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 reply to the Preliminary Amendment filed on January 23, 2025. Claim 17 has been amended. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 17, 2023 and February 13, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “a fastener extending along the rotational axis and through the bore in the hub and into the bore in the shaft” (as in claims 5 and 11), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (D442836) in view of Hsieh (7066059) and alternatively further in view of Pardee (2006/0278480) and Holmbeck et al. (2020/0325944).
In reference to claim 1, Hunter discloses a tool (Figure 1) capable/for installing a workpiece/rotational coupling device on a shaft, comprising:
a body (see figure below) defining an aperture (see figure below) configured/capable to be positioned about an axis (i.e. vertical dotted line below) extending through the shaft, a hub of the rotational coupling device and a fastener extending through the hub and into the shaft, the aperture having a shape complementary to a shape of the hub (i.e. because the shape includes at least one flat area and rounded areas, see figure below) of the rotational coupling device and defining at least one flat (see figure below); and
an arm (see figure below) extending from the body.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Rounded areas)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (At least one flat)][AltContent: textbox (Aperture)][AltContent: textbox (Arm)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
422
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hunter lacks,
the arm including an axially extending portion extending from the body in a direction parallel to the axis; and, a radially extending portion extending from the axially extending portion in a direction perpendicular to, and away from, the axis.
The examiner notes that the tool of hunter could be used on any workpiece that includes rounded areas and flat areas, which includes any type of rotational coupling device that is located on a shaft. However, in the alternative, assuming arguendo that Hunter lacks a workpiece that is formed as, a rotational coupling device on a shaft, a hub of the rotational coupling device and a fastener extending through the hub and into the shaft, than Pardee and Holmbeck et al. are used for such a teaching (see discussion on page 8 below).
However, Hsieh teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench (Figure 1) comprising an arm (formed from elements 2 and 3) extending from a body (1), wherein the arm includes an axially extending portion (at 2, see Figure 3) extending from the body in a direction (i.e. vertical direction) parallel (Figure 3) to a vertical axis (i.e. vertical dotted line below and which is similar to the vertical axis of Hunter) and, a radially extending portion (at 3) extending from the axially extending portion in a direction perpendicular to, and away from, the axis (Figure 3-4).
[AltContent: textbox (Aperture)][AltContent: textbox (2nd end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
570
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the arm, of Hunter, with the known technique of providing an arm that includes the axially extending portion and the radially extending portion, as taught by Hsieh, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that is more effectively suited for various complicated work environments (Column 1, Lines 5-8 and 12-15).
In the alternative, assuming arguendo, that Hunter lacks a workpiece that is formed as a rotational coupling device than Pardee is used for teaching that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the known workpiece that is formed as a rotational coupling device (20) configured for mounting on a shaft (22), the rotational coupling device having a hub (26, Figure 2) configured to be disposed about a rotational axis (40) of the shaft and spaced from the shaft (Figure 1), the hub having a bore (see figures below) configured to be centered about the rotational axis, aligned with a corresponding bore (see figures below) in the shaft.
PNG
media_image3.png
488
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the workpiece, of Hunter, with the known technique of providing the known workpiece that is formed as the rotational coupling device, as taught by Pardee, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device including a workpiece formed as the rotational coupling device such as clutches and brakes that are used to control transfer of torque between rotational bodies (paragraph 4).
In addition, Holmbeck et al. also teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar rotational coupling device (10) that also includes a fastener (not shown but described in paragraph 21) extending along a rotational axis (36) and through a bore in a hub (38) and into a bore in shaft (12, paragraph 21). Thus, when combined with Hunter, the tool (of Hunter) would be configured to be fixed against movement about the rotational axis as the fastener is rotated into the hub of the rotational coupling device and the shaft because Holmbeck et al. further disclose that, “Spacer 18 may define a head 52 at one axial end having a plurality of flats that allow spacer 18 to be secured while applying torque to the fastener”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the known workpiece/rotational coupling device, of modified Hunter, with the known technique of providing a rotational coupling device that also includes the fastener, as taught by Holmbeck et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively secures various components together while allowing torque to be applied to the fastener (paragraph 21).
In reference to claim 2, Hunter discloses that the body is annular in shape (Figure 1).
In reference to claim 3, Hunter discloses that the aperture defines first and second diametrically opposed flats (see figure on page 5 above).
In reference to claim 4, Hsieh discloses that the radially extending portion of the arm includes a first end (i.e. at 31) connected to the axially extending portion of the arm, a second end opposite the first end (see figure above), and an aperture (see figure above) proximate the second end.
Claims 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (D442836) in view of Pardee (2006/0278480), Holmbeck et al. (2020/0325944) and Hsieh (7066059).
In reference to claims 5 and 11, Hunter discloses a tool
a tool (Figure 1) capable/for installing a rotational coupling device on a shaft, the tool including;
a body (see figure on page 5 above) defining an aperture (see figure on page 5 above) configured/capable to be positioned about a rotational axis (i.e. vertical dotted line on page 5 above), the aperture having a shape complementary to a shape of a hub (i.e. because the shape includes at least one flat area and rounded areas, see figure below) of the rotational coupling device and defining at least one flat (see figure below); and
an arm (see figure below) extending from the body. The examiner notes the method claim 11 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 5 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 5 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 11 during normal operation.
Hunter lacks,
a rotational coupling device configured for mounting on a shaft, the rotational coupling device having a hub configured to be disposed about a rotational axis of the shaft and spaced from the shaft, the hub having a bore configured to be centered about the rotational axis, aligned with a corresponding bore in the shaft and receive a fastener extending along the rotational axis and through the bore in the hub and into the bore in the shaft; and
at least a portion of the arm configured to be axially spaced from the hub and extending in a direction perpendicular to, and away from, the rotational axis;
wherein the tool is configured to be fixed against movement about the rotational axis as the fastener is rotated into the hub of the rotational coupling device and the shaft.
However, Pardee teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the known workpiece that is formed as a rotational coupling device (20) configured for mounting on a shaft (22), the rotational coupling device having a hub (26, Figure 2) configured to be disposed about a rotational axis (40) of the shaft and spaced from the shaft (Figure 1), the hub having a bore (see figures below) configured to be centered about the rotational axis, aligned with a corresponding bore (see figures below) in the shaft.
PNG
media_image3.png
488
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the workpiece, of Hunter, with the known technique of providing the known workpiece formed as the rotational coupling device, as taught by Pardee, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device including a workpiece formed as the rotational coupling device such as clutches and brakes that are used to control transfer of torque between rotational bodies (paragraph 4).
In addition, Holmbeck et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar rotational coupling device (10) that also includes a fastener (not shown but described in paragraph 21) extending along a rotational axis (36) and through a bore in a hub (38) and into a bore in shaft (12, paragraph 21). Thus, when combined with Hunter, the tool (of Hunter) would be configured to be fixed against movement about the rotational axis as the fastener is rotated into the hub of the rotational coupling device and the shaft because Holmbeck et al. further disclose that, “Spacer 18 may define a head 52 at one axial end having a plurality of flats that allow spacer 18 to be secured while applying torque to the fastener”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the workpiece/rotational coupling device, of modified Hunter, with the known technique of providing a rotational coupling device that also includes the fastener, as taught by Holmbeck et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively secures various components together while allowing torque to be applied to the fastener (paragraph 21).
Finally, Hsieh teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench (Figure 1) comprising an arm (formed from elements 2 and 3) extending from a body (1), wherein the arm includes a portion (at 3) that is configured to be axially spaced (see figure below) from a workpiece/hub and extending in a direction perpendicular to, and away from a rotational axis (see figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
362
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the arm, of Hunter, with the known technique of providing an arm that includes the axially extending portion and the radially extending portion, as taught by Hsieh, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that is more effectively suited for various complicated work environments (Column 1, Lines 5-8 and 12-15).
In reference to claims 6 and 12, Hsieh discloses that the arm includes an axially extending portion (2) extending from the body in a direction parallel to the rotational axis (see figure above); and a radially extending portion (3) extending from the axially extending portion in a direction perpendicular to, and away from, the rotational axis (see figure above).
In reference to claims 7 and 13, Hsieh discloses that the radially extending portion of the arm includes a first end (i.e. at 31) connected to the axially extending portion of the arm, a second end opposite the first end (see figure above), and an aperture (see figure above) proximate the second end.
In reference to claims 8 and 14, Hsieh also discloses that the body (1) has a first axial end (See figure below) configured/capable to receive the hub (because it is an opening) and a second axial end spaced from the hub/workpiece and the arm (2 and 3) extends from the second axial end of the body.
[AltContent: textbox (First axial end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second axial end)]
PNG
media_image5.png
582
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 9 and 15, Hunter discloses that the body is annular in shape (Figure 1).
In reference to claims 10 and 16, Hunter discloses that aperture defines first and second diametrically opposed flats (see figure on page 6 above).
In reference to claim 17, Holmbeck et al. disclose mounting the rotational coupling device onto the shaft includes rotating one of the rotational coupling device and the shaft about the rotational axis relative to the other of the rotating coupling device and the shaft to align a key (not shown but described in paragraph 18) of the rotational coupling device disposed in a keyway (not shown but described in paragraph 18) in the hub with a keyway in the shaft (paragraph 18); and, moving one of the rotational coupling device and the shaft along the rotational axis relative to the other of the rotational coupling device and the shaft to move the key into the keyway in the shaft (i.e. normal operation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moore (1512559) teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench comprising an arm (11, 12, 13) extending from a body (5), wherein the arm includes an axially extending portion (at 11) extending from the body in a direction parallel (vertical direction) to a vertical axis (i.e. vertical axis of extending through 5) and, a radially extending portion (13) extending from the axially extending portion in a direction perpendicular to, and away from, the axis (Figures 1 and 2a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723