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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 7/2/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of species IA and subspecies A and 2 in the reply filed on 7/2/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In at least ¶44, reference character 61 is both a frustoconical element and a frustoconical surface. Among ¶44-45, both of reference characters 61 and 62 are referred to as a frustoconical element. As best understood by the Examiner, based on at least fig. 3A, elements 60, 62 are the frustoconical elements, and elements 61, 63 are frustoconical surfaces.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Instant ¶49 discloses
“In certain embodiments, the first and second sets of teeth 52, 56 are at least partially axially aligned with, and therefore least partially overlaps, the frustoconical elements 60, 62. Or stated differently, the frustoconical surfaces 61, 63 of the frustoconical elements 60, 62 are at least partially axially aligned with (i.e., they at least partially axially overlap) one or both of the first and second sets of teeth 52, 56. For example, as seen in FIGS. 3A-3B, the second set of teeth 56 on the reference tube 58 are axially aligned with the first and second frustoconical elements 60, 62, wherein the second set of teeth 56, the first frustoconical element 60 and the second frustoconical element 62 are all located in (or are intersected by) a common axial plane 92 that is perpendicular to the central axis 11.”
PNG
media_image1.png
628
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3B above shows that the alignment/overlap between the teeth 56 and both of the frustoconical elements 60, 62 is along a direction perpendicular to the axial direction. Accordingly, Applicant is acting as their own lexicographer, and the phrase “axially overlap” in claim 8 will be interpreted as meaning the axially overlapping elements overlap in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction.
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(s) 1-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morissette et al. (US 4682505 A, hereinafter Morissette) in view of Parkinson (US 3548649 A) and Sugimoto et al. (US 4942771 A, hereinafter Sugimoto).
As to claim 1, Morissette teaches a torque measurement system for an aircraft propulsor including a reduction gearbox (the abstract teaches that the system is for use with a gas turbine engine, which is capable of being connected with a reduction gearbox; alternatively, the torque measurement system of Morissette is capable of being used with such an aircraft propulsor), comprising:
a first toothed wheel 24, 26 (see col. 2, lines 25-36 and the first para. of col. 3, which teaches that rim 24 has teeth 74) mounted to a loaded shaft 28 (shaft 28 is loaded by output shaft 12 – see col. 2 lines 25-30) of the torque measurement system, the loaded shaft being rotatable about a central axis and having an input end (right end in the figure) driven by an output shaft of the aircraft propulsor (see col. 2 lines 25-30; alternatively, col. 2 lines 25-30 teaches a configuration of the loaded shaft such that the loaded shaft is capable of being driven by an output shaft of the aircraft propulsor) and an output end (left end) transmitting torque to the reduction gearbox (again, the system of Morissette is capable of use with a reduction gearbox in the claimed manner);
a second toothed wheel 58, 76 mounted to a torque reference tube 36 radially spaced apart from the loaded shaft and concentric therewith;
a torque probe 72 (col. 3 lines 4-16) located proximate the first toothed wheel and the second toothed wheel, the torque probe in communication with a controller of the aircraft propulsor for determining the torque transmitted by the output shaft based on a difference in relative position between teeth on the first and second toothed wheels (the output of the torque probe 72 is based on the inter-tooth distance between teeth 74, 76 which changes based on torque, as taught by col. 3 lines 4-16; accordingly, the probe 72 is capable of being used such that it is in communication with a controller of the aircraft propulsor for determining the torque transmitted by the output shaft based on a difference in relative position between teeth on the first and second toothed wheels).
Morissette does not teach a frustoconical element located proximate the input end of the loaded shaft, the frustoconical element comprising an annular body radially disposed between the loaded shaft and the torque reference tube and being mounted to one of the loaded shaft and the torque reference tube for rotation therewith, the frustoconical element including a frustoconical surface facing towards the other of the loaded shaft and the torque reference tube and abutting a complementary running surface, wherein the frustoconical surface of the frustoconical element and the complementary running surface rotate relative to each other and define a contact interface, the contact interface being annular and oriented at an angle relative to the central axis.
Parkinson teaches a loaded shaft 2 and a reference tube 8, wherein the end of the reference tube that moves relative to the loaded shaft is supported by a bearing 12 between the reference tube and loaded shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Morissette to support the reference tube with respect to the loaded shaft with a bearing as taught by Parkinson so as to prevent foreign debris from entering the gap between the reference tube and loaded shaft.
[AltContent: textbox (SFCE)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (RE)][AltContent: textbox (RS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FCS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FE)]
PNG
media_image2.png
504
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sugimoto teaches the concept of providing rotational support by using a taper roller bearing 4a (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the bearing of the modified Morissette with the raper roller bearing of Sugimoto for the benefit that taper roller bearings are well-known and simple, for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Morissette as modified teaches a frustoconical element FE (fig. 1 of Sugimoto above) located proximate the input end of the loaded shaft (in the modified Morissette, the frustoconical element would be axially near the teeth of Morissette, which is axially near the input end of the loaded shaft), the frustoconical element comprising an annular body FE (Sugimoto) radially disposed between the loaded shaft and the torque reference tube (as taught by Parkinson) and being mounted to one of the loaded shaft and the torque reference tube for rotation therewith, the frustoconical element including a frustoconical surface FCS (fig. 1 of Sugimoto above) facing towards the other of the loaded shaft and the torque reference tube and abutting (through roller elements RE – fig. 1 of Sugimoto above) a complementary (substantially complementary) running surface RS (fig. 1 of Sugimoto above), wherein the frustoconical surface of the frustoconical element and the complementary running surface rotate relative to each other and define a contact interface (at least with the roller elements), the contact interface being annular and oriented at an angle relative to the central axis.
As to claim 2, Morissette as modified teaches wherein the frustoconical element FE (Sugimoto) is a first frustoconical element FE (Sugimoto) fixed to the loaded shaft (the frustoconical element is an inner bearing element, meaning that, in the modified Morissette, the frustoconical element is fixed to the loaded shaft of Morissette), and the torque measurement system includes a second frustoconical element SFCE (fig. 1 of Sugimoto above) fixed to the torque reference tube, the complementary running surface RS (Sugimoto) being a second frustoconical surface of the second frustoconical element.
As to claim 3, Morissette as modified teaches wherein the frustoconical surface of the first frustoconical element faces radially outward (as taught by Sugimoto) toward the torque reference tube, and the second frustoconical surface of the second frustoconical element facing radially inward (as taught by Sugimoto) toward the loaded shaft.
As to claim 4, Morissette as modified teaches wherein the frustoconical surface of the first frustoconical element faces axially forward (as broadly recited) and the second frustoconical surface of the second frustoconical element faces axially rearward (as broadly recited).
As to claim 5, Morissette as modified teaches wherein the angle of the contact interface is an acute angle (fig. 1 of Sugimoto) relative to the central axis.
As to claim 6, Morissette as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the angle is between 0 and 45 degrees.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that a claimed device with the recited angle would perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Morissette as modified such that the angle is between 0 and 45 degrees, since such a modification would be a mere change in the size of the angle for the predictable result that the bearing still successfully rotationally supports the reference tube with respect to the loaded shaft.
As to claim 7, Morissette as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the angle is between 20 and 30 degrees.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that a claimed device with the recited angle would perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Morissette as modified such that the angle is between 20 and 30 degrees, since such a modification would be a mere change in the size of the angle for the predictable result that the bearing still successfully rotationally supports the reference tube with respect to the loaded shaft.
As to claim 8, Morissette as modified teaches wherein the frustoconical surface of the frustoconical element and the complementary running surface at least partially axially overlap the teeth on the first toothed wheel and the second toothed wheel (Parkinson teaches that the bearing 12 is positioned at the very end of the reference tube 8, meaning this is also the case in the modified Morissette; the figure of Morissette shows that the free end of the reference tube axially overlaps with both sets of teeth; accordingly, in the modified Morissette, the frustoconical surface of the frustoconical element and the complementary running surface at least partially axially overlap the teeth on the first toothed wheel and the second toothed wheel).
As to claim 9, Morissette as modified teaches wherein a common axial plane that is perpendicular to the central axis interests all of: the teeth on the first toothed wheel; the teeth the second toothed wheel; the frustoconical surface; and the complementary running surface (as explained in the rejection of claim 8, in the modified Morissette, the frustoconical surface of the frustoconical element and the complementary running surface at least partially axially overlap the teeth on the first toothed wheel and the second toothed wheel; this means that a common axial plane that is perpendicular to the central axis interests all of: the teeth on the first toothed wheel; the teeth the second toothed wheel; the frustoconical surface; and the complementary running surface).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Figure of Morissette)]
PNG
media_image3.png
306
870
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (U)]
As to claim 12, Morissette teaches wherein the torque reference tube 36 includes an annular wall that has a plurality of undulations therein (section U of the figure of Morissette above shows that the reference tube 36 has the recited undulations).
As to claim 13, Morissette teaches wherein the annular wall of the torque reference tube 36 is crenulated and formed by a plurality of interconnected and integrally formed axially extending wall segments and radially extending wall segments (see section U in the figure of Morissette above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 10, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of ”an axial locating element located proximate to the output end of the loaded shaft, the axial locating element acting between an annular flange on the loaded shaft and a opposing flange on the torque reference tube” all in combination with the rest of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter for depending from claim 10.
Morissette is considered the closest prior art of record, and teaches an axially locating element 50, which is a retaining ring. However, Morissette’s retaining ring 50 does not act between an annular flange on the loaded shaft and a opposing flange on the torque reference tube, as recited in claim 10, and there would have been no reason to modify Morissette’s retaining ring 50 to meet the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3403550 A teaches at least two axial locating elements 54, 56, but they do not act in the location recited by claim 10
US 4488443 A teaches a bearing 16 between a reference tube and a loaded shaft
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights