7 and 8A).
Mano does not teach two sleeves are configured such that, when they are fully inserted into the through-bore and not braced, there is a predefined axial spacing between the two sleeves inside the through-bore.
Hay teaches two sleeves 32,36,38 and 34,40,42 (Fig 1, “The first compression limiter 32 includes a first wide portion 36 and a first narrow portion 38. The second compression limiter 34 includes a second wide portion 40 and a second narrow portion 42.” para 0012) are configured such that, [when they are fully inserted into the through-bore 22 (Fig 1, “…hole 22 is a cylindrical bore centered along axis 28.” para 0010) and not braced] (Fig 1 shows the assembly 10 in an uncompressed state) , there is [a predefined axial spacing between the two sleeves 32,34 (Fig 1) inside the through-bore 22 (Fig 1)] ( Annotated Figure 1 shows the spacing between the two sleeves) .
PNG
media_image2.png
640
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hay Figure 1 shows an axial gap between the first and second sleeves when the retainer is in an uncompressed state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the axial spacing of Hay with the sleeves of Mano with a reasonable expectation of success because it would prevent excess compressive loading or deformation when the elements are unloaded. By including an axial gap between the sleeves there is space so that the sleeves do not compress against one another with excessive force that can deform the bore.
Regarding Claim 6, Mano and Hay teach the predefined axial spacing (See Annotated Hay Figure 1 above in the rejection of claim 5) is configured such that, in a braced state (See Hay Figure 4) , the axial spacing is [compensated by the bracing by the through-bolt 62 (Fig 4, para 0024) and by elastic deformation of the damping element] (Hay, “…when the threaded fastener 62 is rotated about axis 28 so that the threads of shank 70 engage the threads of a hole in the second member 14, an axially compressive force is applied to the first and second compression limiters 32, 34, which is transferred to the elastomeric isolator members 74, 78.” para 0024 ).
Claim 11, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano and Noda in further view of Harbison (US 2,991,816).
Regarding Claim 11, Mano and Noda teach the pressing region is disposed adjacent to the flange of each sleeve of the two sleeves.
Mano and Noda do not teach the shank of each sleeve of each of the two sleeves further includes a tapering region which has a smaller outer diameter than the pressing region of the sleeve.
Harbison teaches the shank of a sleeve includes a tapering region 39 (Fig 2, “A tapered shoulder 39 interconnects the two surfaces. A second tapered shoulder 41 extends from the smaller surface 37 to form a recessed portion 42 adjacent the end flange 43” Col 3 Lines 6-10) which has a smaller outer diameter 37 (Fig 2,” Col 3 Lines 6-10) than the pressing region 38 (Fig 1, “The outer portion of the shank 33 is stepped to provide for an outer lower surface 37 of smaller diameter than the upper portion 38.” Col 3 Lines 4-6 ) of the sleeve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the tapered shank of Harbison with the sleeves of Mano and Noda with a reasonable expectation of success because it would reduce the stress concentrations formed along the sleeves inside the through-bore and reduce the amount of excess material needed to make the shank. By including a tapered region, excess material would not be used and the part would be lighter and less likely to weigh down the overall drive assembly.
Claim 12, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano in further view of Rose (US 5197345).
Regarding claim 12, Mano teaches the through-bore 1254A, 1255, 2165, 2166 (Fig 7) and the two sleeves 216A and 216AR (Fig 7).
Mano does not teach the through-bore includes a centering region in a center, which has a smaller inner diameter than the rest of the through-bore, for centering the two sleeves.
Rose (US 5,197,345) teaches a through-bore 130 (Fig 3, Col 4 lines 26-28) includes a centering region in a center, [which has a smaller inner diameter than the rest of the through-bore] (“sleeve 25 includes a cylindrical center sidewall 130 and tapered ends formed by outwardly flaring inner walls 135, 135'.” col 4 lines 26-28 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the centering region of Rose with the through-bore and sleeves of Mano with a reasonable expectation of success because it would better align the sleeves of Mano into the through-bore and provide additional axial support when the two sleeves are aligned. By including a centering region with a smaller diameter than the rest of the through-bore, the sleeves can be aligned and the axial loading through the bore is strengthened equally along the two sleeves.
Claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano and Noda in further view of Figge et al (US 20080304907 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Mano and Noda teach the shank of each sleeve of the two sleeves is inserted into the through-bore of the drive unit.
Mano and Noda do not teach the flange of each sleeve includes a plurality of projecting form-fit elements on a side facing a respective wall of the first and second walls, and wherein the form-fit elements are configured to press into the respective wall as a result of screwing to the respective wall.
Figge et al teaches a flange 32 (Figs 1 and 2, para 0031) includes a plurality of projecting form-fit elements 36 (Fig 2, para 0031) on a side facing a respective wall B (Fig 10, “If the flange 32 moves up against the component B, the tips 36 are pushed into the material of component B…” para 0051) of the first and second walls, and wherein the form-fit elements 36 (Fig 2) are configured to press into the respective wall B (Fig 10) [as a result of screwing to the respective wall] (Figs 11-14 show the screw tightening the wall B closer to the flange and projections 36 “If the screw 6 is screwed in until the screw head 50 is against component B, the fastening apparatus is completely assembled” para 0053, Figures 10 and 14 show the flange being attached to the wall B in a fully tightened assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the projecting form fitting elements of Figge with the sleeves of Mano and Noda with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide an additional form fit mechanism between the sleeves and the wall of the drive mechanism. By including the form-fit elements of Figge, the flange can connect to the interior wall and provide an additional press fit surface with the deformation of the form fitting elements.
Regarding claim 17 Mano, Noda, and Figge fully teach each form-fit element Figge-36 (Figs 2-3, para 0031) of the form fit elements includes a pyramid or a cone (Figure 8 of Figge shows the projections having a circular base with a pointed end, making them a cone or pyramid shape) , [which projects from a surface of the flange] (Figge- “…the flange 32 has a front surface 34, on which small nibs 36 projecting axially upwards” para 0031 ) of each sleeve Noda (150B, Fig 21, para 0118) of the two sleeves Mano 216A and 216AR (Figs 7-8B).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano in further view of Hay (US 20130071203 A1) in further view of Harbison (US 2,991,816).
Regarding Claim 19, Mano teaches the two sleeves.
Mano does not teach each sleeve of the two sleeves includes a damping element which is disposed on a side of the flange of the sleeve facing the drive unit, having a shank and a flange wherein the flange includes a taper at a radially outer end and on a side facing the shank, and wherein the taper is compensated by the damping element.
Hay teaches the sleeves 32,36,38 and 34,40,42 (Fig 1, para 0012) having a shank 38,42 (Fig 1 para 0012) and flange 32,40 (Fig 1 para 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the shank and flange of Hay with the sleeves of Mano with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide an additional strength along the shank with additional support at the holes via the flange. By including the shank and flange design of Hay the flange can connect to the interior wall and provide an additional press fit surface and strengthen the through-bore holes at each end of the bore.
Mano and Hay disclose the claimed invention except for each sleeve of the two sleeves includes a damping element which is disposed on a side of the flange of the sleeve facing the drive unit,. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to rearrange the damping element so to sit between the drive wall and the sleeve since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Additionally, Mano and Hay teach the sleeves with shanks and flanges with a damping element which is disposed on a side of the flange of the sleeve facing the drive unit, but do not teach the flange includes a taper at a radially outer end and on a side facing the shank, and wherein the taper is compensated by the damping element. Harbison teaches the flange 33 (Fig 2) includes a taper 51 (Fig 1 and 2) at [a radially outer end and on a side facing the shank] (Fig 1 and 2 show the taper on the exterior of the flange).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the flange of Harbison with the shanks and flanges of Mano and Hay with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide additional strength near the hole of the flange and offer additional surface area for the elastic member of Hay to interact with the flange. By including the taper on the edge of the flange, the elastic member of Hay has additional surface area to interact with along the flange component.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano in further view of Hay (US 20130071203 A1) .
Regarding Claim 21, Mano teaches the sleeves and drive assembly of claim 2.
Mano does not explicitly teach the flange of at least one sleeve of the two sleeves has a thickness that corresponds substantially to a wall thickness of the shank of the at least one sleeve, or (ii) the flange of at least one sleeve of the two sleeves has a thickness that corresponds to at least 1.5 times a wall thickness of the shank the at least one sleeve.
Hay teaches the flange of at least one sleeve of the two sleeves 32,36,38 and 34,40,42 (Fig 1, “The first compression limiter 32 includes a first wide portion 36 and a first narrow portion 38. The second compression limiter 34 includes a second wide portion 40 and a second narrow portion 42.” para 0012) [has a thickness that corresponds substantially to a wall thickness of the shank of the at least one sleeve] ( Figure 1 of Hay shows the thickness of the flange and of the shank being substantially the same, see Annotated Hay Figure 1 below, and “The first compression limiter 32 includes a first wide portion 36 and a first narrow portion 38. The second compression limiter 34 includes a second wide portion 40 and a second narrow portion 42.”). Or, (ii) the flange of at least one sleeve of the two sleeves has a thickness that corresponds to at least 1.5 times a wall thickness of the shank the at least one sleeve.
PNG
media_image3.png
605
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hay Figure 1 shows the flange and shank elements are substantially the same thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the flange and shank thickness of Hay with the shanks and flanges of Mano with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide additional strength near the hole of the flange and prevent stress concentrations from forming along the axial direction of the through-bore. By including the flange and shank thicknesses to be substantially the same, the material is less likely to form stress concentrations and additional strength is added to support the through-bore.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 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.
The prior art of record fails to teach a drive assembly having all limitations claimed, particularly as follows:
Claim 18 : wherein each form-fit element of the form fit elements includes a recess in the surface of the flange adjacent to the pyramid.
The prior art (e.g. Figge (US 20080304907 A1) teaches a flange having pyramid shaped projections that lack a recess next to each pyramid shaped projection) the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Claim 20 : wherein the drive unit includes at least one projecting annular rib which is disposed concentrically to one of the through-bore, wherein the projecting annular rib and the taper of the flange of the at least one sleeve are disposed on a same radius with respect to a bore axis of the through-bore.
The prior art (e.g. Noda (US 20190039677 A1) teaches a drive unit having a projecting annular rib that interacts with a taper of the flange) the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight. For illustration purposes, Fig 10 of the examined disclosure shows a drive unit 2 having annular projections 2g interacting with the flange 44, which is different than the second member 70 having projections 70A and 70B interacting with a first member 102 and the bracket 100 taught by the prior art of record (Fig. 12 of Noda).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MORGAN M KNAUF whose telephone number is (703)756-4532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights