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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-4, 6, 9-22 and 24-27 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Schneider et al. (US 2010/0038473), Morgan (US Patent 8,753,084) and Valovick (US 2007/0104535). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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) 1-4, 6, 9-22 and 24- 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 2010/0038473) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Morgan (US Patent 8,753,084) and Valovick (US 2007/0104535).
With regards to claim 1, Shneider et al. discloses a two-gear arrangement 3 connecting a motor 2 to propeller 4, the two-gear arrangement comprising two shafts (5 and the one connected to propeller shaft 6), two intermeshing gearwheels (9, 10) which are each respectively rotationally fixedly connected to one of the two shafts (fig. 1), wherein the two shafts are mounted rotatably in a housing (see fig. 1), and a first shaft 5 of the two shafts is in operative connection with a drive unit (motor 2) and a second shaft (the one connected to propeller shaft 6: fig. 1) of the two shafts is in operative connection with a pressure-control device (propeller 4: Applicant should note that the recitation of the connection being with a “pressure-control device” is an intended use recitation that does not further limit the claimed gear pump). Schneider et al. does not disclose the two-gear arrangement being a gear pump and the second shaft which is in operative connection with the pressure-control device being configured with an internal or an external spline profile which engages an external or an internal spline profile respectively of a drive shaft of the pressure-control device. However it is known to use a gear pump in drive devices for setting an angle of attack of propeller blades like the one disclosed by Schneider et al. as attested by AAPA in paragraphs [0003]-[0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a gear pump as the two-gear arrangement of Schneider et al., in light of the teachings of AAPA, as is known in the art. Applicant should note that it is conventional in the art of gear pumps that the two intermeshing gearwheels will separate a suction side from a delivery side. Further, it is known to design propeller shafts as hollow shafts as attested by Morgan, see column 1, lines 57-66; and it is also known to use a spline connection to transfer torque from a first member 20 to a second member 22 as taught by Valovick, see abstract and figures 1 and 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the second shaft which is in operative connection with the pressure-control device with an external or internal spline profile, and the propeller shaft with a complementary spline profile so as to engage the second shaft with the drive shaft of the propeller, in light of the teachings of Morgan and Valovick, as a recognized way of connecting shafts that transfer torque one to the other.
Regarding claim 2, see column 1, line 57 to column 2, line 3 of Morgan. Applicant should note that the claimed arrangement is conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant should note that it is obvious that the ratio between the two intermeshing gearwheels will not equal to one since the diameters of the gearwheels 9 and 10 of Schneider are different.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant should note that it is known to form such splined connection with two hollow shafts.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant should note that it is conventional to have bearing bushes rotatably mounting the two shafts in the housing wherein the bearing bushes seal the suction side and the delivery side as claimed.
Regarding claims 9 and 25, the combination of Schneider et al./AAPA/Morgan/ Valovick disclose the claimed devices.
Regarding claims 10-13, see clutch 8 and paragraph [0074] of Schneider et al. Applicant should note that the recited toothed clutches structure is conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 14, see column 1, lines 57 to column 2, line 3 of Morgan. Applicant should note that such connection are conventional in the art.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Applicant should note that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to provide proper sealing at clutch connections.
Regarding claim 17, see paragraph [0079] of Schneider et al. disclosing an oil sump which is equivalent to the claimed oil reservoir.
Regarding claim 18, see turbine 3 of engine 4 of Morgan that can be used as the claimed electric machine.
Regarding claims 19-22, Applicant should note that such connection is conventional. See also paragraph [0079] of Schneider et al.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant should note that such oil reservoirs or sumps are typically sealed against an environment and provided with a vent hole when necessary.
Regarding claim 26 and 27, Applicant should note that the recited structure is conventional in adjusting the propeller blades pitch, see for example paragraph [0079] of Schneider et al. and column 1, line 57 to column 2, line 3 of Morgan.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over schneider et al. in view of AAPA.
With regards to claim 28, Shneider et al. discloses a two-gear arrangement 3 connecting a motor 2 to propeller 4, the two-gear arrangement comprising two shafts (5 and the one connected to propeller shaft 6), two intermeshing gearwheels (9, 10) which are each respectively rotationally fixedly connected to one of the two shafts (fig. 1), wherein the two shafts are mounted rotatably in a housing (see fig. 1), and a first shaft 5 of the two shafts is in operative connection with a drive unit (motor 2) and a second shaft (the one connected to propeller shaft 6: fig. 1) of the two shafts is in operative connection with a rotatably mounted shaft 6 positioned at least partly outside of the two-gear arrangement (fig. 1), such that the drive unit supplies a first driving torque to rotationally drive the first shaft, the first shaft supplies a second driving torque to rotationally drive the second shaft, and the second shaft supplies a third driving torque outside of the two-gear arrangement to rotationally drive the rotatably mounted shaft 6. Schneider et al. does not disclose the two-gear arrangement being a gear pump. However it is known to use a gear pump in drive devices for setting an angle of attack of propeller blades like the one disclosed by Schneider et al. as attested by AAPA in paragraphs [0003]-[0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a gear pump as the two-gear arrangement of Schneider et al., in light of the teachings of AAPA, as is known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 and 23 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-22 and 24-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ALEXANDER BECK can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746