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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 9, it appears the phrase “means of” should be deleted. In line 13, it appears the phrase “means of” should be deleted. In line 15, it appears the phrase “means of” should be deleted.
In claim 4, line 2, the phrase “the respective second connecting flange” should be changed to -- the second connecting flange -- to provide proper antecedent basis.
In claim 5, line 5, it appears the phrase “means of” should be deleted.
In claim 7, line 3, it appears the phrase “means of” should be deleted.
In claim 8, line 2, the phrase “the rim” should be changed to -- the wheel rim -- to provide clearer antecedent basis.
In claim 14, line 4, it appears the phrase “means of” should be deleted.
In claim 15, line 3, it appears the phrase “means of” should be deleted.
In claim 16, it appears this claim should be cancelled since the claim is considered as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends since a drivetrain bench for a drivetrain for a test wheel has already been claimed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the claimed features in the claim is not supported by the description since only one embodiment of the blocking device is disclosed in the application. In this regard, see paragraph [0081] of the U.S. Publication 2024/0241013 of the Instant application and claim 14. It is not clear how the claimed cooperation of the second flange and the third flange with the wheel hub or the wheel rim via the blocking device can be alternatively realized. It appears the indicated features in paragraph [0081] of the U.S. Publication 2024/0241013 of the Instant application should accordingly be incorporated into claim 1. Furthermore, the clause from lines 11-18 is worded vaguely where it is being the case that only the function is defined without specification of the technical means for making the function possible. However, only one possibility is disclosed in paragraphs [0033] and [0083] to [0084] of the U.S. Publication 2024/0241013 of the Instant application. Hence, in this case, it also becomes clear that claim 1 should introduce the second connecting flange and the third connecting flange as structural features not presently part of the scope of protection.
In claim 5, line 4, the phrase “axial securing means” is indefinite in an attempt to use a “means” clause to recite a claim element as a means for performing a specified function and no such function to be performed is specified.
In claim 6, line 4, the phrase “axial securing means” is indefinite in an attempt to use a “means” clause to recite a claim element as a means for performing a specified function and no such function to be performed is specified.
In claim 14, line 8, the phrase “the contact disk” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2013/052976 (Rossegger et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Rossegger et al. discloses a drivetrain test stand comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-12, a test wheel 1 (e.g. test wheel; paragraph [0037],[0038]) for a drivetrain test bench 12 (e.g. drive train test stand; paragraphs [0052]) having a drive input shaft (e.g. paragraph [0052]) comprising a first connecting flange (e.g. a connection in the region between element 5 and element 7 in Figure 1); a second connecting flange 27 (e.g. connecting flange; paragraphs [0021],[0047],[0051]); a third connecting flange (e.g. a releasable connecting means; paragraph [0043]); a wheel rim 8 (e.g. wheel rim; paragraph [0039]); a wheel mounting 29 (e.g. ball bearing; paragraph [0049]); a blocking device 14 (e.g. lock; paragraph [0046]) connected rotationally fixed to the wheel rim; a wheel shaft 13 (e.g. axle shaft; paragraphs [0040],[0049]) configured to be connected rotationally fixed by means of the first connecting flange to a drive output shaft (e.g. observed in Figures 1,4) of a drivetrain (e.g. drive train of a vehicle; paragraph [0029]) to be tested; a wheel hub 3 (e.g. wheel hub; paragraph [0039]) arranged rotationally fixed on the wheel shaft 13; the wheel hub 3 is configured to be connected rotationally fixed by means of the second connecting flange to the drive input shaft of the drivetrain test bench 12 (e.g. observed in Figures 1,4); the wheel hub 3 is further configured to be connected rotationally fixed to the blocking device 14 by means of the third connecting flange so that rotation of the wheel shaft relative to the wheel rim is blocked, and the third connecting flange can only be connected when the second connecting flange is not connected (e.g. paragraphs [0013],[0014],[0042] to [0044]; observed in Figures 1,2,4); the wheel shaft 13 and the wheel hub 3 are held rotatably in the wheel rim 8 by the wheel mounting 29 (e.g. paragraph [0049]). (See, paragraphs [0037] to [0062] of translation).
With regards to claim 2, Rossegger et al. further discloses the second connecting flange can only be connected when the third connecting flange is not connected (e.g. paragraphs [0013],[0014],[0042] to [0044]; observed in Figures 1,2,4).
With regards to claim 3, Rossegger et al. further discloses the second connecting flange and the third connecting flange are arranged on the same axial side (e.g. bottom-half side of the axis 1’; Figures 1-2) of the wheel hub and have different connection patterns (e.g. observed in Figures 1-3).
With regards to claim 16, Rossegger et al. further discloses a drivetrain test bench 12 (e.g. drive train test stand; paragraphs [0052]) for a drivetrain (e.g. drive train of a vehicle; paragraph [0029]) comprising at least one test wheel 1 (e.g. test wheel; paragraph [0037],[0038]).
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 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/052976 (Rossegger et al.).
With regards to claim 4, Rossegger et al. does not explicitly disclose the connection patterns of the respective second connecting flange and the third connecting flange comprise threaded bores such that the threaded bores of the second connecting flange having a smaller diameter than the threaded bores of the third connecting flange. However, to have set such structural parameters and characteristics for the second and third connecting flanges is considered to have been a matter of optimization and choice possibilities that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve test wheel for a drive test stand through the provision of a more reliable blocking device that is easier to use without departing from the scope of the invention.
With regards to claims 5-13, Rossegger et al. does not disclose explicitly specify the claimed elements and limitations in these claims. However, these claimed elements, like a wheel bearing, a bearing housing, contact disk, spline teeth, feather key, rim base and rim disk are well-known elements of a wheel and well-known fastener elements and to structurally connect, secure and attach these claimed elements would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve test wheel for a drive test stand through the provision of a more reliable blocking device that is easier to use without departing from the scope of the invention.
With regards to claims 14 and 15, Rossegger et al. does not disclose explicitly specify the claimed elements and limitations in these claims. However, these claimed elements, like ring gear, spur gear, spline teeth and contact disk are well-known elements of a blocking device and well-known fastener elements and to structurally connect, secure and attach these claimed elements would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve test wheel for a drive test stand through the provision of a more reliable blocking device that is easier to use without departing from the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Engstrom, Iked, Barnes, Inhoff, Goto and Tentrup, are related to vehicle drive train test system having a vehicle test stand.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855