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.
Specification
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “the terminal collar end of the collar portion has a first outer diameter and the flange end of the collar portion has a second outer diameter, wherein the first outer diameter is greater than the second outer diameter.” This limitation finds no basis in the disclosure as originally filed and therefore is not enabled. It is to be noted the disclosure sets forth the opposite, where the terminal collar end of the collar portion has a first outer diameter and the flange end of the collar portion has a second outer diameter, wherein the first outer diameter is less than the second outer diameter, as set forth in paragraph [0037] and shown in Figure 10. For the purpose of this action, this limitation has been interpreted as the first outer diameter is less than the second outer diameter.
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 1-6, 9, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,476,337 (Mullenburg).
Regarding claim 1, Mullenburg discloses a hub joint assembly (100) for connecting a shaft (1) to a connector (see Figure 1 and annotated Figure 1 below), the hub joint assembly comprising:
a coupling hub (4) including a collar portion (10) and a flange portion (5), wherein the collar portion includes a bore (at 3) defining an inner surface (3) that is configured to be positioned adjacent to an outer surface (2) of the shaft (see Figure 1), wherein the inner surface of the collar portion defines a keyway (11) configured to receive a key (6) defined on the shaft, wherein the collar portion further includes an outer surface (16) defined between a flange end (right side of Figure 1) and a terminal collar end (left side of Figure 1) of the collar portion (see also annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the flange portion extends from the collar portion to a terminal flange end (see Figure 1), and wherein the flange portion is configured to be coupled with the connector (see column 3, lines 3-7); and
a clamp ring (30) including a bore (at 17) having an inner surface (17), wherein the inner surface of the clamp ring is configured to mate with the outer surface of the coupling hub (see Figure 1), wherein the clamp ring further includes an outer surface and a terminal face surface (see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein a passage (26, 27) is defined in the clamp ring, wherein the passage extends from the outer surface of the clamp ring or the terminal face surface of the clamp ring to the inner surface of the clamp ring (see Figure 1), and wherein the terminal flange end of the flange portion of the coupling hub extends beyond the outer surface of the clamp ring (see Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1 of Mullenburg
Regarding claim 2, Mullenburg discloses the flange portion (5) extends perpendicularly from the collar portion (10; see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Mullenburg discloses the flange portion (5) is configured to be fixedly coupled with the connector (see column 3, lines 3-7; see also NOTE below).
NOTE: The Examiner notes the limitation, “the flange portion is configured to be fixedly coupled with the connector” constitutes an intended use recitation. Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Mullenburg discloses the flange portion (5) extends radially from the flange end (see annotated Figure 1 above) of the collar portion (10; see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Mullenburg discloses the terminal collar end (see annotated Figure 1 above) of the collar portion (10) has a first outer diameter and the flange end of the collar portion has a second outer diameter (see annotated Figure 1 above), wherein the first outer diameter is less than the second outer diameter (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Mullenburg discloses the collar portion (10) includes a first thickness at the terminal collar end (see annotated Figure 1 above), wherein the collar portion includes a second thickness at the flange end (see annotated Figure 1 above), and wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Mullenburg discloses the inner surface (3) of the collar portion (10) is cylindrical (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Mullenburg discloses the outer surface (see annotated Figure 1 above) of the clamp ring (30) is configured to be positioned within a bore formed in the connector (see Figure 1 and NOTE 2 below).
NOTE 2: The Examiner notes the limitation, “discloses the outer surface of the clamp ring is configured to be positioned within a bore formed in the connector” constitutes an intended use recitation. Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since the limitation of claim 10 depends wholly on the size of the bore of a connector which is not positively claimed, the size of said bore can be arbitrarily selected such that the outer surface of the clamp ring is configured to be positioned within a bore formed in the connector of Mullenburg, and as such, Mullenburg is capable of performing the intended use
Regarding claim 15, Mullenburg discloses the coupling hub (4) is configured to be positioned on only a single shaft (1; see Figure 1).
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenburg in view of US 4,884,916 (Johnson).
Mullenburg discloses the hub joint assembly in accordance with claim 4, but does not expressly disclose the inner surface of the terminal collar end (see annotated Figure 1 above) of the coupling hub (4) is threaded, and further comprising a shaft plug threadably coupled with the terminal collar end.
Johnson teaches an inner surface of a first distal end of a coupling hub (9) is threaded, wherein a shaft plug (21) is threadably coupled with the first distal end (see Figure 2). Johnson teaches this structure prevents relative rotation between the parts of a hub joint assembly (see Figure 2 and column 5, line 37, through column 6, line 27). 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 hub joint assembly of Mullenburg such that the inner surface of the first distal end of the coupling hub is threaded, wherein a shaft plug threadably coupled with the first distal end, as taught in Johnson, in order to prevent relative rotation between the parts of a hub joint assembly.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenburg in view of the publication, Phosphate Coating & Phosphating (MCC).
Mullenburg discloses the hub joint assembly in accordance with claim 1, but does not expressly disclose an anti-adhesion coating disposed on the inner surface (17) of the clamp ring (30), wherein the anti-adhesion coating is a chemical conversion coating, and further wherein the conversion coating is formed of manganese phosphate.
MCC discloses providing a manganese phosphate coating provides to parts to be connected in order to provide corrosion protection, anti-galling and lubricity (see paragraph under “Manganese Phosphate Coating”). 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 hub joint assembly of Mullenburg, such that an anti-adhesion coating is disposed on the inner surface of the clamp ring, wherein the anti-adhesion coating is a chemical conversion coating, and further wherein the conversion coating is formed of manganese phosphate, as taught in MCC, in order to order to provide corrosion protection, anti-galling and lubricity.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenburg in view of US 2010/0230228 (Wernecke).
Mullenburg discloses the hub joint assembly in accordance with claim 1, but does not expressly disclose at least one of the inner surface (17) of the clamp ring (30) and the outer surface (2) of the coupling hub (4) has one or more distribution grooves formed therein.
Wernecke teaches at least one of the inner surface of a clamp ring (31) or the outer surface of a coupling hub (21) have one or more distribution grooves (34) formed therein in order to provide a means of distributing lubrication along the whole of the clamp ring and/or coupling hub (see Figure 8 and paragraph [0007]). 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 hub joint assembly of Mullenburg such that at least one of the inner surface of the clamp ring or the outer surface of the coupling hub have one or more distribution grooves formed therein, as taught in Wernecke, in order to provide a means of distributing lubrication along the whole of the clamp ring and/or coupling hub.
Claims 16, 19, 33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenburg in view of US 4,979,842 (Miller).
Regarding claim 16, Mullenburg discloses the hub joint assembly in accordance with claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the coupling hub (4) is configured as a two-piece sub-assembly, wherein the collar portion (10) is removably coupled to the flange portion (5).
Miller teaches a coupling hub (12, 13) is configured as a two-piece sub-assembly, wherein the collar portion (13) is removably coupled to a flange portion (12). Miller teaches this structure provides adjustability to the hub joint assembly in that fasteners (15) allow for clamp rings (2) of various lengths, while still providing a hub joint assembly that has a high degree of safety for force transmission (see Figure 1 and column 1, lines 52-58). 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 hub joint assembly of Mullenburg such that the coupling hub is configured as a two-piece sub-assembly, wherein the collar portion is removably coupled to the flange portion, as taught in Miller, in order to provide adjustability to the hub joint assembly, while still providing a hub joint assembly that has a high degree of safety for force transmission.
Regarding claim 19, Miller teaches the collar portion (13) is secured to the flange portion (12) by one or more fasteners (15; see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 33, Mullenburg discloses a hub joint assembly (100) for connecting a shaft (1) to a connector (see Figure 1 and annotated Figure 1 above), the hub joint assembly comprising:
a coupling hub (4) including a collar portion (10) and a flange portion (5), wherein the collar portion includes a bore (at 3) defining an inner surface (3) that is configured to be positioned adjacent to an outer surface (2) of the shaft (see Figure 1), wherein the collar portion further includes an outer surface (16) defined between a flange end (right side of Figure 1) and a terminal collar end (left side of Figure 1) of the collar portion (see also annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the flange portion extends from the collar portion to a terminal flange end (see Figure 1), and wherein the flange portion is configured to be coupled with the connector (see column 3, lines 3-7); and
a clamp ring (30) including a bore (at 17) having an inner surface (17), wherein the inner surface of the clamp ring is configured to mate with the outer surface of the coupling hub (see Figure 1), wherein the clamp ring further includes an outer surface and a terminal face surface (see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein a passage (26, 27) is defined in the clamp ring, wherein the passage extends from the outer surface of the clamp ring or the terminal face surface of the clamp ring to the inner surface of the clamp ring (see Figure 1), and wherein the terminal flange end of the flange portion of the coupling hub extends beyond the outer surface of the clamp ring (see Figure 1).
Mullenburg does not expressly disclose the coupling hub being configured as a two-piece sub-assembly including the collar portion removably coupled to the flange portion.
Miller teaches a coupling hub (12, 13) is configured as a two-piece sub-assembly, wherein the collar portion (13) is removably coupled to a flange portion (12). Miller teaches this structure provides adjustability to the hub joint assembly in that fasteners (15) allow for clamp rings (2) of various lengths, while still providing a hub joint assembly that has a high degree of safety for force transmission (see Figure 1 and column 1, lines 52-58). 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 hub joint assembly of Mullenburg such that the coupling hub is configured as a two-piece sub-assembly, wherein the collar portion is removably coupled to the flange portion, as taught in Miller, in order to provide adjustability to the hub joint assembly, while still providing a hub joint assembly that has a high degree of safety for force transmission.
Regarding claim 36, Miller teaches the collar portion (13) is secured to the flange portion (12) by one or more fasteners (15; see Figure 1).
Claims 17, 18, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mullenburg and Miller, and further in view of US 9,309,926 (Schuermann).
The combination of Mullenburg and Miller teaches the hub joint assembly in accordance with claims 16 and 33, but does not expressly disclose the flange end of the collar portion (10 of Mullenburg; 13 of Miller) comprises a first non-planar end face, wherein the flange portion (5 of Mullenburg; 12 of Miller) includes an inner wall, and wherein the inner wall comprises a second non-planar end face configured to matingly engage with the first non-planar end face of the flange end, wherein the first and second non-planar end faces define mating crenelated surface profiles.
Schuermann teaches a flange end of a collar portion (15) comprises a first non-planar end face (1a), wherein a flange portion (14) includes an inner wall, and wherein the inner wall comprises a second non-planar end face (1b) configured to matingly engage with the first non-planar end face of the flange end, wherein the first and second non-planar end faces define mating crenelated surface profiles (see Figure 7). Schuermann teaches this structure provides a detachable connection that exhibits a precise fit which prevents disengaging (see column 8, lines 48-60). 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 hub joint assembly of the combination of Mullenburg and Miller such that the flange end of the collar portion comprises a first non-planar end face, wherein the flange portion includes an inner wall, and wherein the inner wall comprises a second non-planar end face configured to matingly engage with the first non-planar end face of the flange end, wherein the first and second non-planar end faces define mating crenelated surface profiles, as taught in Schuermann, in order to provide provides a detachable connection that exhibits a precise fit which prevents disengaging.
Claims 20 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mullenburg and Miller, and further in view of US 6,139,215 (Kuhne).
The combination of Mullenburg and Miller teaches the hub joint assembly in accordance with claims 16 and 33, respectively, wherein the collar portion (10 of Mullenburg; 13 of Miller) is constructed of a different material than the flange portion (5 of Mullenburg; 12 of Miller).
Kuhne teaches it is a design choice known in the art of connections between collar portions (3) and flange portions (2) to choose between portions which are formed from the same material or from different materials, as a cost and weight savings measure (see column 4, lines 10-26). 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 hub joint assembly of the combination of Mullenburg and Miller such that the collar portion is constructed of a different material than the flange portion, as taught in Kuhne, as Kuhne teaches it is a design choice known in the art of connections between collar portion and flange portions to choose between portions which are formed from the same material or from different materials, as a cost and weight savings measure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-32 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Mullenburg discloses a hub joint assembly (100) for frictionally connecting to a shaft (1) of a first device (see Figure 1 and annotated Figure 1 above), the hub joint assembly comprising:
a coupling hub (4) including a collar portion (10) and a flange portion (5), wherein the collar portion includes a bore (at 3) defining an inner surface (3) that is configured to be positioned adjacent to an outer surface (2) of the shaft (see Figure 1), wherein the inner surface of the collar portion defines a keyway (11) configured to receive a key (6) defined on the shaft, wherein the collar portion further includes an outer surface (16) defined between a flange end (right side of Figure 1) and a terminal collar end (left side of Figure 1) of the collar portion (see also annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the flange portion extends from the collar portion to a terminal flange end (see Figure 1); and
a clamp ring (30) including a bore (at 17) having an inner surface (17), wherein the inner surface of the clamp ring is configured to mate with the outer surface of the coupling hub (see Figure 1), wherein the clamp ring further includes an outer surface and a terminal face surface (see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein a passage (26, 27) is defined in the clamp ring, wherein the passage extends from the outer surface of the clamp ring or the terminal face surface of the clamp ring to the inner surface of the clamp ring (see Figure 1), and wherein the terminal flange end of the flange portion of the coupling hub extends beyond the outer surface of the clamp ring (see Figure 1).
a connector (see column 3, lines 3-7) having a first end, a second end and a side wall extending between the first and second ends (an inherent feature of a gear in that a toothed outer sidewall or interior sidewall for connecting to a shaft are provided between first and second ends).
Mullenburg fails to disclose the first end is secured to the flange portion of the coupling hub such that an open space is defined between the side wall of the connector and the outer surface of the clamp ring. Given the connector of Mullenburg is in the form of a gear (see column 3, lines 3-7) which interacts with an outer radial surface of the flange portion (5), the first end of the flange portion cannot be secured (i.e. fixed or fastened) as required by claim 21, as such a securement would render Mullenburg inoperable due to the inherent nature of gearing. Further, given the sidewall of the connector of Mullenburg interacts with the radial outer surface of the flange portion, there would be no “open space” as required by claim 21.
Attention is also directed to DE 19512363 (Stuwe; the citations of which are taken from the attached translation) which provides a hub joint assembly (1) for connecting a shaft (2) to a connector (see paragraph [0003]) via fasteners engaged in holes (26) in a flange portion (23). However, even if Mullenburg could be modified to include the fastener-hole connecting structure of Stuwe, there is no explicit teaching which would provide for an open space being defined between the side wall of the connector and the outer surface of the clamp ring, especially given the side wall of the connector of Stuwe is located to the left of the flange portion (23), while an outer surface (32) of the clamp ring (8) is to the right of the flange portion (see Figure).
As such, the prior art fails to fairly show or suggest, alone or in combination, a hub joint assembly for frictionally connecting to a shaft of a first device comprising all the limitations of independent claim 21.
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
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
January 16, 2026