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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The phrase “said” (line 7 of the published document) should be deleted.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,756,354 to Clark.
Re-claim 1, Clark discloses a rotation speed reduction system, comprising: a fluid passage (see column 4 line 20 and figure 3) through which a pressurized fluid flows and flows toward a shaft 40/43; and an elastic member 58 includes a proximal end side fixed to a housing 36 (tabs 63 are fixed against rotation and connect to the housing), the elastic member further has a portion extending in an intersecting direction intersecting a direction in which the shaft extends (the elastic member extends around the shaft and intersects a plane of the shaft rotation, as in the instant invention), the elastic member is elastically deformed by the pressurized fluid flowing out from the fluid passage, to come into contact with the shaft. The fluid acts on a piston that in turn acts on the elastic member to compress the elastic member against the shaft.
Re-claim 3, the fluid passage is formed in the housing, see figure 3 and the connection of the hose to a housing part.
Re-claim 5, a pipe (fluid conduit and passage) provides pressurized fluid toward the shaft, the fluid passage is inside the pipe.
Re-claim 6, the elastic member 58 includes a circular arc portion disposed along a periphery of the shaft, see figure 5.
Re-claim 7, the elastic member includes a fluid receiving portion (such as end portions 63 receiving the applied pressure) that receives the fluid pressure, thereby increasing a contact pressure of the elastic member with the shaft.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 600,459 to Terrell.
Re-claim 1, Terrell discloses a rotation speed reduction system, comprising: a fluid passage f through which a pressurized fluid flows and flows toward a shaft (the entire wheel structure represents a shaft as the wheel is connected to a central shaft); an elastic member a1 includes a proximal end side fixed to a housing a (i.e. support), the elastic member further has a portion extending in an intersecting direction intersecting a direction in which the shaft extends, the elastic member is elastically deformed by the pressurized fluid flowing out from the fluid passage, to come into contact with the shaft. The fluid presses the elastic member against the shaft resulting in deformation of the elastic member (see figure 11).
Re-claim 5, a pipe f provides pressurized fluid toward the shaft, the fluid passage is inside the pipe.
Re-claim 6, the elastic member includes a circular arc portion disposed along a periphery of the shaft, see figure 3.
Re-claim 7, the elastic member includes a fluid receiving portion a2 that receives the fluid pressure, thereby increasing a contact pressure of the elastic member with the shaft.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 599,278 to Wolf in view of Terrell.
Re-claim 1, Wolf teaches a rotation speed reduction system, comprising: an elastic member 1 includes a proximal end side fixed to a housing (such as at 5), the elastic member further has a portion (i.e. distal end 8) extending in an intersecting direction intersecting a direction in which the shaft extends, the elastic member is elastically deformed into contact with the shaft (see figure 1 and dotted line condition). However, Wolf fails to teach the use of a pressurized fluid for deforming the elastic member, or a fluid passage through which the pressurized fluid flows toward the shaft.
Terrell teaches a pressurized fluid passing through a fluid passage toward a shaft structure and deforming an elastic member into contact with the shaft. This type of actuation achieves the same as the solid rod currently utilized by Wolf. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have provided the system of Wolf with a fluid pressure actuation arrangement of the type taught by Terrell, as the fluid pressure actuating system would have yielded the same expectant result as the rod, and is seen as a mere choice by the artisan.
Re-claim 5, as taught by Terrell, a pipe f provides pressurized fluid toward the shaft, the fluid passage is inside the pipe.
Re-claim 6, the elastic member 1 includes a circular arc portion disposed along a periphery of the shaft, see figure 1.
Re-claim 7, the elastic member includes a fluid receiving portion 12 that receives the fluid pressure, thereby increasing a contact pressure of the elastic member with the shaft.
Re-claim 11, the elastic member is spring metal, and thus has a conductivity, the wheel is rubber and thus provides a grounding effect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 8-10 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Herold, Means and Maurer each teach an elastic member deformed through application of a pressure or force causing a brake element to contact a rotating element.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
September 24, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616