DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 7-13 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinzelmann (DE 102013208211 A1) in view of Toraason (US 5242033 A).
Regarding claim 1, Heinzelmann discloses a gearwheel arrangement (see Fig. 4), comprising: a gearwheel (2) configured to be rotatable about an axis of rotation (see annotated Fig. 4 below; A), the gearwheel comprising a gearwheel body (see annotated Fig. 4 below; B) and an annular gear tooth section (see annotated Fig. 4 below; C) extending around the gearwheel body, the gear tooth section comprising a plurality of external gear teeth (12), wherein the gear tooth section includes an annular flange (see annotated Fig. 4 below; D) formed integrally with the gearwheel and delimiting at least one radially inwardly facing surface (see annotated Fig. 4 below; E) in an axial direction (see annotated Fig. 4 below; direction of A), wherein at least a part of the gear tooth section extends past a radially outer portion of the gearwheel body (see annotated Fig. 4 below; F) in an axial direction of the gearwheel (see annotated Fig. 4 below; direction along A), so that the at least one radially inwardly facing surface is provided opposite of the external gear teeth (see annotated Fig. 4 below, wherein E is provided opposite 12), means (internal cavity of 20, 22) for guiding a cooling fluid (4) toward the at least one radially inwardly facing surface so as to cool the gear tooth section during rotation of the gearwheel about the axis of rotation (via oil flow direction 6), wherein the annular flange controls a flow of the cooling fluid (see annotated Fig. 4 below, wherein D would inherently control the flow of cooling fluid 4), and wherein the annular gear tooth section of the gearwheel arrangement does not comprise any conduit or bore (see annotated Fig. 4 below, wherein the annular gear tooth section C does not comprise any conduit or bore), such that the cooling of the gear tooth section is achieved by retaining and distributing the cooling fluid along the at least one radially inwardly facing surface without the cooling fluid passing through the gearwheel (see annotated Fig. 4 below, wherein cooling fluid 4 is retained and distributed along the radially inwardly facing surface E without passing through the gearwheel). Heinzelmann fails to disclose the means for guiding the cooling fluid toward the at least one radially inwardly facing surface comprises a conduit having an outlet arranged at a terminal end of the conduit and radially inside of the at least one radially inwardly facing surface to provide the cooling fluid to the at least one radially inwardly facing surface, However, Toraason teaches the means for guiding the cooling fluid (see Fig. 1; 24, 38b, 38, 38a, 36, 34) toward the at least one radially inwardly facing surface (see Fig. 3; 26a) comprises a conduit (24) having an outlet (outlet of 24) arranged at a terminal end of the conduit (see Fig. 1, wherein the outlet of 24 is arranged at the terminal end of 24) and radially inside of the at least one radially inwardly facing surface to provide the cooling fluid to the at least one radially inwardly facing surface (see Fig. 3, wherein the outlet of 24 is radially inside of 26a to provide cooling fluid to 26a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Heinzelmann with a means for guiding the cooling, as taught by Toraason, to provide a high speed gear cooling system in which a separate flow circuit is provided for removal of heat, separate and apart from lubrication systems (see column 2 lines 36-39); to provide a high speed gear cooling system which minimizes splatter and lubricant impingement inside the gear box (see column 2 lines 40-42); and to provide a high speed gear cooling system capable of scavenging all or nearly all of the cooling fluid that is introduced into the gear box (see column 2 lines 43-46). The combination above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the outlet (Toraason; outlet of 24) is configured to provide the cooling fluid (Heinzelmann; 4) radially inside of the annular gear tooth section (Heinzelmann; C) such that, during rotation of the gearwheel (Heinzelmann; 2), centrifugal forces force the cooling fluid radially outward onto the at least one radially inwardly facing surface (Heinzelmann; E), and wherein the conduit (Toraason; 24) is arranged separately from the gearwheel (Toraason; Fig. 1, wherein 24 is arranged separately from gearwheel 14).
Regarding claim 2, Heinzelmann discloses the at least one radially inwardly facing surface (see annotated Fig. 4 below; E) comprises a first annular surface extending between a first side surface of the gear tooth section (see annotated Fig. 4 below; G) and a first side surface of the gearwheel body (see annotated Fig. 4 below; H).
Regarding claim 3, Heinzelmann fails to disclose the at least one radially inwardly facing surface further comprises a second annular surface extending between a second side surface of the gear tooth section and a second side surface of the gearwheel body, the first and the second annular surfaces being formed on axially opposite sides of the radially outer portion of the gearwheel body. However, it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this instance, providing a second annular surface on an axially opposite side of the radially outer portion of the gearwheel body would produce the expected result of providing cooling to the other side of the gear tooth section.
Regarding claim 4, Heinzelmann discloses the at least one radially inwardly facing surface (see annotated Fig. 4 below; E) forms part of at least one annular groove (groove in 16) extending around the axis of rotation (see annotated Fig. 4 below; A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the means (Toraason; 24, 38b, 38, 38a, 36, 34) for guiding the cooling fluid (Heinzelmann; 4) further comprises a pump (Toraason; 38) for providing the cooling fluid to the outlet (Toraason; outlet of 24).
Regarding claim 8, Heinzelmann discloses a transmission for a vehicle (see attached English translation, page 2 paragraph 6, wherein a vehicle transmission is disclosed), the transmission comprising a shaft (20) extending in the axial direction (see annotated Fig. 4 below; direction of A) and the gearwheel arrangement according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 elsewhere above), the gearwheel of the gearwheel arrangement being provided on the shaft (see Fig. 4).
Claim 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connolly (US 9828924 B1) in view of Heinzelmann (DE 102013208211 A1) and Toraason (US 5242033 A).
Regarding claim 9, Connolly discloses a powertrain of a vehicle (see Fig. 1, 10). Connolly fails to disclose the transmission according to claim 8. However, Heinzelmann in view of Toraason teach the transmission according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Connolly with the transmission of claim 8, as taught by Heinzelmann, to provide a toothed component which allows improved heat dissipation in order thus to replace other cooling measures or at least to improve the heat dissipation in conjunction with further measures (Heinzelmann; see attached English translation, page 1 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 10, Connolly discloses at least one electric machine (see Fig. 1; 26) configured for propulsion of the vehicle (see Fig. 1), and/or at least one other propulsion unit configured to be operated at a rotational speed to recover heat from exhaust.
Regarding claim 11, Connolly discloses a vehicle (see Fig. 1), a transmission (32) comprising a shaft (34) extending in the axial direction, and a powertrain (10) comprising at least one electric machine (26) configured for propulsion of the vehicle (see Fig. 1), and/or at least one other propulsion unit configured to be operated at a rotational speed. Connolly fails to disclose the gearwheel arrangement according to claim 1. However, Heinzelmann in view of Toraason teach the gearwheel arrangement according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Connolly with the transmission of claim 8, as taught by Heinzelmann, to provide a toothed component which allows improved heat dissipation in order thus to replace other cooling measures or at least to improve the heat dissipation in conjunction with further measures (Heinzelmann; see attached English translation, page 1 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 12, Connolly teaches a powertrain of a vehicle (10). Connolly fails to disclose the gearwheel arrangement according to claim 1. However, Heinzelmann in view of Toraason teach the gearwheel arrangement according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Connolly with the transmission of claim 8, as taught by Heinzelmann, to provide a toothed component which allows improved heat dissipation in order thus to replace other cooling measures or at least to improve the heat dissipation in conjunction with further measures (Heinzelmann; see attached English translation, page 1 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 13, Connolly discloses at least one electric machine (see Fig. 1; 26) configured for propulsion of the vehicle (see Fig. 1), and/or at least one other propulsion unit configured to be operated at a rotational speed to recover heat from exhaust.
PNG
media_image1.png
668
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - DE 102013208211 A1 Fig. 4 Annotated
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the Office Action fails to identify any disclosure in Heinzelmann that cooling fluid is retained on the allegedly corresponding surface, that fluid flow is controlled by the allegedly corresponding flange structure, or that centrifugal forces causes cooling fluid to be distributed along a radially inwardly facing surface, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to take the position that the prior art has to explicitly disclose each and every limitation to read on the claims. This is categorically false. MPEP 2125 states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).” In this instance, Heinzelmann clearly shows the structure which is claimed, which can be seen in annotated Fig. 4 above. Additionally, as noted by MPEP 2125, even if the features are unexplained in the specification, the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonable disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the drawings of Heinzelmann that cooling fluid would be retained on surface E, the fluid is controlled by flange structure D and that centrifugal forces causes the cooling fluid to be distributed along the radially inwardly facing surface E, which is shown by oil flow path 6. Therefore, the Heinzelmann in view of Toraason disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Heinzelmann does not disclose the claimed annular flange that controls a flow of the cooling fluid, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the limitation “wherein the annular flange controls a flow of the cooling fluid” was discussed during the interview of 02/21/2025. It was agreed during the interview that a flange itself provides control to the fluid, and without a flange the fluid be uncontrolled. As such, the flange D of Heinzelmann controls the flow of the cooling fluid. If Applicant wishes the limitation to be interpreted differently, the Examiner would have consider further 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Heinzelmann does not disclose the claimed conduit and an outlet arranged at a terminal end of the conduit, the argument is rendered moot in view of a new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the rejection of claim 3 relies on the claimed invention itself, rather than a teaching of Heinzelmann, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in rejection and arguments presented above, Heinzelmann in view of Toraason disclose all the limitations of claim 1. As such, the rejection is maintained. If Applicant wishes to overcome the rejection of claim 3, Applicant is invited to provide evidence of new and unexpected results.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Office Action does not identify any disclosure in Heinzelmann referring to an annular groove, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the arguments above, MPEP 2125 states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).” In this instance, Heinzelmann clearly shows a groove in element 16. Therefore, Heinzelmann in view of Toraason disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
