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 . 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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract is objected to for including a phrase which can be implied. See “A coupling is disclosed” in line 1. See MPEP 608.01(b). The Examiner notes simply removing this phrase and beginning the abstract with --A coupling comprises an outer member…-- would place the abstract in proper form and overcome the objection. Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 29, 40-42, and 45 are objected to because at line 1 of each claim, “claims” should read --claim--.
Claims 44 and 45 are objected to because at line 1 of each claim “of any” should be deleted.
Claim 32 is objected to because at line 1 “claim 30” should read --claim 31--, as best understood by the Examiner, given the recitation of “the axial buffers and plurality of apertures” in line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 26-50 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the projections” in line 8. It is unclear from the claim whether “the projections” constitute the “plurality of radially inward projections” of the outer member as recited in line 4, the “plurality of radially outward projections” of the inner member as recited in lines 4-5, “the plurality of radially inward projections” of the intermediate member as recited in lines 5-7, “the plurality of radially outward projections” of the intermediate member as recited in lines 5-7, or one of the many combinations thereof. Claims 27-47, 49, and 50 inherit this issue for depending upon independent claim 26. It is to be noted a similar issue is also present in independent claim 48, at line 9.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of buffer elements comprises a second plurality of buffer elements” in lines 1-2. It is unclear from the claim how a second plurality of buffer elements can exist without the presence of a first plurality of buffer elements.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the second plurality of buffer elements" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; a second plurality of buffer elements is not previously recited in the claim(s). This issue is also present in claim 44, lines 1-2; claim 45, lines 2-3; claim 46, lines 1-2; and claim 48, lines 2-3.
As to the rejections directed to claims 38 and 42 above, it appears claim 38 should depend from claim 37, while claims 39-47 should depend from claim 38 given the limitations directed to the second plurality of buffer elements. Therefore, for the purpose of this action, the claims have been interpreted as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 26, 27, 30, 37, 38, 40, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 616987 (Pittaluga).
Regarding claim 26, Pittaluga discloses a coupling (see Figures 1-5b and annotated Figure 1 below) comprising:
an outer member (1; see annotated Figure 1 below, as Pittaluga gives the same reference character to multiple members, as set forth on page 1, lines 63-66), an inner member (1), an intermediate member (1), and a plurality of buffer elements (3);
wherein the outer member comprises a plurality of radially inward projections (2; see annotated Figure 1 below, as Pittaluga gives the same reference character to multiple members, as set forth on page 1, lines 67-70), the inner member comprises a plurality of radially outward projections (2) and the intermediate member comprises a plurality of radially inward projections (2) and a plurality of radially outward projections (2);
wherein the plurality of buffer elements are disposed between the projections (see Figure 3); and
wherein the plurality of radially inward projections of the outer member and the plurality of radially outward projections of the intermediate member are radially overlapped, and the plurality of radially outward projections of the inner member and the plurality of radially inner projections of the intermediate member are radially overlapped (see Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 3 of Pittaluga
Regarding claim 27, Pittaluga discloses the projections (2) define a first radial surface and a second opposing radial surface, the first radial surface and the second radial surface extending substantially only in the radial direction (see annotated Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 30, Pittaluga discloses the inner member (1), the intermediate member (1) and the outer member (1) each comprise a first side (see, e.g., left side of Figure 4) and a second side (see, e.g., right side of Figure 4), the second side opposing the first side (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 37, Pittaluga discloses the plurality of buffer elements (3) comprises a first plurality of buffer elements (3), the first plurality of buffer elements being located between the plurality of radially inward projections (2) of the outer member (1) and the radially outward projections (2) of the intermediate member (1; see annotated Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 38, Pittaluga discloses the plurality of buffer elements (3) comprises a second plurality of buffer elements (3), the second plurality of buffer elements being located between the radially outward projections (2) of the inner member (1) and the inner projections (2) of the intermediate member (1; see annotated Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 40, Pittaluga discloses the thickness of the buffer elements of the second plurality of buffer elements (3) tapers in the radially inward direction and/or are discrorectangular, preferably tapered discorectangular, in cross-section (see Figures 2 and 3, where the buffer elements taper inward).
Regarding claim 43, Pittaluga discloses the size and/or shape and/or hardness of the buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements (3) is substantially identical to the size and/or shape and/or hardness of the buffer elements of the second plurality of buffer elements (3; see annotated Figure 1 above, where the buffer elements are at least substantially identical in shape).
Regarding claim 45, Pittaluga discloses the cross sectional area of each of the first plurality of buffer elements (3) is greater than the cross sectional area of each of the second plurality of buffer elements (3; see annotated Figure 1 above).
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 28, 29, 42, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pittaluga.
Regarding claim 28, as to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Pittaluga discloses number of radially outward projections (2; see annotated Figure 1 above) of the intermediate member (1; see annotated Figure 1 above) differs from the number of radially inward projections (2) of the intermediate member (1; see page 2, lines 57-63, where Pittaluga discloses the number of projections on a given member being me of any desired number).
Regarding claim 28, as to 35 U.S.C. 103, Pittaluga discloses the coupling of claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose the number of radially outward projections (2; see annotated Figure 1 above) of the intermediate member (1; see annotated Figure 1 above) differs from the number of radially inward projections (2) of the intermediate member (1). Pittaluga does however disclose the number of projections on a given member being me of any desired number, as set forth on page 2, lines 57-63.
Applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of proportions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed proportions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coupling of Pittaluga such that the number of radially outward projections of the intermediate member differs from the number of radially inward projections of the intermediate member, as such a modification would provide a coupling that would not perform differently than the coupling of Pittaluga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification based upon the intended application of the coupling.
Regarding claim 29, as to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Pittaluga discloses the number of radially outward projections (2; see annotated Figure 1 above) of the inner member (1; see annotated Figure 1 above) is greater than the number of radially inward projections (2) of the outer member (1; see page 2, lines 57-63, where Pittaluga discloses the number of projections on a given member being me of any desired number).
Regarding claim 29, as to 35 U.S.C. 103, Pittaluga discloses the coupling of claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose the number of radially outward projections (2; see annotated Figure 1 above) of the inner member (1; see annotated Figure 1 above) is greater than the number of radially inward projections (2) of the outer member (1). Pittaluga does however disclose the number of projections on a given member being me of any desired number on page 2, lines 57-63.
Applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of proportions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed proportions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pittaluga such that the number of radially outward projections of the inner member is greater than the number of radially inward projections of the outer member, as such a modification would provide a coupling that would not perform differently than the coupling of Pittaluga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification based upon the intended application of the coupling.
Regarding claim 42, as to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Pittaluga discloses first plurality of buffer elements (3; see annotated Figure 1 above) fills a lower proportion of the space (4) in which they are disposed than the second plurality of buffer elements (3; see page 1, line 90, through page 2, line 12, where Pittaluga discloses the buffer elements may have any desired dimension).
Regarding claim 42, as to 35 U.S.C. 103, Pittaluga discloses the coupling of claim 37, but does not explicitly disclose the first plurality of buffer elements (3; see annotated Figure 1 above) fills a lower proportion of the space in which they are disposed than the second plurality of buffer elements (3). Pittaluga does however disclose the buffer elements may have any desired dimension on page 1, line 90, through page 2, line 12.
Applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of proportions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed proportions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coupling of Pittaluga such that the first plurality of buffer elements fills a lower proportion of the space in which they are disposed than the second plurality of buffer elements, as such a modification would provide a coupling that would not perform differently than the coupling of Pittaluga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification based upon the intended application of the coupling.
Regarding claim 46, as to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Pittaluga discloses the number of buffer elements of the second plurality of buffer elements (3; see annotated Figure 1 above) is greater than the number of buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements (3); or wherein the number of buffer elements of the second plurality of buffer elements is less than the number of buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements (see page 1, line 90, through page 2, line 2, where Pittaluga discloses the number of buffer elements may be different for the various members, as desired).
Regarding claim 46, as to 35 U.S.C. 103, Pittaluga discloses the coupling of claim 26, but does not explicitly disclose the number of buffer elements of the second plurality of buffer elements (3; see annotated Figure 1 above) is greater than the number of buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements (3); or wherein the number of buffer elements of the second plurality of buffer elements is less than the number of buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements. Pittaluga does however disclose the number of buffer elements may be different for the various members, as desired on page 1, line 90, through page 2, line 2.
Applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of proportions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed proportions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coupling of Pittaluga such that the number of buffer elements of the second plurality of buffer elements is greater than the number of buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements; or wherein the number of buffer elements of the second plurality of buffer elements is less than the number of buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements, as such a modification would provide a coupling that would not perform differently than the coupling of Pittaluga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification based upon the intended application of the coupling.
Claims 39, 41, 44, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittaluga in view of US 2015/0369297 (Graf).
Regarding claim 39, Pittaluga discloses the coupling of claim 37, but does not expressly disclose the first plurality of buffer elements (3) are less stiff than the second plurality of buffer elements (3).
Graf teaches a first plurality of buffer elements (3 or 4) being less stiff than a second plurality of buffer elements (other of 3 or 4) in order to allow for adjustment of torsional rigidity in order to adapt a coupling to a wide range of requirements (see paragraphs [0007]-[0014]). 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 coupling of Pittaluga such that the first plurality of buffer elements are less stiff than the second plurality of buffer elements, as taught in Graf, in order to allow for adjustment of torsional rigidity in order to adapt a coupling to a wide range of requirements.
Regarding claim 41, Pittaluga discloses the coupling of claim 37, but does not expressly disclose the buffer elements (3) of the first plurality of buffer elements are substantially circular in radial cross-section. Pittaluga does however contemplate different cross sections for the buffer elements in page 1, line 90, through page 2, line 12.
Graf teaches buffer elements (3 or 4) of a first plurality of buffer elements are substantially circular in radial cross-section (see Figure 3). Graf teaches modifying the shape of a buffer element allows for adjustment of torsional rigidity in order to adapt a coupling to a wide range of requirements (see paragraphs [0007]-[0014]). 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 coupling of Pittaluga such that the buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements are substantially circular in radial cross-section, as taught in Graf, in order to allow for adjustment of torsional rigidity in order to adapt a coupling to a wide range of requirements.
Regarding claim 44, Pittaluga discloses the coupling of claim 37, but does not expressly disclose the hardness of the second plurality of buffer elements (3) is greater than the first plurality of buffer elements (3).
Graf teaches the hardness of a second plurality of buffer elements (3 or 4) is greater than a first plurality of buffer elements (the other of 3 or 4). Graf teaches modifying the relative hardness of a first plurality of buffer elements and a second plurality of buffer elements allows for adjustment of torsional rigidity in order to adapt a coupling to a wide range of requirements (see paragraphs [0007]-[0014]). 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 coupling of Pittaluga, such that the hardness of the second plurality of buffer elements is greater than the first plurality of buffer elements, as taught in Graf, in order to allow for adjustment of torsional rigidity in order to adapt a coupling to a wide range of requirements.
Regarding claim 47, Pittaluga discloses the buffer elements of the second plurality of buffer elements (3; see annotated Figure 1 above) are tapered discorectangular in cross section (see Figure 3), but does not expressly disclose the buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements (3) are circular in cross-section. Pittaluga does however contemplate different cross sections for the buffer elements in page 1, line 90, through page 2, line 12.
Graf teaches buffer elements of a first plurality of buffer elements (3 or 4) are circular in cross-section (see Figure 3). Graf teaches modifying the shape of a buffer element allows for adjustment of torsional rigidity in order to adapt a coupling to a wide range of requirements (see paragraphs [0007]-[0014]). 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 coupling of Pittaluga, such that the buffer elements of the first plurality of buffer elements are circular in cross-section, as taught in Graf, in order to allow for adjustment of torsional rigidity in order to adapt a coupling to a wide range of requirements.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittaluga in view of US 7,040,988 (Kayamoto)
Pittaluga discloses an assembly (see Figures 1-5b) comprising:
a coupling having:
an outer member (1; see annotated Figure 1 above, as Pittaluga gives the same reference character to multiple members, as set forth on page 1, lines 63-66), an inner member (1), an intermediate member (1), and a plurality of buffer elements (3);
wherein the outer member comprises a plurality of radially inward projections (2; see annotated Figure 1 above, as Pittaluga gives the same reference character to multiple members, as set forth on page 1, lines 67-70), the inner member comprises a plurality of radially outward projections (2) and the intermediate member comprises a plurality of radially inward projections (2) and a plurality of radially outward projections (2);
wherein the plurality of buffer elements are disposed between the projections (see Figure 3); and
wherein the plurality of radially inward projections of the outer member and the plurality of radially outward projections of the intermediate member are radially overlapped, and the plurality of radially outward projections of the inner member and the plurality of radially inner projections of the intermediate member are radially overlapped (see Figure 3).
Pittaluga does not expressly disclose a first shaft and a second shaft; and wherein the first shaft is coupled to the inner member and the second shaft is coupled to the outer member.
Kayamoto teaches a first shaft (52)and a second shaft (51); and wherein the first shaft is coupled to an inner member (5) and the second shaft is coupled to an outer member (2; see Figure 2). Kayamoto teaches it is known in the art of couplings utilizing buffer elements to utilize said couplings between a first shaft and a second shaft to suppress noise generation between them (see column 2, lines 14-46). 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 assembly of Pittaluga to include a first shaft and a second shaft; and wherein the first shaft is coupled to the inner member and the second shaft is coupled to the outer member, as taught in Kayamoto, as Kayamoto teaches it is known in the art of couplings utilizing buffer elements to utilize said couplings between a first shaft and a second shaft to suppress noise generation between them.
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pittaluga in view of Kayamoto.
Regarding claim 49, as to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Pittaluga discloses a marine vessel comprising the coupling as defined in claim 26 (see Figures 1-5b, claim 26 rejection above, and NOTE 1 below).
NOTE 1: Given said marine vessel is only required by claim 49 to comprise the coupling as defined in claim 26, Pittaluga meets the requirements of claim 49.
Regarding claim 49, as to 35 U.S.C. 103, Pittaluga discloses the coupling as defined in claim 26, but does not explicitly discloses a marine vessel comprising the coupling as defined in claim 26.
Kayamoto teaches it is known in the art of marine vessels to provide couplings utilizing buffer elements to utilize said couplings on marine vessels to suppress noise generation between working parts of the marine vessel (see column 2, lines 14-46, and column 8, lines 46-49). 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 Pittaluga to be included in a marine vessel, as taught in Kayamoto, as Kayamoto teaches it is known in the art of marine vessels to provide couplings utilizing buffer elements to utilize said couplings one marine vessels to suppress noise generation between working parts of the marine vessel
Regarding claim 50, as to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Pittaluga discloses a generator comprising the coupling as defined in claim 26, wherein the generator is a diesel generator (see Figures 1-5b, claim 26 rejection above, and NOTE 2 below).
NOTE 2: Given said diesel generator is only required by claim 50 to comprise the coupling as defined in claim 26, Pittaluga meets the requirements of claim 50.
Regarding claim 50, as to 35 U.S.C. 103, Pittaluga discloses the coupling as defined in claim 26, but does not explicitly discloses a generator comprising the coupling as defined in claim 26, wherein the generator is a diesel generator.
Kayamoto teaches it is known in the art of diesel generators to provide couplings utilizing buffer elements to utilize said couplings with diesel generators to suppress noise generation between working parts of the diesel generator (see column 2, lines 14-46, and column 8, lines 46-49). 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 Pittaluga to be included in a marine vessel, as taught in Kayamoto, as Kayamoto teaches it is known in the art of diesel generators to provide couplings utilizing buffer elements to utilize said couplings with diesel generators to suppress noise generation between working parts of the diesel generator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pittaluga discloses the coupling of claim 30, but fails to disclose the inner member (1; see annotated Figure 1 above) and/or the intermediate member (1) and/or the outer member (1) comprise a plurality of apertures, the apertures extending from the first side to the second side of a respective one of the inner member, the intermediate member and the outer member, and wherein the apertures receive a respective axial buffer of a plurality of axial buffers.
The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Pittaluga such that the inner member and/or the intermediate member and/or the outer member comprise a plurality of apertures, the apertures extending from the first side to the second side of a respective one of the inner member, the intermediate member and the outer member, and wherein the apertures receive a respective axial buffer of a plurality of axial buffers. Further, such a modification to Pittaluga would require a thickening of the material of the inner member and/or the intermediate member and/or the outer member in order to provide locations for the apertures, thus changing the intended weight and balance of the coupling of Pittaluga.
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM ET.
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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
September 8, 2025