DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Fig. 1-2) in the reply filed on November 12, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each of the species are linked by common technical features, i.e. of having a reduced coefficient of friction achieved in an exemplary embodiment with a liner disposed between inclined surfaces and that the species do not recite mutually exclusive characteristics. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Examiner does recognize that each identified species does contain an anti-friction liner between two inclined surfaces of inner and outer elements, each identified species also contains features that when in combination with the anti-friction liner make the species patentably distinct from one another. For example, Species I discloses of a retaining element (160) in the form of a nut that is in threaded connection with the inner element (120) and interlocked with the outer element (140), whereas Species II-V depict the retaining elements (260, 360, 460, 560, 660) that are received within apertures of at least one of the inner and outer elements. Thus, the retaining element being in the form of a nut is mutually exclusive with respect to Species I as opposed to Species II-V. Further regarding the retaining elements within Species II-V, the retaining elements within said species are depicted in differently with some species showing the retaining elements being received in apertures of both the inner and outer elements (Species II), the retaining elements being received in apertures of only the inner elements (Species III), the retaining elements being received in apertures of only the outer elements (Species IV), and the retaining elements being received in apertures of the outer elements and the hub (Species V). While each of the retaining elements of Species II-V may be in the form of bolts or some sort of threaded fastener, the way they are connected with the overall device are mutually exclusive from one another. In addition to the different presentations of the retaining members within the species, each identified species shows of a different arrangement of the shaft and hub in combination with the inner and outer elements. For example, Species I-II show the shaft being in direct contact with the inner elements and the hub being in direct contact with the outer elements, Species III shows the shaft being in direct contact with the inner elements and the hub being clamped between the outer elements, and Species IV-V show the hub being in direct contact with the shaft with the inner and outer elements being only in direct contact with the hub. As such, each species does recite mutually exclusive characteristics that are not obvious variants of one another.
Applicant further argues that there is not a serious burden to search and examine. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examining multiple patentably distinct species together in the same application would impose a serious burden on the examiner, as such would require the search of multiple patentably distinct features that otherwise would not have to be searched for, applying appropriate prior art rejections and having to consider and respond to attorney arguments regarding such multiple patentably distinct features and rejections.
Finally, it should be noted that, as stated at page 6 of the election requirement, upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicants will be entitled to consideration of claims to the additional species that depend therefrom or otherwise include all of the limitations of that allowable generic claim. In other words, if patentability resides in the generic aspects of the inventions disclosed as opposed to the specific features of the respective species, then there will be rejoinder of those non-elected species and if patentability resides within the specifics of the elected species, then there will be no rejoinder of the other species.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6, 10, 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 6, 10, 12 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a nonelected species. See above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9, 13-14, 16, 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claims 1, 8-9, 14, 16, 19 to define that the at least one inclined surface of the first element is “at least one first inclined surface” and to define that the at least one inclined surface of the second element is “at least one second inclined surface”, or the like, so as not to use two identical terms when referring to different elements within the claims in order to avoid any potential confusion or ambiguity within the claims.
Examiner suggests amending claims 13 and 18 to define that that the coefficient of friction is defined between the inclined surfaces of the first and second elements, as such is stated within [0053] of the specification and because a coefficient of friction is defined between surfaces that are in contact with one another.
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 1-5, 7-9, 11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heston et al. (US 9,618,051; hereinafter Heston).
Regarding claim 1, Heston (see embodiment in Fig. 1-5) discloses a device for coupling components (12, 15), comprising:
a first element (50) having at least one inclined surface (see Annotated Fig. 1 below); and
a second element (20) having at least one inclined surface reciprocal to the at least one inclined surface of the first element (see Annotated Fig. 1), wherein an axial movement of at least one of the elements causes a radial force to be applied to at least one of the components (see Col. 5 lines 29-39 and Col. 7 line 21 – Col. 8 line 7 discussing how rotationally coupling the threads 55 of the first element with the threads 42 of the retaining element 40 causes axial movement of the first element, which thereby contracts the second element onto component 15, causing a radial force to be applied to component 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Heston discloses of further comprising a positioning/retaining element (40) configured to cooperate with at least one of the first element and the second element (see Col. 5 lines 29-39; Col. 7 line 21 – Col. 8 line 7; see Fig. 1 showing threads 42 of the retaining element cooperating with threads 55 of the first element).
Regarding claim 3, Heston discloses wherein the positioning/retaining element (40) is in threaded engagement with at least one of the first element and the second element (see Fig. 1 showing threads 42 of the retaining element engaging with threads 55 of the first element).
Regarding claim 4, Heston discloses wherein the positioning/retaining element (40) is coupled to the second element (20) by an interlock connection (see Fig. 1-5 showing flange 48 of the retaining element interlocked within groove 24 of the second element).
Regarding claim 5, Heston discloses wherein the positioning/retaining element (40) is one of a nut, a bolt, a screw, and a mechanical fastener (see Fig. 1-5 depicting the retaining element as a nut).
Regarding claim 7, Heston discloses wherein the positioning/retaining element (40) is configured to cause the axial movement of the at least one of the first element and the second element (see Col. 5 lines 29-39 discussing how rotation of the threads 42 of the retaining element with threads 55 of the first element causes axial displacement of the first element).
Regarding claim 8, Heston discloses wherein the first element (50) includes a first portion and a second portion (see Annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein at least one of the first portion and the second portion includes the at least one inclined surface (see Annotated Fig. 2; the inclined surface is a part of the first portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
714
1124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 9, Heston discloses wherein the second element (20) includes a first portion and a second portion (see Annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the at least one of the first portion and the second portion includes the at least one inclined surface (see Annotated Fig. 3; the inclined surface is a part of the first portion).
PNG
media_image3.png
714
1110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 11, Heston discloses wherein at least one of the first element (50) and the second element (20) includes one or more dividers formed therein (first element has dividers 52, second element has dividers 22).
Regarding claim 16, Heston (see embodiment in Fig. 1-5) discloses a method for coupling components (12, 15), comprising:
providing a device including a first element (50) having at least one inclined surface (see Annotated Fig. 1) and a second element (20) having at least one inclined surface reciprocal to the at least one inclined surface of the first element (see Annotated Fig. 1); and
causing an axial movement of at least one of the elements to apply a radial force to at least one of the components (see Col. 5 lines 29-39 and Col. 7 line 21 – Col. 8 line 7 discussing how rotationally coupling the threads 55 of the first element with the threads 42 of the retaining element 40 causes axial movement of the first element, which thereby contracts the second element onto component 15, causing a radial force to be applied to component 15).
Regarding claim 17, Heston discloses wherein the device further includes a positioning/retaining element (40) configures to cooperate with at least one of the first element (50) and the second element (20) to cause the axial movement of the at least one of the first element and the second element (see Col. 5 lines 29-39 discussing how rotation of the threads 42 of the retaining element with threads 55 of the first element causes axial displacement of the first element).
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 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heston in view of Stratienko et al. (US 4,367,053; hereinafter Stratienko) and the publication One BAM good nanocoating! by The American Ceramic Society (https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/one-bam-good-nanocoating/; hereinafter ACS).
Regarding claim 13, Heston does not explicitly disclose wherein a coefficient of friction of the device is about 0.02.
Stratienko teaches of a similar device for coupling a shaft (2) to a hub (1) comprising a first element (9) in the form of an inner wedge ring and a second element (10) in the form of an outer wedge ring which are configured to grip against the shaft and an inner bore of the hub (see Abstract), the wedge rings each having matching tapered inclined surfaces that correspond with one another (see Fig. 2, see Col. 2 line 49 – Col. 3 line 4) and at least one of the surfaces has coated thereon a stable anti-friction material to prevent metal-to-metal contact between the wedge rings (see Col. 2 line 49 – Col. 3 line 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heston with the teachings of Stratienko, such that at least one of the inclined surfaces of the first and second elements are coated with a stable anti-friction material, so as to prevent direct contact between the first and second elements, thereby preventing wear of the elements and extending the life of the elements.
ACS provides teaching for an anti-friction material known as BAM, which is a ceramic alloy created by combining a mix of boron, aluminum, magnesium, and titanium diboride (see ¶ 1), wherein BAM has a coefficient of friction of 0.02 (see ¶ 1) and is used as a coating for machine parts to make them stronger, function more smoothly, and generate less friction (see ¶ 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heston with the teachings of ACS, to have the stable anti-friction material that coats at least one of the inclined surfaces of the first and second elements to be BAM, which is a ceramic alloy created by combining a mix of boron, aluminum, magnesium, and titanium diboride, as BAM has a coefficient of friction of 0.02 and would assist in making the first and second elements of the device of Heston stronger, function more smoothly, and generate less friction.
Regarding claim 18, Heston does not explicitly disclose wherein a coefficient of friction of the device is about 0.02.
Stratienko teaches of a similar device for coupling a shaft (2) to a hub (1) comprising a first element (9) in the form of an inner wedge ring and a second element (10) in the form of an outer wedge ring which are configured to grip against the shaft and an inner bore of the hub (see Abstract), the wedge rings each having matching tapered inclined surfaces that correspond with one another (see Fig. 2, see Col. 2 line 49 – Col. 3 line 4) and at least one of the surfaces has coated thereon a stable anti-friction material to prevent metal-to-metal contact between the wedge rings (see Col. 2 line 49 – Col. 3 line 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heston with the teachings of Stratienko, such that at least one of the inclined surfaces of the first and second elements are coated with a stable anti-friction material, so as to prevent direct contact between the first and second elements, thereby preventing wear of the elements and extending the life of the elements.
ACS provides teaching for an anti-friction material known as BAM, which is a ceramic alloy created by combining a mix of boron, aluminum, magnesium, and titanium diboride (see ¶ 1), wherein BAM has a coefficient of friction of 0.02 (see ¶ 1) and is used as a coating for machine parts to make them stronger, function more smoothly, and generate less friction (see ¶ 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heston with the teachings of ACS, to have the stable anti-friction material that coats at least one of the inclined surfaces of the first and second elements to be BAM, which is a ceramic alloy created by combining a mix of boron, aluminum, magnesium, and titanium diboride, as BAM has a coefficient of friction of 0.02 and would assist in making the first and second elements of the device of Heston stronger, function more smoothly, and generate less friction.
Claims 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heston in view of Stratienko.
Regarding claim 14, Heston does not explicitly disclose of further comprising a liner disposed between the at least one inclined surface of the first element and the at least one inclined surface of the second element.
Stratienko teaches of a similar device for coupling a shaft (2) to a hub (1) comprising a first element (9) in the form of an inner wedge ring and a second element (10) in the form of an outer wedge ring which are configured to grip against the shaft and an inner bore of the hub (see Abstract), the wedge rings each having matching tapered inclined surfaces that correspond with one another (see Fig. 2, see Col. 2 line 49 – Col. 3 line 4), and wherein at least one of the surfaces has a liner coated thereon of a stable anti-friction material that is a Teflon composition, which prevents metal-to-metal contact between the wedge rings (see Col. 2 line 49 – Col. 3 line 4, see Col. 9 lines 58-63)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heston with the teachings of Stratienko, such that at least one of the inclined surfaces of the first and second elements has a liner coated thereon of a stable anti-friction material that is a Teflon composition, so as to prevent direct contact between the first and second elements, thereby preventing wear of the elements and extending the life of the elements.
Regarding claim 19, Heston does not explicitly disclose wherein the device further includes a liner disposed between the at least one inclined surface of the first element and the at least one inclined surface of the second element.
Stratienko teaches of a similar device for coupling a shaft (2) to a hub (1) comprising a first element (9) in the form of an inner wedge ring and a second element (10) in the form of an outer wedge ring which are configured to grip against the shaft and an inner bore of the hub (see Abstract), the wedge rings each having matching tapered inclined surfaces that correspond with one another (see Fig. 2, see Col. 2 line 49 – Col. 3 line 4), and wherein at least one of the surfaces has a liner coated thereon of a stable anti-friction material that is a Teflon composition, which prevents metal-to-metal contact between the wedge rings (see Col. 2 line 49 – Col. 3 line 4, see Col. 9 lines 58-63)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heston with the teachings of Stratienko, such that at least one of the inclined surfaces of the first and second elements has a liner coated thereon of a stable anti-friction material that is a Teflon composition, so as to prevent direct contact between the first and second elements, thereby preventing wear of the elements and extending the life of the elements.
Claims 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heston in view of Stratienko as applied to claims 14 and 19 above, respectively, and in further view of Rasero (US 2,862,283).
Regarding claim 15, while the combination of Heston and Stratienko teach that the liner is an anti-friction liner (as taught by Stratienko in claim 14), neither Heston nor Stratienko disclose wherein the liner is an anti-friction fabric.
Rasero teaches of an anti-friction fabric comprising Teflon yarn (10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) that is woven together with filler yarns (1, 2, 3, 4) that are made of nylon and warp yarns, (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31) made of cotton, thereby forming a fabric that can be bonded to a supporting surface (see Col. 1 lines 58-61), as Teflon alone does not bond or adhere well to other materials (see Col. 1 lines 31-57).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heston with the teachings of Rasero, to have the Teflon liner be in the form of an anti-friction fabric that comprises Teflon yarn that is woven together with filler yarns that are made of nylon and warp yarns made of cotton, thereby forming a fabric that can be bonded to one of the inclined surfaces of either the first or second elements, as Teflon alone does not bond or adhere well to other materials.
Regarding claim 20, while the combination of Heston and Stratienko teach that the liner is an anti-friction liner (as taught by Stratienko in claim 19), neither Heston nor Stratienko disclose wherein the liner is an anti-friction fabric.
Rasero teaches of an anti-friction fabric comprising Teflon yarn (10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) that is woven together with filler yarns (1, 2, 3, 4) that are made of nylon and warp yarns, (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31) made of cotton, thereby forming a fabric that can be bonded to a supporting surface (see Col. 1 lines 58-61), as Teflon alone does not bond or adhere well to other materials (see Col. 1 lines 31-57).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heston with the teachings of Rasero, to have the Teflon liner be in the form of an anti-friction fabric that comprises Teflon yarn that is woven together with filler yarns that are made of nylon and warp yarns made of cotton, thereby forming a fabric that can be bonded to one of the inclined surfaces of either the first or second elements, as Teflon alone does not bond or adhere well to other materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1852. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN J BAYNES/Examiner, Art Unit 3678