Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
They fail to show a plurality of inner support teeth 52 pressed against the pressure ring 3 and fitting an anti-rotation device on the pressure ring 3 as recited in claim 9.
They fail to show a plurality of second grooves 32 pressed against the bottom surface of inner support teeth 52 as recited in claim 10.
They fail to show limiting protrusion 33 located at radially middle portion of the pressure ring 3 as recited in claim 12.
In the reply filed December 5, 2025, applicant request these objections be withdrawn without explaining where the above features are shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. As noted in detail above, the drawings fail to show many features recited in the claims. Thus applicant has failed to provide a working example of the claimed invention. As such, it would not be possible for one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In making this determination the examiner affirms that he has considered the breadth of the claims;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the nature of the invention;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the state of the prior art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the level of one of ordinary skill;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the level of predictability in the art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the amount of direction provided by the inventor; any
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
existence of working examples; and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In the reply filed December 5, 2025, applicant requests this rejection be withdrawn without pointing to where a working example of the claimed invention is provided in the description and the drawings.
Claims 9-12 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. As noted in detail above, the drawings fail to show many features recited in the claims. Without such it is not possible to accurately determine the metes and bounds of the claims.
In the reply filed December 5, 2025, applicant requests this rejection be withdrawn without pointing to where a working example of the claimed invention is provided in the description and the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, 13-14 & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saeki ‘269, US 7,824,269. At Fig. 13, Saeki ‘269 discloses a torque limiter, comprising:
a first ring (127), the first ring being adapted to be driven to rotate about a rotation
axis;
a second ring (121) that is at a certain distance from the first ring in the axial direction;
a pressure ring (125) located between the first ring and the second ring in the axial
direction;
a friction disc (123) slidably sandwiched between the second ring and the pressure ring; and
a spring washer (126) axially arranged between the first ring and the pressure ring,
the pressure ring receiving a pressing force from the spring washer and pressing the
friction disc against the second ring,
wherein the first ring-and the second ring are integrally formed (col. 19, lines 22-24), the first ring is provided with a plurality of first teeth (between recesses 127a), the spring washer is provided with a plurality of support teeth (126a), and each support tooth is supported by one first tooth,
wherein Fig. 13B shows the support teeth (12a) of the spring washer extend radially outwards, and the first teeth of the first ring (127) extend radially inwards,
wherein the support teeth (126a) of the spring washer are sized to be capable of passing between adjacent first teeth in the axial direction, so that the spring washer can pass over the first ring in the axial direction during assembly, and that the spring washer is rotatable by an angle in the circumferential direction during assembly, allowing the support teeth to be supported on the first teeth (col. 19, lines 15-19),
wherein a friction lining (122, 124) is arranged between the friction disc and the pressure ring and/or between the friction disc and the second ring.
Figs. 2 & 13 show a transmission system provided with a torque limiter and a torque damper, wherein the torque damper is provided with an input portion (4, 5), an output portion (3), and a spring (19) arranged to be compressed in the circumferential direction between the
input portion and the output portion; and the input portion of the torque damper is fixed on the friction disc (22) of the torque limiter.
In the reply filed December 5, 2025, applicant argues that Saeki ‘269 fails to disclose the first ring-127 and the second ring 121 as integrally formed because they’re described as being fastened together by fixing members. The argument is unpersuasive because “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326 (CCPA 1973).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 & 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.
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 Greg Binda whose telephone number is (571)272-7077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/Greg Binda/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679