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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendments/remarks filed on 06/19/2026. Claims 1-12 are pending; claim 8 has been amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HAUPT (US 20110027105 A1)
Claim 1: a transmission assembly (Fig.7) for an electromechanical wheel brake for a motor vehicle (“for an electromechanical wheel brake for a motor vehicle” defines the intended use or environment of the claimed transmission assembly and does not impose structural limitations. Furthermore, HAUPT discloses planetary transmission assembly for use in motor vehicle drivetrain (see abstract), which is structurally capable of use in the environment of the electromechanical wheel brake for a motor vehicle) comprising:
a planetary transmission (2; Fig.7) having a sun wheel (3), which is connected for conjoint rotation to a drive shaft (7), a number of planet wheels (e.g. pinion gears that carrier 5 holds), which are rotatably mounted on a planet carrier (5), and
an annulus (4, 6) surrounding the planet wheels (e.g. pinion gears);
wherein the planet carrier (5) is connected for conjoint rotation to an output shaft (1);
wherein the planet wheels (e.g. pinion gears) are supported by the planet carrier (5) in such a way that they can roll both on the sun wheel (3) and on the annulus (4, 6);
wherein the annulus (4, 6) is a freewheel or comprises a freewheel (6), and can rotate freely in a first position (free direction) and is held fixed against rotation in a second (lock direction), opposite direction of rotation during the operation of the transmission assembly such that the transmission assembly has at least a first and a second reduction ratio (¶[0041] when clutch 9 is disengaged, a slow running transmission ratio is produced; and clutch 9 is engaged, the planetary transmission is blocked.); a clutch (9) located between the drive shaft (7) and the planet carrier (5) (as shown in Fig.7).
Claim 2: The transmission assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the first reduction ratio (e.g. when 9 is engaged), the torque can be transmitted from the drive shaft (7) to the output shaft (1) via the clutch (9).
Claim 5: The transmission assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the second reduction ratio (when clutch 9 is disengaged), the torque can be transmitted from the drive shaft (7) to the planet wheels (pinion gears) via the sun wheel (3).
Claim 6: The transmission assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the clutch (9) is designed
Claim 7: The transmission assembly as claimed claim 1, wherein the first direction of rotation (free direction) corresponds to the direction of rotation of the drive shaft (7) during brake application (during forward operation, the drive shaft rotates forward and freewheel allow to free rotation in this direction for the transmission to operation in direct drive mode)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STEINKE (EP0372219A2 cited from IDS)
STEINKE discloses:
Claim 12: A method for operating an electromechanical wheel brake of a motor vehicle (see title), comprising;
rotating a freewheel (36) freely in a first direction of rotation (¶[0018]: with clutch 29’ closed, the ring gear rotates freely in direction of the drive shaft (first direction) because freewheel allow rotation in this direction); and
holding the freewheel (36) fixed against rotation in a second (¶[0018]: when clutch 29’ opens, the ring gear attempts to rotate in opposite direction-reverse. Freewheel 36 holds the ring fixed against this reverse rotation), opposite direction of rotation during the operation of a transmission assembly such that the transmission assembly has at least a first (¶[0018] as in first position, 29’ is closed and 36 is opened) and a second reduction ratio (¶[0018] as in second position when 29’ is opened and 36 is engaged).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAUPT (US 20110027105 A1).
Claim 3: HAUPT discloses the transmission assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the clutch (6) is designed as a physically solid element (6 is solid structure); except for the clutch is arranged between the end face of the drive shaft and the inner wall of the planet carrier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the clutch to positioned between the end face of drive shaft and inner wall of carrier for the purpose of reducing axial packaging length and simplifying torque transfer. By placing clutch between the end face of drive shaft and inner wall of carrier is routine mechanical configuration in planetary transmission because carrier hub surrounds the input shaft providing an internal engagement surface. A person of ordinary skill in the transmission art would therefore have recognize the shaft carrier interface as obvious structural location for implementing the clutch coupling. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINKE (EP0372219A2 cited from IDS) in view of HAUPT (US 20110027105 A1)
Claim 1: STEINKE discloses a transmission assembly for an electromechanical wheel brake (see title) for a motor vehicle comprising:
a planetary transmission (24’; Figs.2-3) having a sun wheel (30), which is connected for conjoint rotation to a drive shaft (35; Fig.3), a number of planet wheels (32), which are rotatably mounted on a planet carrier (33) (see Fig.2), and
an annulus (31, 36) surrounding the planet wheels (32) (see Fig.2);
wherein the planet carrier (33) is connected for conjoint rotation to an output shaft (34);
wherein the planet wheels (32) are supported by the planet carrier (33) in such a way that they can roll both on the sun wheel (30) and on the annulus (31) (see Fig.2);
wherein the annulus (31,36) is a freewheel or comprises a freewheel (36), and can rotate freely in a first position (¶[0018]: position which allows rotation of the ring gear 31 in one direction of rotation) and is held fixed against rotation in a second, opposite direction of rotation (¶[0018]: prevent the inverse direction of ration of ring gear) during the operation of the transmission assembly such that the transmission assembly has at least a first (¶[0018] as in first position, 29’ is closed and 36 is opened) and a second reduction ratio (¶0018] as in second position when 29’ is opened and 36 is engaged); a clutch (29’)
STEINKE does not disclose a clutch is provided between the drive shaft and the planet carrier.
HAUPT teaches a transmission (Fig.7) having a clutch (9) is provided between drive shaft (7) and carrier (5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the clutch of STEINKE such that the clutch is between the drive shaft and carrier as taught by HAUPT as obvious matter of design choice.
Note: HAUPT (FIG.8) also teaches a clutch (9) is provided between a ring gear (4) and carrier similar to connection in the transmission of STEINKE. In other words, HAUPT demonstrates the construction of Fig.7 and Fig.8 are alternative equivalents to one another. Substituting one known equivalent for another involves only routine skill in the art, and upon making the modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at predictable results, since placing the clutch between the ring and carrier would produce the same gear ratio as placing the clutch between the ring and sun. As the result, the transmission of STEINKE would still function/operate the same as before.
Claim 2: STEINKE as modified by HAUPT discloses the transmission assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the first reduction ratio (e.g. as in first position, 29’ is closed and 36 is opened), the torque can be transmitted from the drive shaft (35) to the output shaft (34) via the clutch (29’).
Claim 3. STEINKE as modified by HAUPT discloses the transmission assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the clutch (29’) is designed as a physically solid element (29’ is solid structure); except for the clutch is arranged between the end face of the drive shaft and the inner wall of the planet carrier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the clutch to positioned between the end face of drive shaft and inner wall of carrier for the purpose of reducing axial packaging length and simplifying torque transfer. By placing clutch between the end face of drive shaft and inner wall of carrier is routine mechanical configuration in planetary transmission because carrier hub surrounds the input shaft providing an internal engagement surface. A person of ordinary skill in the transmission art would therefore have recognize the shaft carrier interface as obvious structural location for implementing the clutch coupling. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Claim 4: STEINKE as modified by HAUPT discloses the transmission assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the clutch comprises a torque limit (¶[0018]: when clutch 29' is closed, the gear ratio of the gear stage 24' is 1:1. when clutch 29’ opens gear stage 24’ switches from direct ratio to reduced ratio. Thereof, 29’ as limiter; it limits the torque being transmitted through the direct drive path. Once the torque exceeds the limit, it forces the power to flow through planetary gear for multiplication)
Claim 5: STEINKE as modified by HAUPT discloses the transmission assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the second reduction ratio, the torque can be transmitted from the drive shaft (35) to the planet wheels (32) via the sun wheel (30).
Claim 6: STEINKE as modified by HAUPT discloses the transmission assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the clutch (29’) is designed
Claim 7: STEINKE as modified by HAUPT discloses the transmission assembly as claimed claim 1, wherein the first direction of rotation (¶[0018]: position which allows rotation of the ring gear 31 in one direction of rotation) corresponds to the direction of rotation of the drive shaft (35) during brake application (¶[0018])
Claim 10: STEINKE discloses an electromechanical wheel brake for a motor vehicle (see title), comprising:
a transmission assembly (Fig.2-3) with a planetary transmission (24’) having a sun wheel (30), which is connected for conjoint rotation to a drive shaft (35; Fig.3),
a number of planet wheels (32), which are rotatably mounted on a planet carrier (33), and
an annulus (31,36) surrounding the planet wheels (32);
wherein the planet carrier (33) is connected for conjoint rotation to an output shaft (34);
wherein the planet wheels (32) are supported by the planet carrier (33) in such a way that they can rotate on both the sun wheel (30) and the annulus (31);
wherein the annulus (31,36) is a freewheel or comprises a freewheel (36), and can rotate freely in a first direction of rotation (¶[0018]: position which allows rotation of the ring gear 31 in one direction of rotation) and is held fixed against rotation in a second (¶[0018]: prevent the inverse direction of ration of ring gear), opposite direction of rotation during the operation of the transmission assembly such that the transmission assembly has at least a first (¶[0018] as in first position, 29’ is closed and 36 is opened) and a second reduction ratio (¶[0018] as in second position when 29’ is opened and 36 is engaged); and a clutch (29’).
STEINKE does not disclose a clutch is provided between the drive shaft and the planet carrier.
HAUPT teaches a transmission (Fig.7) having a clutch (9) is provided between drive shaft (7) and carrier (5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the clutch of STEINKE such that the clutch is between the drive shaft and carrier as taught by HAUPT as obvious matter of design choice.
Note: HAUPT (FIG.8) also teaches a clutch (9) is provided between a ring gear (4) and carrier similar to connection in the transmission of STEINKE. In other words, HAUPT demonstrates the construction of Fig.7 and Fig.8 are alternative equivalents to one another. Substituting one known equivalent for another involves only routine skill in the art, and upon making the modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at predictable results, since placing the clutch between the ring and carrier would produce the same gear ratio as placing the clutch between the ring and sun. As the result, the transmission of STEINKE would still function/operate the same as before.
Claim 11: STEINKE as modified by HAUPT discloses the electromechanical wheel brake as claimed in claim 10, wherein the wheel brake is a service brake or a parking brake (¶[0005]- STEINKE).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAUPT (US 20110027105 A1) in view of Kanehisa (US 20070089959 A1)
Claim 8: HAUPT does not disclose wherein the freewheel comprises four pawls, wherein in each case two opposite pawls are in engagement at the same time and two further opposite pawls are arranged offset in a circumferential direction along the annulus by one-half of a circumferential arc length of a recess of the annulus.
Kanehisa teaches a freewheel (43; Fig.4) comprises four pawls (61a, 61b, 61c, 61d), wherein in each case two opposite pawls (61a, 61c) are in engagement at the same time (¶[0058]) and two further opposite pawls (61b,61d) are arranged offset in a circumferential direction along the annulus (60) by one-half of a circumferential arc length of a recess of the annulus. (¶[0058]-the angular distance between adjacent pawls is 70 degrees and ratchet teeth pitch of 60 is 20.degrees; thereof, the offset is 10 degrees)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the schematic freewheel clutch of HAUPT with the structural freewheel clutch as taught by Kanehisa for the purpose of proving lower cost, reduced manufacturing complexity, even force distribution.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAUPT (US 20110027105 A1) in view of Stefina (US 20040016616A1)
Claim 9: HAUPT does not disclose wherein the freewheel comprises wedging elements or wedging rollers.
Kanehisa teaches a freewheel (10; Fig.7) comprises wedging elements (24a,24b. As pawls 24a, 24b functions as wedging element because they mechanically wedged between inner and outer race during torque transmission, thereby preventing relative rotation in one direction while permitting overrunning in the opposite direction. )
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the schematic freewheel clutch of HAUPT with the structural freewheel clutch as taught by Stefina for the purpose of providing four operation modes, reduced drag losses, smoother and more reliable operation.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been considered and persuasive in light of the amendment to claim 8.The amendment to claim 8 necessitated a new search. Thereof, the rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC §103 based on HAUPT (US 20110027105 A1) in view of Kanehisa (US 20070089959 A1) constitutes a new ground of rejection responsive to applicant’s amendment.
1-Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-7 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
a-Applicant argued that “The Office Action has not identified where Haupt discloses a transmission assembly in which the claimed freewheel operation is related to the existence of at least a first reduction ratio and a second reduction ratio as expressly recited in claim 1.”
--In response to applicant’s argument, examiner respectfully disagrees, the claim requires “wherein the annulus is a freewheel or comprises a freewheel, and can rotate freely in a first direction of rotation and is held fixed against rotation in a second, opposite direction of rotation during the operation of the transmission assembly such that the transmission assembly has at least a first and a second reduction ratio.” As explained in previous office action on page 4, line 13, the claimed freewheel is freewheel 6 of Haupt. Applicant’s arguments overlook the disclosure of freewheel 6 in paragraph 41. Specifically, Haupt discloses “on its drive input side the transmission oil pump is connected to the carrier 5 of the shiftable planetary transmission 2 and a freewheel 6 is connected between the ring gear 4 of the planetary transmission 2 and the housing 8. Furthermore, between the sun gear 3 and the carrier 5 of the shiftable planetary transmission 2 a clutch 9 is provided for connecting the sun gear 3 releasably to the carrier 5, so that when the clutch 9 is disengaged a slow-running transmission ratio of the drive output speed of the planetary transmission 2 and hence of the speed of the transmission oil pump can be produced; when the clutch 9 is engaged the planetary transmission 2 is blocked and no transmission ratio of the drive output speed is produced.” This disclosure teaches both operating state required by the claim.(1)-HAUPT’S paragraph 41 states “when the clutch 9 is engaged the planetary transmission 2 is blocked and no transmission ratio of the drive output speed is produced”. This is the definition of a 1:1 ratio—“no ratio” means the output speed equals to input speed. (2)- HAUPT’S paragraph 41 states “when the clutch 9 is disengaged a slow-running transmission ratio of the drive output speed of the planetary transmission 2 and hence of the speed of the transmission oil pump can be produced”. This is second gear ratio-reduction state when clutch 9 is disengaged, the freewheel 6 must lock the ring gear to provide reaction torque. The disclosed “slow running transmission ratio” is achieved by freewheel (6). Without freewheel, planetary transmission would not produce a reduced ratio when clutch 9 is disengaged. While Haupt does not use the same phrase “first reduction ratio” and “second reduction ratio”, anticipation does not require the identical terminology. Rather, it is sufficient that reference discloses the same functional arrangement.
b- Applicant argued “Paragraph [0041] of Haupt explains that when clutch 9 is disengaged, a transmission ratio of the drive output speed is produced, whereas when clutch 9 is engaged, the planetary transmission is blocked and no transmission ratio of the drive output speed is produced. Thus, Haupt describes selective engagement and disengagement of clutch 9 to alternatively permit operation of the planetary transmission or block operation of the planetary transmission. Haupt does not disclose that the claimed freewheel arrangement operates during transmission operation such that the transmission assembly possesses at least a first reduction ratio and a second reduction ratio as required by claim 1. Instead, Haupt teaches that engagement of clutch 9 blocks the planetary transmission. See Haupt par. [0041].”
--In response to this argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant asserts that “Haupt describes selective engagement and disengagement of clutch 9 to alternatively permit operation of the planetary transmission or block operation of the planetary transmission.” However, clutch 9 of Haupt and clutch 50 from applicant’s invention perform exactly mechanical function.
In applicant’s invention, clutch 50 is between drive shaft (12) and carrier (30); wherein drive shaft (12) that is fixed to sun gear (11); freewheel is between ring (40) and housing (90); carrier (30) is connected to output. During operation in first gear ratio, clutch (50) is engaged and freewheel permits free rotation of the ring gear. Thus, the power flows from drive shaft (12) to clutch (50) to carrier (30) to output to create 1:1 ratio (first ratio) (See ¶[0081]-[0082], [0091] of the specification). During operation in second gear ratio, clutch 50 is disengaged and freewheel prevents reverse rotation of ring gear (40), thereby holding the ring gear (40) against rotation relative to housing (90). Power is then transmitted from drive shaft (12) to sun gear (11) to planet gears to carrier (30) to output create reduced ratio (see ¶[0087]-[0088], [0092]).
Haupt discloses the same functional arrangement, specifically, clutch 9 of Haupt is also between sun gear (3) and carrier (5); wherein the drive shaft (7) is fixed to sun gear (3); carrier (5) is connected to output (1); freewheel (6) is between housing (8) and ring (4). When clutch (9) is engaged and freewheel permits free rotation of the ring gear, the power flows from drive shaft (7) to sun gear (3) to clutch (9) to carrier (5) to output to create 1:1 ratio (first gear ratio). Conversely, when clutch 9 is disengaged and freewheel prevents reverse rotation of ring gear 4 thereby ring gear (4) is locked the housing (8). Then the power flows from drive shaft (7) to sun gear (3) to planet gears to carrier (5) to output create slow-running (reduced) transmission ratio/second gear ratio. Accordingly, the operation principle of Haupt is identical to the applicant’s disclosure. In both systems, engagement of the clutch establish a direct drive (1:1 ratio), while disengage of the clutch allow the freewheel to function as reaction member for the planetary gearset, thereby producing a reduced gear ratio.
c-Applicant argued that Haupt does not disclose the clutch “arranged between the drive shaft and the planet carrier within the claimed transmission architecture”.
--In response to this argument, examiner respectfully disagrees, Fig.7 depicts clutch (9) is radially between (7) and carrier (5) as required by claim 1. Furthermore, as explained above, applicant’s invention, clutch (50) is between drive shaft (12) and carrier (30); wherein drive shaft (12) that is fixed to sun gear (11). Similarly, Haupt’s clutch (9) is also between sun gear (3) and carrier (5); wherein the drive shaft (7) is fixed to sun gear (3).
Lastly applicant states “Under controlling Federal Circuit precedent, anticipation requires disclosure of every claim limitation arranged or combined in the same manner as recited in the claim. Net MoneylN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).”. In response to applicant’s reliance on Net MoneylN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., is misplaced because the examiner does not rely on separate, unrelated embodiments, the examiner only relied on a single embodiment (Fig.7) within a single reference. Every elements are found in that embodiment. Thus the rejections under 35 USC 102 of claims 1-2, 5-7 are maintained.
2-Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
a-Applicant argued “The Office Action relies on paragraph [0018] of Steinke, which states that freewheel 36 allows rotation of ring gear 31 in one rotational direction and prevents rotation in the opposite rotational direction. Applicant respectfully submits that the cited disclosure does not disclose the claimed method arranged as recited. Under controlling precedent, anticipation requires disclosure of every claim limitation arranged or combined in the same manner as recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. V. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although paragraph [0018] discloses the directional operation of freewheel 36, the cited disclosure does not disclose the complete method recited in claim 12. In particular, claim 12 requires holding the freewheel fixed against rotation in a second direction during operation of the transmission assembly such that the transmission assembly has at least a first reduction ratio and a second reduction ratio.
--In response to applicant argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees, Steinke does not need to use the same words as claim 12. Anticipation does not require verbatim disclosure; it only requires the prior art describes the same invention. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)-see MPEP§ 2112.02-I. Steinke’s freewheel inherently perform the claimed method steps of claim 12:
rotating a freewheel (36) freely in a first direction of rotation (¶[0018]: with clutch 29’ closed, the ring gear rotates freely in direction of the drive shaft (first direction) because freewheel allow rotation in this direction ); and
holding the freewheel (36) fixed against rotation in a second (¶[0018]: when clutch 29’ opens, the ring gear attempts to rotate in opposite direction-reverse. Freewheel 36 holds the ring fixed against this reverse rotation), opposite direction of rotation during the operation of a transmission assembly such that the transmission assembly has at least a first (¶[0018] as in first position, 29’ is closed and 36 is opened) and a second reduction ratio (¶[0018] as in second position when 29’ is opened and 36 is engaged). Thereby Steinke is anticipated claim 12.
b-Applicant argued “The Office Action does not identify where Steinke discloses the claimed relationship between operation of the freewheel and the existence of at least a first reduction ratio and a second reduction ratio during operation of the transmission assembly.”
--In response to this argument, examiner respectfully disagrees Steinke’s paragraph 18 states “As long as the second clutch 29′ is closed, the gear ratio of the gear stage 24′ is 1:1.The second clutch 29′ opens when a predetermined drive torque or below a specified drive speed is reached. Since the freewheel 36 prevents the ring gear 31 from rotating backwards and thus fixes it to the gearbox housing 27, the reduction of the gearbox stage 24′ is engaged. The second switching clutch 29′ can also be arranged between the sun gear 30 on the one hand and the bridge 33 or the ring gear 31 on the other hand, with the same effect.” This paragraph 18 clearly discloses relationship between freewheel’ s operation and two ratio states when clutch 29’ is closed, ring gear rotates freely because freewheel 36 is not lock in first direction this creates 1:1 ratio/first gear ratio. When clutch 29’ is opened, freewheel is locked thereby ring gear is locked thus providing reduced ratio/second gear ratio.
c-Applicant argued “paragraphs [0016]-[0019] explain that operation of the planetary transmission is controlled through switching clutch 29', which selectively establishes or removes a rotationally fixed connection involving ring gear 31 and bridge 33. Accordingly, the cited disclosure does not disclose every limitation of claim 12 arranged as recited.”
--In response to this argument, examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant negates the freewheel’ s function described in paragraph 18. The clutch 29’ and freewheel 36 work together. During operation of the transmission, freewheel performs exactly recited one-way rotational function while the transmission possesses both a first gear ration and second gear ratio. Thus the rejection of claim 12 is maintained.
3-Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
a- Applicant argues that office action fails to establish that the clutch location in Steinke is result-effective variable or that alternative clutch locations would have been recognized as interchangeable within Steinke's transmission architecture.
--in response to the argument examiner respectfully disagrees because the rejection is 103 rejection, the rejection is not relied on Steinke alone recognizes alternative clutch location. Rather, the rejection relies on the combined teachings of Steinke and Haupt. As explained in the office action, Haupt expressly teaches multiple alternative embodiment of substantially the same planetary transmission employing different clutch location while achieving the same operating modes. Specifically, Haupt teaches a clutch is disposed between the sun gear and carrier (see Fig.7); as well as an alternative embodiment : the clutch is disposed between the ring and carrier (Fig.8). In both embodiments, engagement of the clutch blocks the planetary gearset to produce a direct drive (1:1 ratio) ; and wherein the disengagement of the clutch allows the freewheel to prevent reverse rotation, power through planetary gearset to create reduced gear ratio. Thus Haupt demonstrates these clutch locations were recognized in the art as interchangeable design alternatives capable of achieving the same functional result. The rejection therefore does not require evidence that Steinke independently recognized such interchangeability. A reference may properly be modified in view of another reference that teaches an equivalent arrangement. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
2-applicant argues “Relocating the clutch from that position to a location between the drive shaft and the planet carrier alters the manner in which torque is transmitted through the planetary gear set and alters the kinematic relationships upon which Steinke relies.”
-- In response to applicant’s argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees, because applicant argues “the modification would alter kinematic relationship” but do not explain how or why the transmission would fail to operate. In fact, kinematic relationships are identical in Stein’s original arrangement and the modification because in Stein’s original arrangement: when clutch 29’ is between ring gear (31) and carrier (33), when clutch 29’ is closed, blocks planetary gearset which creates 1:1 gear ratio, then when freewheel 36 prevents reverse rotation, power through planetary gearset to create reduced gear ratio. In the modification: - when clutch 29’ is between sun gear (30) and carrier (33), when clutch 29 is closed, blocks planetary gearset which creates 1:1 gear ratio, then when freewheel 36 prevents reverse rotation, power through planetary gearset to create reduced gear ratio. Both Steinke’s original arrangement and the modification achieve the same kinematic states using the same principle, the only difference is the physical location of the clutch. Accordingly, the proposed modification yields predictable use of known equivalent based on its established function. Thus the rejections of claims 1-7, 10-11 under 35 USC § 103 are maintained.
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 Lillian T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/LILLIAN T NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3655A
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights