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 .
Finality
Applicant has requested reconsideration of the finality of the last Office and entry of applicant’s subsequent 6/23/2026 submission. The finality of the previous Office action is withdrawn and the 6/23/2026 submission has been entered.
Note that this current Office action has been made final in accordance with MPEP §706.07(d).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/22/2025 remains acknowledged.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn.
Claims 6-7 are canceled.
Linking claim 1 and the elected subcombination claims 2-5, 8-12 and 20 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added limitation “formed from a uniform thickness sheet-metal blank” (lines 1-2 of claim 1) was not present in the original disclosure and thus constitutes new matter.
The newly added limitation “integrally drawn from the sheet-metal blank” (last three lines of claim 1; and claim 20) was not present in the original disclosure and thus constitutes new matter.
The remaining claims depend from claim 1 and thus are similarly rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Von Fumetti US3001409.
Claim 1. A single-piece geartrain cover (58), comprising: a radially outer flange portion (outer flanged portion of 58 receiving bolts 100) for fixing to a geartrain housing (18); a dished portion (62, 60) extending axially from the radially outer flange portion; a stepped protrusion (62) arranged for receiving a first bearing (72), and a tapered protrusion (tapered portion of 60) offset from the stepped protrusion. Note that the limitations “stamped”, “formed from a uniform thickness sheet-metal blank” and “are integrally drawn from the sheet-metal blank” have been given only limited patentable weight in accordance with MPEP § 2113 which states that the specific method of forming is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself and that it is well established by case law that it is the patentability of the product that is to be determined even though such claims are limited and defined by process steps. See also In re Thorpe et al, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985).
Claim 2. The geartrain cover of claim 1 wherein the stepped protrusion comprises: a first cylindrical protrusion (cylindrical protrusion surrounding 72 in fig.4) extending from the dished portion; and an annular ring (annular ring surrounding 64 as seen in fig.4; and/or 64 itself) extending radially inward from the first cylindrical protrusion (i.e., portion receiving 64 [and/or 64 itself] has a smaller diameter than the portion receiving 72).
Claim 3. The geartrain cover of claim 2 wherein the stepped protrusion further comprises a second cylindrical protrusion (74), coaxial with the first cylindrical protrusion, extending from the annular ring, the second cylindrical protrusion comprising an opening (opening receiving 80) for receiving an axle shaft (e.g., 80).
Claim 4. The geartrain cover of claim 3 wherein the second cylindrical protrusion is arranged for receiving an axle shaft seal (e.g., 90).
Claim 5. The geartrain cover of claim 3 wherein: the first cylindrical protrusion extends from the annular ring in a first axial direction (left as seen in fig.4); and the second cylindrical protrusion extends from the annular ring in a second axial direction (right for at least a small distance as seen in fig.4), opposite the first axial direction.
Claim 8. The geartrain cover of claim 6 further comprising a bearing support (22, 28, 32) fixed in the tapered protrusion.
Claim 10. The geartrain cover of claim 8 wherein the bearing support is fixed to the tapered protrusion (see fig.4).
Claim 11. The geartrain cover of claim 8 wherein the bearing support comprises a third cylindrical protrusion (cylindrical protrusion of 22; and/or cylindrical protrusion of 32) arranged for receiving a second bearing (e.g., 30).
Claim 20. The geartrain cover of claim 1, wherein the tapered protrusion is a frustoconical wall (frustoconical wall of 60 as seen in fig.3) and configured to receive a complementary tapered separate bearing support (in that 60 presents a shape inherently capable to function to receive as such in accordance with MPEP 2112.01 and 2114). Note that the limitations “integrally drawn from the sheet-metal blank” has been given only limited patentable weight in accordance with MPEP § 2113 which states that the specific method of forming is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself and that it is well established by case law that it is the patentability of the product that is to be determined even though such claims are limited and defined by process steps. See also In re Thorpe et al, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985).
Claims 1-5, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Keese US2410077.
Claim 1. Keese discloses a single-piece geartrain cover (10), comprising: a radially outer flange portion (flange of 10 receiving bolts 41) for fixing to a geartrain housing (11); a dished portion (dished portion of 10 extending from bolt flange) extending axially from the radially outer flange portion; a stepped protrusion (stepped portion 13 of 10 receiving 20) arranged for receiving a first bearing (20), and a tapered protrusion (12) offset from the stepped protrusion. Note that the limitations “stamped”, “formed from a uniform thickness sheet-metal blank” and “are integrally drawn from the sheet-metal blank” have been given only limited patentable weight in accordance with MPEP § 2113 which states that the specific method of forming is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself and that it is well established by case law that it is the patentability of the product that is to be determined even though such claims are limited and defined by process steps. See also In re Thorpe et al, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985).
Claim 2. The geartrain cover of claim 1 wherein Keese further discloses the stepped protrusion comprises: a first cylindrical protrusion (cylindrical protrusion of 10 supporting exterior of 20) extending from the dished portion; and an annular ring (annular ring portion supporting side face of 20) extending radially inward from the first cylindrical protrusion.
Claim 3. The geartrain cover of claim 2 wherein Keese further discloses the stepped protrusion further comprises a second cylindrical protrusion (cylindrical protrusion of 10 supporting exterior of 22), coaxial with the first cylindrical protrusion, extending from the annular ring, the second cylindrical protrusion comprising an opening (opening receiving 21) for receiving an axle shaft (21).
Claim 4. The geartrain cover of claim 3 wherein Keese further discloses the second cylindrical protrusion is arranged for receiving an axle shaft seal (22).
Claim 5. The geartrain cover of claim 3 wherein Keese further discloses: the first cylindrical protrusion extends from the annular ring in a first axial direction (left as seen in fig.1); and the second cylindrical protrusion extends from the annular ring in a second axial direction (right as seen in fig.1), opposite the first axial direction.
Claim 8. The geartrain cover of claim 6, wherein Keese further discloses comprising a bearing support (outer bearing race supporting tapered roller bearings of 14) fixed in the tapered protrusion.
Claim 10. The geartrain cover of claim 8 wherein Keese further discloses the bearing support is fixed to the tapered protrusion (see fig.1).
Claim 11. The geartrain cover of claim 8 wherein Keese further discloses the bearing support comprises a third cylindrical protrusion (cylindrical protrusion of the outer race receiving roller bearings of 14) arranged for receiving a second bearing.
Claim 12. The geartrain cover of claim 8 wherein Keese further discloses the bearing support comprises a "J" shaped cross-section (cross section of the inner race supporting tapered rollers of 14 has a j-shaped cross-section, in as much as applicant’s invention does, since fig.1 shows it to have straight sides of different heights connected by a straight bottom.
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 of this title, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keese US2410077 and Prozeller US20160312830.
Keese further discloses wherein the tapered protrusion and the bearing support comprise respective surfaces contacting one another (outer surface of the outer race for rollers of 14 and the surface of 10 that contact each other). The Keese respective surfaces are straight rather than tapering as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the surfaces to be tapered since Prozeller teaches such to have been known to be desirable (e.g., tapered outer surfaces of outer race/support of Prozeller figs.1B, 2B, 4 and 6) and better locate and fix the axial position of parts. That is to say that the Prozeller race/support (e.g., 125, 225, 434, 610) is fixed to a single position relative to the bearing support (e.g., 410, 615) thereby better preventing axial sliding of parts that would be possible for straight surfaces).
Response to Arguments
I. Finality
Applicant has requested reconsideration of the finality of the last Office and entry of applicant’s subsequent 6/23/2026 submission. The finality of the previous Office action is withdrawn and the 6/23/2026 submission has been entered.
Note that this current Office action has been made final in accordance with MPEP §706.07(d).
II. 35 U.S.C. §112(a)
Applicant argues the newly added limitations “formed from a uniform thickness sheet-metal blank” and “integrally drawn from sheet-metal blank” do not constitute new matter due to the original written disclosure paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0005, 0010, 0012. This is NOT persuasive. The noted original paragraphs do not recite the newly claimed limitations, nor any phraseology synonymous therewith, e.g., no uniform thickness prior to formation, no drawing process, etc.
III. 35 U.S.C. §102 – product by process
Applicant argues that the examiner’s interpretation of the limitations “stamped”, “formed from a uniform thickness sheet-metal blank” and “integrally drawn from the sheet-metal blank” as product-by-process limitations is in error and that the limitations should be given their full weight. This is not persuasive. The limitations regard a method of forming and initial stages of assembly that do not necessarily limit the claimed final product to any particular structure lacking in the prior art. For instance, applicant fails to point to any structural feature lacking in the prior art that would necessarily be present as a result of being stamped. Note that the broad scope of “stamping”, even from a uniform thickness sheet, would still allow for any number of different resulting shapes, thicknesses, etc. as a function of the shape of the die used in the stamping process. Further, the limitation “formed from a uniform thickness sheet-metal blank” does not necessarily limit the final product to be of a resulting uniform thickness since a stamping process/mold may introduce any number of changes to shape and/or thickness of the initial blank. Just as a cover stamped from a flat sheet would not necessarily maintain flatness after stamping, such a cover stamped from a uniform thickness sheet would not necessarily maintain uniform thickness after stamping. Lastly, note that applicant’s own final product cover does not maintain uniform thickness after stamping (see portion of applicant’s cover at 112 where 208 is received).
IV. 35 U.S.C. §102 – Von Fumetti
Applicant argues that Von Fumetti does not disclose “a stepped protrusion arranged for receiving a first bearing”. This is not persuasive. Von Fumetti discloses a stepped protrusion (62) arranged for receiving a first bearing (72).
Applicant argues that Von Fumetti element 58 is not described as a “single-piece stamped sheet-metal cover” or “formed from a uniform thickness sheet-metal blank” or “integrally drawn from a blank”. This is not persuasive. As detailed in the rejection above and the response to argument bullet III above, the argued limitations are product-by-process limitations in a final product claim such that they are only given weight as to any final product structure that would necessarily result therefrom. Applicant has failed to identify any such final product structural detail that would necessarily result from the product-by-process limitations and is lacking in the prior art element 58.
V. 35 U.S.C. §102 – Keese
Applicant argues that the Keese cover 10 is not described as a “single-piece stamped sheet-metal cover” or “formed from a uniform thickness sheet-metal blank” or “integrally drawn from a blank”. This is not persuasive. As detailed in the rejection above and the response to argument bullet III above, the argued limitations are product-by-process limitations in a final product claim such that they are only given weight as to any final product structure that would necessarily result therefrom. Applicant has failed to identify any such final product structural detail that would necessarily result from the product-by-process limitations and is lacking in the prior art element 10.
VI. 35 U.S.C. §103 – Keese and Prozeller
Applicant argues that Prozeller does not cure the previously argued deficiency in Keese that the Keese cover 10 is not described as a “single-piece stamped sheet-metal cover” or “formed from a uniform thickness sheet-metal blank” or “integrally drawn from a blank”. This is not persuasive. As detailed in the rejection above and the response to argument bullet III above, the argued limitations are product-by-process limitations in a final product claim such that they are only given weight as to any final product structure that would necessarily result therefrom. Applicant has failed to identify any such final product structural detail that would necessarily result from the product-by-process limitations and is lacking in the prior art element 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights